National Incident Management System

[power_word_wedgie]

1147677087[/unixtime]]I'm a little confused, pww. Are you under the mistaken impression that those polls *support* your position? Bush would be overjoyed to have only 50% of the population disapprove of his job performance at this point. Currently, 65% of the country disapproves of him.

On the other hand, I'm terrified to learn that 75% of Republicans think he did a good job with Katrina. Were they looking at the same disaster I was?

Really, I was just posting the previous links just so tat everyone could memorize what the pol numbers were, not to prove a point. It's undeniable that President Bush's number are WAY down. (the high 20's the last that I had heard)

As to answering many of the question, I thought that I remember Tzor mentioning an article from Popular Mechanics on the whole crisis. I think that >THIS< is it. The last that I had heard, Popular Mechanics isn't the conservative thinktank by any extreme. At any rate, it helps dispel many of the myths out there. Personally, my opinion is between everything was done that could have been done and this was sabotage. Really, I think that this was a learning experience for all involved and people bungled a LOT of calls. Thus now those people are paying the price now in popularity, as well that they should. If the government was out to mess over people, then Rita would have been much worse - it was a much more powerful hurricane than Katrina.

[Crissa]

1147731484[/unixtime]]I don't believe this.

Republicans may be greedy corrupt bastards, but I don't think they're out to end up the world. They just have it too well to end the world. They're rich and powerful and pretty mcuh do whatever they want. Why would you want to end the world?

What's not to believe?

Not lifting a finger to save a dying man is as good as intending him to die.

They do what's easiest, and most personally expedient.

Not caring is their vice, and these are the fruits of their crime.

What's not to believe that the effort to prevent is beyond their realm of caring?

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

You might want to check out the link in my previous post, especially page 2. As to answer your other comments:

They would've been shooting evacuees like the Rethug police were outside New Orleans.

This is addressed in that link I provided (it's addressing on page 7 of my link), but I'm thinking that you're talking about the news reports of people firing on helicopters while evacuating the hospital. What it turned out to be was that people weren't firing on the helicopters and that they were trying to signal the helicopters with their guns. It turned out the reporters were way off base.

How could it not be on purpose, when the few military troops which were available to help...

See page 2 of my link. Furthermore, note that the Coast Guard is considered part of the miliatary and they were in just hours after the hurricane passed. I also remember a story of a Coast Guard pilot who was in training over in Pensacola that flew over and rescued some of the people in New Orleans. He wasn't court-marshalled, but I think he was informed that wasn't the right thing to do. Why? Because the skies were getting crowded with so many helicopters during the time that they wanted to avoid air collisions as well. Yeah, you want to rescue people, but you don't wan to kill them in the process either.

eidt: Interesting that this came out now ... >Coast Guard honors its own for Hurricane Katrina rescues<

[Username17]

I spent a couple weeks this hurricane season living in a Red Cross warehouse on the Construction Battalion Naval Base in Gulfport Mississippi. Sea Bees were mobilized for extra police duties, but they were not sent out to make shelters.

It's a construction battalion, building things is what they are for. The biggest construction worker deficit in the history of the US, and King George couldn't be bothered to authorize their deployment into the city that they are actually garrisoned in.

It was obscene. But I did get to see those dolphins they rescued, that was kind of cool.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

Really, I think that this was a learning experience

There was only one lesson.

Bush and CO are incompetent and evil.

Your country ALREADY had learned all the lessons it needs to about disaster managment, flood protection, evacuation etc...

It even had all kinds of agencies and contingencies that were ACTIVELY PREVENTED from opperating, or sabotaged in advance.

Like the levee construction, like FEMA, like everything.

Now if you can't look at Katrina and recongnise it was a direct consquence of not one but many entirely deliberate decisions to put personal gain ahead of the welfare of a city full of people then you are experiencing a major inability to learn a very very simple lesson about trusting a group of psychopathic con artists twice.

I hear hurricane season is about to get going again for you guys and its going to be a big one.

Can you calmly and serenely tell me that you are actually prepared to be the guy stranded in the next city hit by a major hurricane (or earthquake or tidal wave or whatever) under Bush's watch. Do you actually believe that they have learned theise lessons you imagine just appeared for the first time in hundreds of years of history sufficiently to protect YOU.

I doubt it.

[Crissa]

a) Actual Police, Actually threatened to fire at people, to keep them from walking out of New Orleans and into their county/cities. There's still some stories from rescue crews saying they were shot at, but no evidence of such. (I don't believe the latter)

b) The Coast Guard, while it was marginally part of the military (like five years ago) is supposed to rescue people, and police. It is now part of Homeland Defense and doesn't require orders from the Commander in Chief to participate in policing or rescue efforts. The Navy, Marines were in ships offshore, ready to assist like always, and their orders were not issued.

So... Try to read what I wrote instead of trying to think up reasons I'm off my rocker.

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

1147796926[/unixtime]]a) Actual Police, Actually threatened to fire at people, to keep them from walking out of New Orleans and into their county/cities. There's still some stories from rescue crews saying they were shot at, but no evidence of such. (I don't believe the latter)

The problem is that when gunfire is abound and they don't know root cause for such gunfire, people think that they're being shot at. That's human nature - the first thing that I would do if I heard gunfire is hit the ground. The main point for the link is that there's some belief that people were getting killed in anarchy when the facts note that it wasn't the case.

b) The Coast Guard, while it was marginally part of the military (like five years ago) is supposed to rescue people, and police. It is now part of Homeland Defense and doesn't require orders from the Commander in Chief to participate in policing or rescue efforts. The Navy, Marines were in ships offshore, ready to assist like always, and their orders were not issued.

Actually, it is still part of the miliatary and can serve overseas and has done so (the Vietnam war is a perfect example - there were numerous rivers there and thus needed military personnel that could operate small boats effectively) on numerous occasions.

>LINK<

The United States Coast Guard is a military, multi-mission, maritime service and one of the nation’s five Armed Services. Its mission is to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests – in the nation’s ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security.

I highlighted the ones that show the rationale of overseas deployment.

So U.S. miliatary personnel were doing something during the whole ordeal with Katrina. As for Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense, both are lead by Secretary positions that report to the President.

And, looking around, it looks like it was the Department of Homeland Securty that dropped the ball. (and, yes, a department position under the President) >LINKY<

Knocke said Thursday that Chertoff's Aug. 30 memo, first obtained by Knight Ridder, created "an administrative paper trail" for an incident of national significance. He said that the department had been acting "under the auspices of an incident of national significance" since President Bush issued an emergency declaration on Aug. 27, the Saturday before the storm.

But the National Response Plan says that it's the Secretary of Homeland Security who designates an event an incident of national significance. When asked if Chertoff had made the designation earlier than Aug. 30, Knocke refused to answer the question directly.

After Chertoff made the designation in his Aug. 30 memo, federal troops began to file into New Orleans, bringing much-needed supplies to residents. But many people remained stranded on their rooftops seeking help from passing helicopters and boats.

Knocke acknowledged on Thursday that the National Response Plan - which was redrawn after the Sept. 11 attacks and became effective just this year - could be in line for an overhaul.

So, basically the soldiers didn't react since they didn't have the approval from the Department of Homeland Security to do so. Basically, a new plan that showed a boatload of holes.

[Crissa]

So you spent all that time trying to disagree with me...

...Only to end up supporting my points.

Argh.

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

1147761684[/unixtime]]
Can you calmly and serenely tell me that you are actually prepared to be the guy stranded in the next city hit by a major hurricane (or earthquake or tidal wave or whatever) under Bush's watch. Do you actually believe that they have learned theise lessons you imagine just appeared for the first time in hundreds of years of history sufficiently to protect YOU.

I doubt it.

Yes I would, because:

1) I think that the government has learned something from this incident. Heck, Frank brought it up in the OP. Case and point: Hurricane Rita.

2) New Orleans is the worst case scenarios of hurricanes. Basically, you had a hurricane that hit a town that is below sea level. I'm not a rocket scientist, but if I live in a house that is below sea level and a hurricane is coming, I'm not going to stay in my house. I'm going to the Superdome if I was poor. Of the people who went there, only 6 people died. People hiding in their attic was another matter - they pretty much drowned and they're still finding bodies. Hey, I don't care if the president is George Washington, I'm not staying in a house below sea level when a hurricane hits. Which bring us to our next point:

3) Yeah, it's a conditional in your statement, but really many people chose to stay on their own volition. Hurricanes are slow-moving. People knew that the hurricane was heading there three days before it hit. What happens it that people get the mindset of, "Well, if it hit, it hits - but I'm not giving up my home ... I've lived here far too long." Why do I know this? During Hurricane Rita (a catagory 5 hurricane), my dad was (and actually still is) living in Corpus Christi, Texas. They were telling people to get out of there because hurricane paths are too unpredictable. Did he leave? No. He gave me the same song and dance you see these people on the news next to the volcano in Indonesia are saying. "I'm not leaving - I can't give up on my farm ..."

And the biggest problem is that hurricanes have very unpredictable paths. If they had 99% certainty paths, there would be no problem abandoning towns. However, people leave town four or five times only to realize that the hurricane never hit them. Thus, they grow complacent. Personally, if I was living below sea level in Hurricane Alley, I wouldn't grow complacent. I'm getting out of town and going inland.

Yeah, I know that if a Catagory 5 hurricane hits Corpus Christi, I'm just going to fish his body out of his house. Hey, he made it to 70, that's not too bad.

Interestly enough, when I lived in California, people pretty much had the same impression. They know that the killer quake is out there and there's not much you can do. You feel tremers all of the time that it just becomes a fact of life. People just realized that it is a hazard of life. It's pretty much like this: you have a better chance dying in your car while driving than dying in an earthquake. So do you go around driving your car saying, "Wow, is this the day I'm going to die behind the wheel."? I don't.

4) The final problem is that deaths during hurricanes are not usually that high. About two years ago, my dad took a 75 mph (pretty minor) hurricane head on. Some major damage around town, but that was it. He told me it was pretty much like a bad thunderstorm.

[power_word_wedgie]

1147831705[/unixtime]]So you spent all that time trying to disagree with me...

...Only to end up supporting my points.

Argh.

-Crissa

Hey, I said at the beginning of this that things could have gone smoother. The only thing that I disagree on is:

1) Everything and everyone that tried to help with hurricane Katrina made it a total mess to the point that it is belligerancy. (There's no conspiracy) There is the Coast Guard and actually people in FEMA that did things like arrange the buses out of the Superdome and such. (I saw the article last night, but didn't think people would be interested in it. If you really want to see that, I can find it again.)

2) The notion that no one was there to help after the hurricane. There were 100,000 emergency personnel there within the first three days of the hurricane.

3) The link provided notes that there were some serious communication issues at the Department of Homeland Security during the aftermath.

4) Evacuees were not being shot by the police. I was just highlighting what the root cause of the gunfire could have been. The reason why I say this is that I remember hear the newstory saying, "Why the heck are they shooting at helicopters? What are policemen killing evacuees." Then I remember the newspeople correct their initial reports.

5) Note when Bush declared it a National Emergency. (the day before the hurricane hit ...)

[Username17]

1> Noone is saying that everyone is part of the conspiracy. The majority of people involved at any level of the disaster response were sincere - if in many cases badly under-equipped, poorly supported, and ill-trained. The problem is that people at the top actively inhibited relief efforts. Wal*Mart sent water aid that was turned back on the grounds that there was "sufficient water" (that was being purchased from a business associate of the director of Homeland Security, and wasn't sufficient anyway). Military personel were being held in reserve for weeks after there was no good reason to do that.

Local fire fighters weren't tanking the relief effort. Coast guard personel were doing the best they could do. But the heads of Homeland Security and the commander in chief were actively sabotaging the disaster response. Not passively, actively. Not just stupid, malicious.

2> Sure. There were lots of people in there helping to clean things up. I was one of them. But the fact is that when Nixon had a big hurricane to deal with, he fvcking dealt with it. Hurricanes are a fact of life, they happen. A lot. And we know how to deal with them, and Bush went out of his fvcking way to give orders that weren't dealing with the problem. The commander in chief isn't supposed to draft a response plan, he's given a fvcking disaster response plan and all he has to do is fvcking sign it. King George, didn't do that, and people fvcking died. Is that simple enough for you? His only job was to pick up a pen, and sign a piece of paper placed in front of him days in advance, and he didn't do it. We even have it on tape that the people who were supposed to give him that draft did so.

3> Yes there were. Some of those communication problems included Homeland Security personel cutting power to rescue comms after they were told not to. Armed guards ended up getting posted to prevent Homeland Sec from cutting communication power. Aaron Broussard, President of Jefferson Parish ended up OKing armed guards to protect communication lines from FEMA agents who kept trying to cut their power.

4> The difference between "Police Shooting Evacuees" and "Police blocking the Gretna Bridge at gunpoint and firing into the air until evacuees who lack food and medical supplies turned back" is largely semantic. They fired their guns, and black people died. Period. It wasn't the New Orleans Police Department, it was Gretna Sheriffs, but to split hairs like that is flat dishonest.

5> Yes, Bush declared it a federal emergency. That gave him the power to do all kinds of things. Instead he attempted to blackmail Louisianna into giving up total control of the national guard to him. A small, petty power grab that didn't even work. At the cost of unknowabl numbers of lives.

And yes, we'll never know the death toll, because the Bush administration prohibited anyone from collecting or even counting the dead until a substantial number of corpses had been washed out to sea or eaten by wildlife. The Bush administration felt that it was more important to cover up the dead than to help the living.

-Username17

[Crissa]

Why does there need to be a vast conspiracy to be a vast amount of apathy towards doing the job of saving lives and protecting property?

FEMA's busses arrived days after FEMA told the County not to use their own busses, and those busses subsequently were swallowed by the flood. How am I supposed to view 'FEMA arranged busses for the evacuees' positively when 'FEMA arranged for earlier, cheaper, closer busses to be abandoned in the flooding' is equally true.

And please read Frank's response number 4 again.

-Crissa

[Josh_Kablack]

On the other hand, I'm terrified to learn that 75% of Republicans think he did a good job with Katrina. Were they looking at the same disaster I was?

I'm not. In the polls of the past few years, it's been shown that roughly a third of the country is against Bush no matter what, roughly a third of the country is for Bush no matter what, and the remaining third is for or against him depending on the issue or circumstance.

If you make the assumption that all of the hard line Bush supporters are Republicans, and that the Republicans are half of the population, then 67% of Republicans are going are going to back Bush on anything.

It's not hard to imagine that the other 8% came from the conditional supporters who agreed with Bush on this one and/or the polls margin of error.

[power_word_wedgie]

1147837677[/unixtime]]4> The difference between "Police Shooting Evacuees" and "Police blocking the Gretna Bridge at gunpoint and firing into the air until evacuees who lack food and medical supplies turned back" is largely semantic. They fired their guns, and black people died. Period. It wasn't the New Orleans Police Department, it was Gretna Sheriffs, but to split hairs like that is flat dishonest.

The above was highlighted by me. Can you provide a link showing that the evacuees that were turned back by the Gretna sheriffs died due to this action? The reason why I ask this is that to me (a) there's a world of difference between being shot outright and being told to find other means to safety and (b) I'm thinking that these people were eventually rescued by other means. Is the action something that I would recommend to police departments to do to evacuees? No, it was a pretty cruel act. However, it is not as bad as shooting down a person. It's the difference between taking away all options to a person (death is death) and eliminating an option for a person.

Also, it is the more accurate description of what happened to the people during the whole ordeal - no evacuees were shot by the Gretna sheriffs. It's like saying burglary and robbery are the same thing.

[PhoneLobster]

Didn't you hear the man?

Bush personally intervened to prevent the cataloging of exactly those outcomes.

But people DID die because they were trapped in a city which many of them were prevented from leaving not one jot of your stupid post changes that fact or even challenges it.

To present the idea that MAYBE some particular sub group who were prevented from leaving all miraculously survived so that makes EVERYTHING OK is fvcking nuts.

And lets not forget the floods and damage that occurred was actually a better case that many of the predictions being made by weather experts. When those people were driven back into the city they were being driven back into a situation that turned out to be deadly and was predicted to be very possible much much more deadly.

Do you actually believe that a judge or court, or any actual non reptiloid human being differentiates between taking a group of ten people and shooting one dead and locking a group of ten people in a room with a booby trap guaranteed to kill at least one of them?

[fbmf]

[TGFBS]
Keep it civil, folks!
[/TGFBS]

[Crissa]

So, PWW, it's okay for the Gretna police to violate people's civil rights because most of them didn't die?

This is your position? That everything is okay because eventually the help got there?

No one had to die, but people did die. People did suffer terribly in heat, rain, sun with no food, water, or medical care. Some could have evacuated on their own two feet, but they weren't allowed to.

How would we ever know if the Gretna police did shoot someone?

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

1147896065[/unixtime]]So, PWW, it's okay for the Gretna police to violate people's civil rights because most of them didn't die?

This is your position? That everything is okay because eventually the help got there?

I highlighted in my last post that the act of them turning back the evacuees was cruel. It's not something that should have been done. However, I'm just even asking the question since it was posed in the response, "Do we know if any of the people that were turned back eventually died of thirst or starvation." I'm really asking the question in earnest.

Also, while I'm saying it is a wrong act, it is as bad as outright shooting the evacuees. Since emergency personnel were tied up with evacuations, that would have ensured certain death. Let's put it this way: If put in the same position, which would you rather have happen to you - being shot or asked to turn around (rudely and inappropriately) and to find another way out? In my way of thinking, if in your mind you're willing to pick one solution over the other, then by definition you're not saying the two actions are equal.

No one had to die, but people did die. People did suffer terribly in heat, rain, sun with no food, water, or medical care. Some could have evacuated on their own two feet, but they weren't allowed to.

I agree with your reasoning, but not completely with the statement. I agree that more lives could have been saved if:

- Bush and others (federal government) could have acted earlier,
- If the state and local government actually had an evacuation plan that actually worked. (Most of their plan was to count on private busers to evacuate the people, and they never materialize) and,
- They didn't use a plan that was only one year old and not proven on lesser disasters on this plan.

However, I also do believe that:

- There would have been a segment of the population that would have died no matter what. They had the ability to leave the city, but decided to ride the storm out. Like I said in one of my preious post, my dad is one of those individuals. (No way in heck that I would have)
- After looking at >THIS< link, if there was a conspiracy, it would have to have involved the state, local, and federal levels. Thus, I'm just not seeing it.

How would we ever know if the Gretna police did shoot someone?

Honestly, that is a good question. People could have been killed by anyone during that time and probably gotten away with it. Heck, as noted in the link above, you have the governor stating, "The soldiers have M-16 and aren't afraid to use them."

[Neeek]

1147907204[/unixtime]]
I highlighted in my last post that the act of them turning back the evacuees was cruel. It's not something that should have been done. However, I'm just even asking the question since it was posed in the response, "Do we know if any of the people that were turned back eventually died of thirst or starvation." I'm really asking the question in earnest.

It doesn't really matter if any of the specific people who were turned back died. They were unnecessarily and knowingly endangered by the actions of the police. Whatever the results of the action are really kinda pointless: The action itself is wrong, and them getting lucky and having none of the people who were threaten die does not excuse their behavior one bit.

[power_word_wedgie]

1147908528[/unixtime]]
It doesn't really matter if any of the specific people who were turned back died. They were unnecessarily and knowingly endangered by the actions of the police. Whatever the results of the action are really kinda pointless: The action itself is wrong, and them getting lucky and having none of the people who were threaten die does not excuse their behavior one bit.

At no time did I say that it excuses their behavior. All I am saying is that it isn't the same as shooting a person and, yes, it has to do with the results of the action. If they had shot down the evacuees, they would have then had no chance of rescue. Being turned away gave them a chance, and for all that we know they all were successful. Though both actions were wrong, being turned back is much less severe than being shot down.

[PhoneLobster]

So exactly what is your point here anyway.

You seem to be arguing a particular case involved was manslaughter rather than murder and therefore not only entirely OK but it therefore renders ANY criticism of the handling of Katrina nothing but a conspiracy theory.

Seems that someone on this thread is wearing a tinfoil hat and it ain't me.

[power_word_wedgie]

1147917118[/unixtime]]So exactly what is your point here anyway.

You seem to be arguing a particular case involved was manslaughter rather than murder

Actually, I'd equate it more as Reckless Endangerment to Murder myself.

and therefore not only entirely OK

As noted earlier, I didn't say that this activity of turning people away was the right thing to do - in fact I noted that it was wrong. Just not as bad as shooting down people.

but it therefore renders ANY criticism of the handling of Katrina nothing but a conspiracy theory.

Nope, I noted earlier that the federal agency did things wrong, and one of them was not to mobilize earlier. However, I also noted that:

1) The federal government was not the only ones that made mistakes during Katrina. As noted in the last like I posted, there's plenty of blame to go to the State and Local governments as well. As noted by the link, FEMA wasn't the only ones to prevent aid to getting where it needed to go - the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security did so as well. And we already know about a local sheriff department.

2) Since if this is an example of conspiracy, then there's way too many people involved (from the Local, State, and Federal government) for it to be all that effective. In essence, due to the number of people involved, it argues that there was no conspiracy. To take it one step further, the President already had available at his disposal the Insurrection Act where he could take control of the Louisiana National Guard. However, he never exercised it.

3) Katrina is just an example of of how (up to that point) at one point the most powerful hurricane in the Gulf can devastate a town that was designed below sea level affecting a population that due to their poverty had few resources available for evacuation and was followed up by major bungling by the federal, state, and local governments due to various reasons (new procedures, old procedures that never were going to work, people on the ground making the wrong decisions, delays, etc.). As people, when something goes bad, we want to assign some sinister reason why it is so. However, most of the time it is just due to basic mess-ups - nothing more, nothing less. Looking at the blame thread that I posted from Wikipedia, that's what I walked away with. The one thing that resonated with me in the link was when Sec. Chertnoff noted, "We were just overwhelmed." Major understatement. And, yes, I remember seeing documentaries years before Katrina noting that New Orleans was living on borrowed time since numerous administrations on the local, state, and federal level just never would address it. Well, my guess is that during the next elections those politicians are going to pay for their decisions. (well, except for Bush - he can't run again due to term limits, but I think the Republicans will feel it during the mid-term elections)

4) While we bring up the criticisms (which are valid, by the way), let's also remember there were those on the state, local, and federal level that did one excellent job. The Coast Guard is a perfect example of this. I'm pretty sure this was the one thing that we could agree upon, but just wanted to put that out there when we're using federal government as a term in general.

Those were my points.

[Username17]

if there was a conspiracy, it would have to have involved the state, local, and federal levels.

Uh... what?

People did dumb things.
People did incompetent things.
People failed at their duty.

All of these things happened, and not every single one of them involved being "in on" some master conspiracy, or even doing it on purpose. But the Bush administration had a choice:

1> Authorize the troops already mobilized and available to asist in the evacuation.
or
2> Hold them back and demand organizational power concessions from local leadership.

That's a clear choice, and we know they chose the second option. Records are poorly kept, and misinformation abounds, we'll never ever know for sure how much of the rest of the shenanigans were secondary to garden variety fvckups and how much were sabotage. But that one act is on tape, we know it was sabotage, and we know it came from the top.

Everyone doesn't have to be in on "the conspiracy" as you keep calling it. It doesn't even have to be a conspiracy. It just has to be George Bush making deliberate choices that hurt the citizens of LA while he was off fishing and running an ultimately unsuccessful extortion attempt on the state government.

Maybe Bush honestly doesn't care about the lives of people enough to even notice that his extortion scheme was for essentially chump change or that it was costing the lives of hundreds or thousands of Americans (which we'll never know because by executive order all the people who died after the Hurricane don't count as having been killed by the disaster - so all the people killed by Bush's hijinx weren't even counted).

Maybe Bush actually wanted to hurt the people of New Orleans for the same reason as he supports the use of torture despite clear evidence that it is ineffective and the general condemnation of the entire planet - that he's a sadist and actually gets pleasure knowing that his policies hurt people he doesn't know.

Maybe it's something else entirely... but who cares? The fact is:

Bush Lied. People Died.

That really is all you need to know.

[power_word_wedgie]

That's a position, but I just don't put too much creedence into it. Let me demonstrate why by once again referring to this link:

Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has also felt criticism for failing to implement his evacuation plan and for ordering residents to a shelter of last resort without any provisions for food, water, security, or sanitary conditions. Perhaps the most important criticism of Nagin is that he delayed his emergency evacuation order until less than a day before landfall, which led to hundreds of deaths of people who (by that time) could not find any way out of the city.

The above is not in dispute - when he declared the emergency evacuation. So, if I wanted to use the conspiracy theory argument, then basically Nagin is a heartless and sadistic jerk for only giving a city that is below the sea level staring at the strongest hurricane up to that time that contains a population of disproportionately poor citizens only 24 hours to abandon the city. Yeah, let's give it some more flavor - he knew that it would hit the poorest the hardest and thus he used the hurricane "to clean the trash to the city." No longer would he have to pay as much for subsidizing the poor. In fact, the extra days of keep New Orleans open gave his business friends even more of a chance to make money from the citizens and provided more more to the city's coffers. Oh, and by the way, the cherry on the top is that his city ha an evacuation plan that was destined to fail and independant studies noted that as well years prior to the hurricane.

Ok, let's go to the state.

New Orleans Mayor Nagin accused the governor of delaying federal rescue efforts: "I was ready to move today. The governor said she needed 24 hours to make a decision. It would have been great if we could have [...] told the world that we had this all worked out. It didn't happen, and more people died."[77]

A FEMA official has claimed that Gov. Blanco failed to submit a request for help in a timely manner, saying that Blanco did send President Bush a request asking for shelter and provisions, but didn't specifically ask for help with evacuations. One aide to the governor told ABC News that Blanco thought city officials were taking care of the evacuation in accord with the city's emergency plan.[78] The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has concluded, that Gov. Blanco did submit requests for shelter, counseling and provisions in a timely manner, but there is no mention that she requested assistance with evacuation. [79]

The Washington Post reported that shortly before midnight on Friday, September 2, the Bush administration sent Gov. Blanco a request for federal takeover of the local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor, and that the request was rejected. President Bush has the legal authority to federalize National Guard units under the Insurrection Act, but did not do so. Regular troops are constrained by law from engaging in domestic law enforcement. By contrast, Guard troops, who are under the command of state governors, have no such constraints [80]. Gov Haley Barbour of Mississippi also rejected the federal request. The Insurrection Act has not been invoked over the objections of a governor since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. [81]

Governor Blanco issued a voluntary evacuation order and acknowledged that she received a call from the President on August 27, 2005, urging her to make it mandatory in order to get as many people as possible out of the path of the storm. On Saturday, August 27, Governor Blanco did request [90] that President Bush "declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina." The White House responded to Governor Blanco's request that same day, August 27, by declaring the emergency and authorizing FEMA "to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency."[91]

Governor Blanco requested additional National Guard troops to come from other state Guard troops to supplement the Louisiana National Guard troops. She requested these troops via a request through Washington. The Federal Government took over 2 days to process the paperwork. She made that request on Tuesday, a full day after the hurricane hit. Because of legal guidelines, New Mexico's Governor Richardson, who offered assistance to New Orleans two days before the storm hit[71], could not send a single soldier until approval came from Washington, specifically the National Guard Bureau. Washington, meanwhile, could not give such approval without a formal request from Blanco. That request was made Tuesday, after New Orleans was almost completely under water. It would be two more days, until late Thursday, before that authority would come from Washington. And by then, almost four days had passed since Katrina hit the coast. [72]

Governor Blanco later acknowledged that she should have called for more troops sooner, and she should have activated a compact with other states that would have allowed her to bypass the requirement to route the request through Washington.[73]

Congress has vowed to investigate the Guard's sluggish response as well as the lack of activation of many government plans such as the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet, which could have put commercial and private planes into action to help drop cargo or evacuate civilians.

Normally, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of Federal troops or forces other than the Coast Guard for law enforcement unless the Governor of the state formally requests aid, or in times of emergency. Gov. Blanco did dispatch a letter to the White House asking for a state of emergency to be declared on 27 August [74], but did not specifically request the use of the regular military. The Louisiana National Guard remained under her control.

So basically Governor Blanco is a sick, sadistic person. She saw an opportunity to clean out the trash in New Orleans and took advantage of it. Just look at the state welfare she doesn't have to pay any longer. Look at her delay her actions and take the slowest route for paperwork processing for help. Yep, the worst she can make the situation look, the more news coverage she gets. You can' get that if everyone evacuates successfully. And besides, you can just say that you thought that an evacuation plan run by the city had everything under control - plausible deniability. And let's not forget that infusion of capital from the federal government if you make it as screwed up as possible - the messier it is, the more money you get.

See, that's the thing. I don't buy into the Presidential conspriracy theory for the same reason why I don't buy into the city and local conspiracy theories. It's just that people made mistakes, and like you and Nagin noted, people died for them.

[PhoneLobster]

See, that's the thing. I don't buy into the Presidential conspriracy theory for the same reason why I don't buy into the city and local conspiracy theories. It's just that people made mistakes, and like you and Nagin noted, people died for them.

I can't believe it.

Are you seriously arguing innocence by association?

Let me add some exclamation marks to that, !!!!

So if any ONE person involved in the effort made any mistakes at all and/or did not actively choose to sabotage it then therefore it is completely unplausible despite mountains of evidence of multiple acts to accuse any other person of sabotage?

Because thats where your argument seems to be going here and that is a massively unreasonable claim.

I mean by that reasoning I can shoot someone dead deliberately and then plead innocence because someone somewhere shot someone non fatally by accident.

(Edit: Heck, lets not be annonymous, lets say I'm innocent because after all its completely unreasonable to assume that a drunk Cheney shot an 80 year old man in the face with a shotgun deliberately)