National Incident Management System

[Username17]

So yesterday I had to sit through a training for the new National Incident Management System - the new set of protocols that are being made into the emergency response system standard throughout the country. They look suspiciously like the ICS protocols that were put in place by the California Department of Forestry in he 1970s. In fact, were I especially interested in similarities I could go on for a substantia amount of time.

Span of control, operational staff, strike team composition, chain of ocmmand, use of resources, it's all the same as what we've been doing for longer than I've been alive. Granted, it's brand new to most of the country, but for the most part it's nothing new to me. We've been telling people to adopt this for a damn long time, because unlike the Louisiannna Emergency Response Plan, it actually works.

But here's the difference: under the new Federal system, when the Feds step in, they relive your Public Information Officier and replace him with an Intelligence Officer from the Department of Homeland Security. Other than that, they chose to leave well enough alone. The only addendum that the Bush Administration saw fit to make to the emergency response plan that California has already demonstrated the effectiveness of is the appointment of a Political Officer (or Commisar if you will) whose job it is to tell the Fire Department and the Media what they are and are not allowed to say.

True story.

Intelligence Officer: The intelligence officer is responsible for managing internal information, intelligence, and operational security requirements supporting incident management activities. These may include information security and operational security activities, as well as the complex task of ensuring that sensitive information of all types
(e.g., classified information, law enforcement sensitive information, proprietary information, or export-controlled information) is handled in a way that not only safeguards the information, but also ensures that it gets to those who need access to it to perform their missions effectively and safely.

Yeah, that's what every disaster needs, a politcal appointee whose job it is to make sure that "proprietary information" (which is to say "Corporate Intellectual Property") remains secure. I also like the fact that he is a general staff level officer and thus has the abiliyt to countermand any order from any Operations or Logistics Chief. That fills me with confidence.

It's all the joys of living in the Soviet Union without the Socialized Medicine.

-Username17

[Josh_Kablack]

I'd feel safer about that sort of thing if some NSA agent whose identity shall remain a state secret was monitoring all my phone calls.

[power_word_wedgie]

Actually, I'm more phased about Frank's situation. If an emergency is going on, we need to get the truth out there ASAP or else people are going to start to assume you're lieing or telling half-truths. In an emergency situation, that's not good - it helps build up panic and mob rule.

As for the NSA listening to my meatloaf recipe, meh ....

[Crissa]

PWW, that's exactly what they want to have happen.

Besides, we already saw how quickly the feds moved to help the locals last year... And this is when they had warning.

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

The thing is that, as Frank has stated, the intelligence officers are really there to "filter out" material before it gets to the public. In essence, that's just going to lead people to think that you're not telling everything that is going on during an emergency, and thus cause riots and panic situation.

[Username17]

1147558219[/unixtime]]The thing is that, as Frank has stated, the intelligence officers are really there to "filter out" material before it gets to the public. In essence, that's just going to lead people to think that you're not telling everything that is going on during an emergency, and thus cause riots and panic situation.

And Crissa was saying that that was intentional. Seems dumb, I know, but remember that the Bush administration went way out of its way to try to cause riots during Katrina.

Remember how they kept accusing people of "looting" rather than "salvaging" and kept turning back water donations and denying food supplies to local police? That's textbook for creating a riot. To this day I am utterly flabergasted that it didn't work.

-Username17

[power_word_wedgie]

Ok, I'll get off this train at this point. I don't think anyone is intentionally trying to cause riots. Could their actions cause side effects that could cause riots? Possibly, but I don't think that it is the goal.

[Username17]

1147561670[/unixtime]]Ok, I'll get off this train at this point. I don't think anyone is intentionally trying to cause riots. Could their actions cause side effects that could cause riots? Possibly, but I don't think that it is the goal.

Do you have a better explanation?

George Bush is on tape directly sabotaging the Katrina relief effort. We're not talking about George Bush diverting funds from the relief effort to his friends out of base and simple greed. He did that, but in this case we're talking about King George telling people to not do things on the grounds that he was going to send in the armed force and then not sending in the armed forces.

If increasing the destruction, disorder, and panic caused by extreme circumstances isn't the goal, I have no explanation for that behavior.

If it is the goal, then I have an explanation: the Fox News spin placed on the incident after the fact was that the State Government somehow had impeded the Federal Response by refusing aid. The only aid Blanco actually refused was Bush's offer to take direct control of the national guard.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hurrican ... r][br]Yeah, Bush deliberately tanked the emergency response plan as part of a failed bid to take personal command of the National Guard. Is it such a stretch to think that he's willing to do it again?

-Username17

[power_word_wedgie]

Yes I have a better explanation. As much as they wanted to say tha they could handle his situation prior to the event, the federal, state, and local governments was not planned to handle such an event. I know I remember seeing documentaries on the History Channel before it happened that foresaw such an event, but people usually take the assumption that it won't. Heck, the local government was diverting money from levee systems for other projects.

Really, I don't think that anyone was "tanking" so that they could get control of the National Guard. I'm thinking that since he volunteered 40,000 troops and was having Coast Guard units rescuing people that he wanted a more co-ordinated command for the operation and hence offered the suggestion. Bush already has control over an army larger than the Louisiana National Guard. If we're going with theories like this, we might as well claim that The Da Vinci Code is gospel.

If you want to slam the federal government, the Katrina Hurricane aftermath provides plenty of options. For example, FEMA bought trailers right after the event for the people in Louisianna. However, they didn't take the time to check on whether they could use them in a flood plain. Ta-da ... they can't. Thus, they're trying to move these trailers for use in other government agencies but for the meantime are resting in Arkansas. Also, it is agreed that it took way too long for federal units to mobilize. Finally, you had definite communication failures where FEMA directors are claiming that the levees held when in fact they hadn't. The moral is that there's no reason for conspiracy theories for Katrina - there enough blame to go around for federal, state, and local events that are not in dispute.

[PhoneLobster]

When is incompetance sabotage?

Maybe when you are on record as being told again, and again, and again that a city will be destroyed and you willfully do nothing or even sabotage attempts to do anything.

Then afterwards you lie and say no one warned you.

Even though everyone knows they warned you and they even have video.

To continue to believe the lieing liars on this one is a pretty big head up the arse event.

[power_word_wedgie]

The difference is that sabotage requires that your goal is to cause harm. Really, I think that the federal government was incompetant at times either because (a) they made the wrong decision or (b) they did not have clear lines of communication, but at no time did they intentionally try to cause harm. If you really think that they were trying to cause harm, then on the same line of conspiracy theory plot, I suggest to you a movie starring Tom Hanks that should be coming out the summer.

[Neeek]

1147655443[/unixtime]]The difference is that sabotage requires that your goal is to cause harm. Really, I think that the federal government was incompetant at times either because (a) they made the wrong decision or (b) they did not have clear lines of communication, but at no time did they intentionally try to cause harm. If you really think that they were trying to cause harm, then on the same line of conspiracy theory plot, I suggest to you a movie starring Tom Hanks that should be coming out the summer.

There comes a point where the level of stupidity is so ridiculous that malicious intent is the more reasonable belief. Especially when the stupidity directly benefits the people who are acting stupid.

[power_word_wedgie]

I think what happens is that people want to rationalize activities during an emergency afterwards when in fact all it ends up being is just stupidity. The problem is that we really haven't had a city like New Orleans completely wiped out like it was. Especially when it doesn't really help out anybody. If given the chance, I will bet you that Bush would have preferred that Katrina never had occurred during his watch. The federal government and his administration has taken more of a black eye for what happened than any benefit that was derived.

Personally, I think that everyone involved with the Katrina (local, state, and federal) were just counting on prayers that it wouldn't hit the city because there really wasn't a sufficient plan in place to address it. Hurricane paths are unpredictable, and they were just hoping that the hurricane would just veer off. Heck, you had money diverted from levee improvements prior to the hurricane because they thought projects such as causeways would be more beneficial to the community. And in the hurricane never hit, their decisions would have made them look brilliant. Well, the hurricane didn't veer, and now everyone involved looks like goats.

Was anyone involved with the whole incident doing this out of sabotage or malicious intent? Nah. However, they made a lot of bone-headed decision, no doubt about that and rightfully so they're taking the political heat for it.

[Neeek]

1147657580[/unixtime]] Especially when it doesn't really help out anybody.

Except the Republican party, since, other than New Orleans, the entire state of Lousiana is extremely predominantly Republican.

If given the chance, I will bet you that Bush would have preferred that Katrina never had occurred during his watch. The federal government and his administration has taken more of a black eye for what happened than any benefit that was derived.

I'm sure that Bush, if asked under any circumstances, would claim to have prefered that Katrina didn't happen; however, if you think that Katrina had a negative net impact for his party, you are just naive.

[power_word_wedgie]

Ok, I'll get off this conspiracy bandwagon now. I really don't think that when the top elected official (the president) is in your party that it helps out the Republican party in the state. Especially when it makes you (and your party) look like an idiot in the other 49 states. That's like cutting off the arm to save the finger. Heck, months later we're still talking about Bush and how inept he was to the crisis. I'll extend it one further: if given a chance, the Republican party wishes that Katrina never happened. Katrina and Iraq have put the Republicans on the defensive. Yes, the governor and the mayor were Democrats, but one of the two senators and five of the seven representatives for the state of Louisiana are Republican. As the leader of your party, making your leadership abilities looks like a loon in a crisis like this doesn't help their causes at the polls.

[Neeek]

1147659915[/unixtime]]\ Especially when it makes you (and your party) look like an idiot in the other 49 states. That's like cutting off the arm to save the finger. Heck, months later we're still talking about Bush and how inept he was to the crisis.

You are assuming that they weren't expecting to be able to drop all the blame on FEMA and Micheal Brown like they tried to do. Without the video recordings of the Bush not listening to Brown, they may have gotten away with it.

I'll extend it one further: if given a chance, the Republican party wishes that Katrina never happened. Katrina and Iraq have put the Republicans on the defensive.

Bullshit. If they wanted Iraq not to happen *it wouldn't have happened*. They control Congress, and the war as a whole could have gone several other ways with the slightest bit of foresight. Further, the only reason Bush was re-elected at all was Iraq, since somewhere between 7-10% of the country doesn't like the idea of changing presidents in the middle of a war.

[power_word_wedgie]

1147660353[/unixtime]]You are assuming that they weren't expecting to be able to drop all the blame on FEMA and Micheal Brown like they tried to do. Without the video recordings of the Bush not listening to Brown, they may have gotten away with it.

Oh come on! There was no way that they were ever going to get this framed solely on FEMA and Michael Brown. This kind of thing goes all the way to the top, even without the video tape. Put more specifically, if the plan was to alway hose over New Orleans, why did they allow a tape to be made to show their plan? It doesn't make sense.

Let's go another angle. To paraphrase Bill Murray, it would have been better for Bush to save New Orleans "and the lives of millions of endebted voters." Yeah, they may be displaced, but do you think that they are going to vote Republican after this? Heck no!

Bullshit. If they wanted Iraq not to happen *it wouldn't have happened*. They control Congress, and the war as a whole could have gone several other ways with the slightest bit of foresight. Further, the only reason Bush was re-elected at all was Iraq, since somewhere between 7-10% of the country doesn't like the idea of changing presidents in the middle of a war.

Watch what I say: I think that the Republican now wished that they Iraq war never happened. Three years ago, that wasn't the case - heck, you had Democrats voting for the war. Now Iraq, just like Katrina, has put the Republicans on the defensive. Also, I'd like to also throw out there that Kerry didn't run the most convincing of campaigns IMHO, which certainly didn't help him at the polls and hence helped a Bush re-election.

edit: Here's some polls of the incident:

CBS Sept. 12 Poll

ABC Poll

CNN Poll

CBS Sept. 14 Poll

[PhoneLobster]

Its not hard to see how Bush might feel that Katrina would benefit him.

1) More free money for Haliburton and friends. (which he did)

2) Staged presidential photo ops on the rubble (which he actually went ahead and did, repeatedly)

3) Blame Clinton and his (previously) successful emergency agency. (which he did).

4) Use the money which should have been building better hurricane protection to fund his pet project in Iraq (which he did).

5) Displace a bunch of black people out of the South, because he doesn't like them and they don't like him. (which he did)

6) Appeal to the crazy facist christian base by allowing a city of Sin to be "smote" and then rather openly failing to help it, especially the extra sinful citizens, you know, the poor black ones. (which he did)

7) Raise the place to the ground to make way for a big white republican stronghold. (Which he did).

But MOST of all the reason he would believe he could benefit politically from it would be because LAST time there was a major destructive event in an American city directly caused by his deliberate and malicious incompetance he benefited MASSIVELY. It saved his ass, gave him the freedom to perform any number of illegal and grossly unpopular acts, he loved it, he wanted more.

Don't you get it?

He was hoping dumbasses like you would go around claiming "Katrina Changed Everything" for the next four years.

[Neeek]

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?

[Username17]

Oh come on! There was no way that they were ever going to get this framed solely on FEMA and Michael Brown. This kind of thing goes all the way to the top, even without the video tape. Put more specifically, if the plan was to alway hose over New Orleans, why did they allow a tape to be made to show their plan? It doesn't make sense.

Noone is suggesting that those in charge are not incompetent. That's not at issue.

The question is one of Occam's Razor. Is it a simpler explanation for their behavior that:

1. The Bush Administration blithely performs the worst possible action in response to problems again and again and subsequently goes on a multiple day, multiple state tour to promote a program that the NEJM calls "a total failure" instead of making a single phone call to the armed forces that it promised it would make just hours before and then lies on national TV that it had never been apprised of the situation because every single decision making member of that entire group has no capabilities to prioritize and is completely fvcking clueless.

or...

2. The Bush Administration contains lobbyists for some of the largest construction firms on the planet, and actively makes problems worse because they are paid cash money for all rebuilding efforts the US government undertakes.

I'm not suggesting a giant conspiracy. I'm suggesting that sooner or later you have to question why members of the Bush Administration keep making absolutely everything they touch worse. And then you have to notice that some of them actually have pay checks that are directly proportional to the size of problems, and other members give money to groups that are actively attempting to complete prophecies that are supposed to end the world.

In short, Bush Co. actually wants things to get worse. Those that aren't in the reconstruction business are Evangelicals who claim to blieve that the end of the world is not only inevitable but good. Making things worse for everyone is actually good for them, why is it so hard to believe that some of these fvck ups are on purpose?

Christianity started as a doomsday cult, and for many people that's what it still is. If there are people donating money to the creation of a Red Heifer, and some of them are members of congress, how is it in any way unbelievable that members of the executive branch are actively trying to destroy the world?

-Username17

[Neeek]

The Bush administration has been engaging in something I like to call the "Trunchbull effect". That is, doing things so fucked up that the average person will think your opponents are lying when they tell the public the truth about them.

[PhoneLobster]

Noone is suggesting that those in charge are incompetent.

Actually I am...

I don't see it as a needlessly complex assumption to realize that these guys not only like to line their own pockets and do terrible things for personal and party benefit while SIMULATANEOUSLY being a bunch of idiots.

Consider Katrina.

Competent Nice Guys? No way it would have happened.

Incompetent Nice Guys? Seriously there wasn't much they had to do to get it right, if they just hadn't removed the money, sabotaged an agency, ignored it and lied to everyone the outcome would not have looked much different to what Competent Nice Guys would have achieved.

Competent Evil Bastards? Well their fall guy at the agency wouldn't have been a failed horse whisperer. They would have arranged for the work on the flood protection to be sabotaged without a direct money trail to their own damn pockets, they'd have just sucked the loss of that cash for greater security and deniability for the later reconstruction cash. And they would have managed their media response to it much more smoothly (for instance NOT letting Condi go off on a shoe buying spree).

Now INCOMPETENT Evil Bastards? Thats the simplest answer. Evil enough to perform the sabotage. Dumb enough to organize it more poorly and with less deniability than what you would get if your master plan were designed by a chimp.

Of course as incompetent as they are they weren't all THAT incompetent, after all they succeeded in everything other than keeping their hands clean.

Rather than incompetence some simply suggest they just believe they are totally unnacountable and it doesn't matter if we catch them because they just say "Who you gonna believe? Me or your liein' eyes?"

I'm sufficiently flexible to go with the denial of accountability as much as am prepared to go with the incompetence line.

[Username17]

Oops. There was supposed to be a "not" in there. We all know that Bush's big plans don't work. The Neocon agenda of thrashing about like a crazy man attacking centerpiece nations like Iraq in order to cause the rest of the world to be so in awe of our battle prowess that they all fall into line and start paying us tribute is fvcking retarded.

That they're incompetent is well known. The question is only whether they are so incompetent that they repeatedly make billions of dollars getting thousands of Americans killed for no reason again and again, or whether they are so evil that they make billions of dollars sacrificing thousands of Americans for vaporware and just so incompetent that it gets out.

The second is looking more likely all the time. I was willing to give them a pass on not having been involved in 9/11 and just being a bunch of lucky jackasses. But at this point I wouldn't believe W if he told me water was wet. There's so much smoke in the room that he has to prove to me that there isn't fire - and he can't do that. It's simply beyond reasonable doubt that Cheney isn't complicit in one of the many many fiascos that have killed thousands of Americans since these guys took office. And any one is Crimes Against Humanity, and after that it doesn't matter.

-Username17

[Crissa]

I don't get it.

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

...Were left sitting in the Gulf of Mexico, not allowed to land because they didn't get the required Federal orders to?

Of course Gov. Blanco didn't want to let go of the few Nat. Guard troops which she had and weren't siphoned off to Iraq... They would've been shooting evacuees like the Rethug police were outside New Orleans.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1147679213[/unixtime]]
Christianity started as a doomsday cult, and for many people that's what it still is. If there are people donating money to the creation of a Red Heifer, and some of them are members of congress, how is it in any way unbelievable that members of the executive branch are actively trying to destroy the world?

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?

Republicans use religion as simply another propaganda tool. Their main motivation is money and power. I doubt they believe any of the shit they actually preach. It's just like the church was during the middle ages, a damn money machine. Religion has always been a nice cover story for people lining thier pockets off the poor and trying to look moral and just about it.