elph8: Bush Rules the Winds and the Seas

Mall of Andy (

elph8) wrote,
@ 2005-09-01 11:03:00

Bush Rules the Winds and the Seas
Nobody could confuse me for a Bush fan, but I'm a little surprised by how many people here on LJ, and throughout the blogosphere, are trying to pin blame for Katrina's devastation on the current administration. It just seems like the inappropriate response to what's going on, and probably a tad myopic to boot.

(Post a new comment)

	bajatierra 2005-09-01 04:06 pm UTC (link)
	Blame for Katrina? No. Blame for lack of initiating proper federal preparedness and a jackassedy series of sound bites? Boy howdy. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	elph8 2005-09-01 04:09 pm UTC (link)
	So the blame for not building higher and stronger levees lays on the head of Bush? Why didn't Clinton build 'em? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

radioactiveart
2005-09-01 04:20 pm UTC (link)

No. It's a long history.

I blame him for being an idiot - saying stupid shit and fiddling while the city drowns. I blame him for pushing shortsighted policies that left an incredibly vulnerable city even more vulnerable.

I blame him for leading only where he wants to lead, and for a meanspiritedness that leads to disaster.

In early 2001, FEMA identified three probable major disasters that were most likely to happen in the US. Number 1: Terrorist Attack on NY. Number 2: Hurricane in NO. Number 3: Earthquake in SF.

We've had PLENTY of warning over the last few years as to what could happen. Ask FLorida.

I blame him for the devastation because he deserves blame.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	elph8 2005-09-01 04:42 pm UTC (link)
	So I assume, because you're a fair man, you put just as much blame on Clinton, on Bush I, on Reagan---all of whom had warning that New Orleans was ripe for a hurricane disaster? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	fengi 2005-09-01 04:53 pm UTC (link)
	Dude, you really need to do a google news search before making these assertions. It's well documented how FEMA has been slashed by the Bushites. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	elph8 2005-09-01 06:19 pm UTC (link)
	I don't believe in Google. Also, I'm not arguing that Bush's administration didn't "slash" FEMA budgets, simply that, had this hurricane hit seven years ago, Clinton could assume just as much blame for not "reinforcing the levees." (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	bajatierra 2005-09-01 06:20 pm UTC (link)
	http://www.wonkette.com/politics//a-tragedy-by-any-other-name-123456.php (Reply to this) (Parent)

radioactiveart
2005-09-01 04:53 pm UTC (link)

Watch it. What did I say earlier? It's a long history. They deserve blame.

But when Bush (yes, BUSH) and his gang DELIBERATELY divert money from levee construction to pier reinforcement and security in NO, specifically to protect against the terrorism that was identified as LESS likely than a catastrophic hurricane...well, yeah, I blame him.

And I blame him for his actions since...his cowardly, self serving actions.

One shot, one kill. Here's the one shot.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

elph8
2005-09-01 06:26 pm UTC (link)

As I said, I'm just as anti-Bush as the next guy. But I also don't like to see disasters immediately politicized, especially when the blame can be spread across liberals and conservatives alike. And while we may disagree with his decision now, in the wake of Katrina, had terrorists run a giant bomb-carrying cruiser into NO's harbor, we might be thankful for his decision.

That's all I'm saying.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	bajatierra 2005-09-01 04:40 pm UTC (link)
	Bush cut federal funding for projects to protect NO against floodwaters -- Iraq is cited (in about nine Times-Picayune articles over the last year or so) as the excuse for not having the money needed to deal with that. And Bush has depleted National Guard units nationwide because they've been deployed to Iraq. Ooooooooops. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	elph8 2005-09-01 04:43 pm UTC (link)
	So because of National Guard troops deployed in Iraq, there are simply not enough to do the job in NOLA? Can you cite that? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	bajatierra 2005-09-01 04:51 pm UTC (link)
	From the Washington Post, June 2004: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18980-2004Jun5.html Yahtzee! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

elph8
2005-09-01 06:34 pm UTC (link)

A mixed set of arguments for your point, at best. Of the 350,000 National Guard troops in existence, the report claims only 40,000 have been deployed to Iraq.

First, I'm not sure--maybe you are--how many LA National Guardsmen (and more importantly, what percentage of same) are in Iraq.

Second, as the article points out, inter-state assistance is a solution to the problem. In other words, if, of the 310,000 National Guardsmen still stateside, we can't help NOLA, then we have even larger troubles than a hurricane provides.

Third, it just seems, based on numbers alone, absurd to suggest that, had Bush never deployed National Guardsmen in Iraq, the situation would be markedly better in the Gulf Coast. Even assuming a HIGH number---say, 4000 (likely half that or lower)---of NG were still in LA, I can't imagine the situation would be much less dire considering help exists in neighboring states and in the Air National Guard.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

bajatierra
2005-09-01 06:48 pm UTC (link)

Keep in mind this article is over a year old -- Greg links to something much recent. The point here is well before this disaster took place, the Guard was beginning to feel the pinch. My brother, for instance, was in the Guard, and after getting activated for Iraq and managing (for medical reasons) to get out, there's no way he'd reenlist in the Guard.

Fine if you want to keep playing devil's advocate, but the upshot is that the nation doesn't have unlimited manpower or funds or resources, and when you divert a big chunk of all that to Iraq, you're not able to pull from that pool when you really need it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Also...

tonyjackson
2005-09-01 07:50 pm UTC (link)

Keep in mind that you can only work with the mobilized guard. The National guard does not sit around in bunkers 24/7 like the Army does. Many of these "weekend warriors" who are still in LA, were not active when the Hurricane hit. The majority of the "active" guard is in Iraq. Just because you have Lance Corporal Smith working in a machine shop stateside does not mean you can mobilize him immediately in a disaster. Hell, how is he going to report if most people can't even get out of the city? And it even takes time for the out of state guard to be moved into position.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

fengi
2005-09-01 04:52 pm UTC (link)

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/09/01/guard/index.html

On Aug. 1, a spokesman for the Louisiana National Guard lamented to a local reporter that the state might be stretched for security personnel in the event of a big hurricane. Dozens of high-water vehicles, generators and Humvees were employed in Iraq, along with 3,000 Louisiana National Guard troops.

"The National Guard needs that equipment back home to support the homeland security mission," the Louisiana National Guard's Lt. Col. Pete Schneider told a reporter from WGNO, the ABC affiliate in New Orleans. Schneider said that in the event of a hurricane, Louisiana would need help from neighboring states.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

bajatierra
2005-09-01 04:53 pm UTC (link)

The first few paragraphs, in case you don't have a subscription:

With almost 40,000 troops serving in the unexpectedly violent and difficult occupation of Iraq, the National Guard is beginning to show the strain of duty there, according to interviews and e-mail exchanges with 23 state Guard commanders from California to Maine.

The Iraq mission is placing new stress on the active-duty Army as it leans more heavily than it has in decades on the Guard -- which, with 350,000 troops, rivals the active force in size. That new reliance, in turn, is raising concerns about the Guard's long-term ability to recruit and retain troops, and it is provoking more immediate worries in states that rely on the Guard to deal with fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes.

Some Guard commanders are beginning to say they simply can't deploy any more troops. "As far as New Hampshire goes, we're tapped," said Maj. Gen. John E. Blair, that state's adjutant general, or Guard commander. Of his 1,700 Army National Guard troops, more than 1,000 are in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or on alert for deployment. And to get units fully manned to head overseas, he said, "we've had to break other units."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

eskimopie
2005-09-01 04:23 pm UTC (link)

I don't blame Bush for Katrina or its devastation.

Although, one would think that if he was going to use 9-11 constantly in his campaign and how "well" he dealt with it, then maybe, just maybe, there would be a better response system set up for such monumental disasters that put power and cell phones out of use in the affected sectors and possibly, just possibly, they might increase the efficiency, speed, reliability and quantity of communication between rescue groups.

I'm just a little bit annoyed that he acts like its a big effort on his part to come off of vacation three days early when he's spent more than one fifth of his presidency on vacation. I shouldn't be proud of him for coming back from Crawford and Idaho, I should expect it.

I'm just sayin' that I'm annoyed and disappointed.

(Reply to this)

tweekedcat
2005-09-01 04:30 pm UTC (link)

Eh, some on the left blame Bush for the disaster, some on the right blame homosexuals for it. Like I always say, there are saints & assholes on both sides.

It would be funny if it weren't so damn scary that with our new beefed-up Homeland Security shit in place, we can't keep people in New Orleans from shooting at FEMA and the National Guard and each other and robbing each other blind.

(Reply to this)

Damn Right it's his fault

fengi
2005-09-01 04:50 pm UTC (link)

I realize it's hard to fathom just how grotesquely irresponsible this administration is, but it fucked up big time because they are bankrupting infrastructure for their own needs. This isn't some idle speculation - Bush adminstration policies had a documented link to the New Orleans disaster.

Check this out: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313
>>>New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane...When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

...after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: “It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.”

...the Corps' project manager Al Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for...About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money...”

(Reply to this)

	bajatierra 2005-09-01 04:56 pm UTC (link)
	Also: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20083/ http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0918/p02s01-usmi.html http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=3651 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/30/1354257 (Reply to this)

actually...

freetaco
2005-09-01 04:56 pm UTC (link)

clinton and bush I DID help build up the levees. This is from an article I cited in my LJ on the matter:

Over the next 10 years [since 1995; I know, the math would make it 8, but I didn;t write the article], the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA [Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project], spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

The problem is not just the levees, but the Bush administration has also let the costal wetlands go to shit. They have been eroded much quicker in the past 5 years than previously. The coastal wetlands had been part of a natual blockade against hurricaines. The reedy brushes would help take the energy out of the high winds before they reached the mainland. So yes, while I don't think Bush created the hurraine, his policies -- both economic and environmental -- HUGELY helped the devesation of Katrina.

(Reply to this)

	bajatierra 2005-09-01 07:19 pm UTC (link)
	Also: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/1/132237/9766 (Reply to this)

	tonyjackson 2005-09-01 07:53 pm UTC (link)
	No, I would not blame Bush for Katrina (unless you want to go out on a limb and say that his non belief in Global Warming is leading to policies that have worsened the phenomenon and therefore have lead to unusually warm seas in the Gulf of Mexico that turned this pop warner Hurricane into a future Hall of Famer.) So wait, maybe I can blame Bush for Katrina! (Reply to this)

	yeah dfleming 2005-09-01 07:58 pm UTC (link)
	I'm a little confused by that too - and I'd thought it was all my fault! (Reply to this)

	tonyjackson 2005-09-01 07:59 pm UTC (link)
	Oh and isn't Bush and the Christian Right suppose to protecting the country with prayer? What's up with their God Connention? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	All right now you're just being offensive frogman1975 2005-09-01 08:05 pm UTC (link)
	Would YOU really listen to G-Dub and his crew if you were the almighty? (Reply to this) (Parent)

Yes.

frogman1975
2005-09-01 08:01 pm UTC (link)

George Bush didn't just steal the election. He also stole Mjolnir and now has the powers of Thor and he personally orchestrated the storm to distract attention from Cindy Sheehan. That's what I think anyway.
Although, to be fair (or unfair), Bush is just the public face of various conservative policies that have weakened the wetlands that normally absorb the impact and surge waters of such storms, so there are some valid arguments out there, but everything is clearer in hindsight.
Instead of asking "who is to blame?" I'd like to think folks would be better served asking "what can we learn from this to mitigate the impact of future storms?", but when folks can't even stop shooting at their prospective rescuers, I don't think they're ready to think about how to prevent the next tragedy. Right now people are upset and they are looking to lash out.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Yes.

joethelionn
2005-09-02 10:30 am UTC (link)

You're completely right. Blaming the Bush administration for mismanagement, ignoring and slashing spending to the levee construction processses is undefensible. What we need to now is rally behind him as he voices hollow-mouthed platitudes and lets his media flunkies blame this disaster on the real culprits: The people who were too poor to leave.

Oh wait a minute. Both you and andy are privileged whiteboy dipshits.

Never mind.

You wanna mitigate "future (inevitable) storms)? Talk to the Dutch. They've been doing it nicely. Anyone who doesn't believe that this bunghole botched management of a so-called reliif isn't directly tied to the administration that fucking hates poor people is a fucking idiot.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Dude

frogman1975
2005-09-02 02:03 pm UTC (link)

Sarcasm?!?

And I may be dip-shit and white, but unless growing up in the cancer capital of Appalachia where pills and prostitutes are more common than jobs makes me privileged, I don't think so.

If you read my second line up there, I give the conservatives shit for destroying wetlands that normally absorb the surge waters, because THAT is what hurt NOLA.

But yeah, I guess I'm a dipshit for saying, "instead of playing 'the blame game' now, let's do something productive." Because, you know, knee jerk reactions and cutting down people that agree with you is exactly what is going to make this situation better.

Damn, is it something in the air or something? EVERYONE is so touchy recently.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

But, lest you misunderstand again....

frogman1975
2005-09-02 02:11 pm UTC (link)

there is WAY more than a touch of sarcasm here. I totally think multiple years of anti-environmental policies and mismanagement of funds have destroyed the infrastructure that could have kept NOLA safe.
And it isn't just Bush (although his administration is to blame for slashing FEMA and funds that would have went to levees but went to "port security" instead int he name of National Security) but also Congress Persons on BOTH sides of the aisle who have failed to support wetland conservation that, again, would have been the biggest factor in absorbing the waters and in keeping NOLA dry.
(And yes the Dutch have been doing it for years. They also decriminalized marijuana. And have socialized health care. I think we should follow their lead on all these fronts. And there isn't a DROP of sarcasm between these parentheses. I promise.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: But, lest you misunderstand again.... (Anonymous) 2005-09-02 04:32 pm UTC (link)
	I overreacted and did'nt read this properly. All apologies to you. Your right. There is a lot of misplaced anger and you bore the brunt of mine. Can't say I'm sorry enough. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Yes. elph8 2005-09-02 05:50 pm UTC (link)
	I'm glad I read your apology before replying to this post, because ... well ... I might've gotten a little hot under the collar. We privileged dipshits need to stick together, Beau. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs