"Yes, some would even blame Bush and the war for a hurricane. But blaming Bush and the war for the poor state of New Orleans' levees is a legitimate argument. And it could be a crushing one.

No. Its not. This is not a legitimate argument any more than saying the reason that we haven't cured cancer is because Bushco. diverted money from cancer research to the war. New Orleans had 40 years to plan for a hurricane of this magnitude. Unfortunately, they didn't. They knew that they were 6-12 feet below sea level. Even if, as argued, they didn't receive or were refused federal money, their alternative was....what?...to sit there and drown and then blame the government? They knew the risks, and they chose to take their chances. Whether the government should have helped them is not the issue. They didn't. But neither, apparently, did New Orleans itself.

If someone tells you you need lifesaving surgery, and your insurance refuses to pay, then you have two choices: wait until somebody else pays and take the risk that nothing bad will happen until you do, or you pay for it yourself...somehow. I don't know how, but knowing the alternative...someone should have made enough effort or enough noise until something happened.

New Orleans gambled, and unfortunately, they lost.

I do not wish to turn this thread into a flamewar, and I think it is disrespectful to make this a political issue when the bodies haven't even been recovered, but I find it appalling and unfair that a disaster that was clearly decades in the making is being attempted to be blamed on one man.

Cicero, I did not mean to miss your point. Yes, we all have been blessed, and I encourage everyone that if you can't send you, send money. The Red Cross is currently offering classes to train disaster volunteers. I encourage everyone to go and be trained, especially if you have special skills, like medical, repair, etc.

Words well said, Cicero.

I do wonder whether the al Queda might be taking notes, though.

It wasn't the hurricane proper that innundated New Orleans, but the failure of the infrastructure in the hurricane's wake. All the whining about 'Federal monies redirected' though is bullshoy.

California builds its own seawalls, its own power plants, its own water pumping stations for Los Angeles. What's up with "po' o' me" Louisiana? Maybe a higher open-bottle whiskey levy would have paid for the higher Lake Pontchartrain levees. Ya think?

I'm more concerned not that we collectively either blame The Gubb'mint for failed levees, or that we blame the al Queda, Palestinians, global Jihadists and variform M.E. thugs and their thugocracies for causing the redirection of funds, but this: that there are dozens of cities that may be critically vunerable to very modest acts of terror having large "multiplier" effects. Think of ...

Amsterdam - levees, flooding
San Francisco - power lines
Los Angeles - water supply
Oakland/Berkeley - hills, firestorms
Mississippi valley - levees, flooding

and many more. One only need to look through the last 50 years of top newspaper 'disasters' and near-misses to see the kind of exploitable vulnerabilities that so many cities have.

But what to do about them? By definition, every system has its failure modes. The peninsular San Francisco has but 3 parallel power lines that provide it with 100% of its power. Not Federal funding, but local politics has thwarted trans-Bay underwater power cables to suppliment the 3 towers that bring in the juice. One of those failed a few years back, and SF was without power for 2 days. What happens when you knock down all 3?

Every system has its failure modes. Civilisation depends on leveraging systems in ways that are sound, engineering-wise, and even reliable under forseen circumstance. But are we now supposed to design in 'terrorist workaround system' for everything in both public and private sectors? I think the cost would be prohibitive. Yet, the worst case often needs to be worked out.

I saw an awefully mundane example of this just the other day. Been there since WW2, no less. In Oakland, near Jack London Square is an old functioning gigantic diesel electric generator. It has an enormous tank (like you see at refineries) sitting a few hundred yards away. I long wondered why it also has a lower, but much wider 'tank' surrounding the inner tank. Then it occurred to me: the breach of the inner tank, due to fire, earthquake or in WW2, bombardment ... would spell outrageous disaster to the naval base in Alameda, or to Oakland. So, the second 'catchpan' tank was erected around the first tank.

Maybe this kind of logic will have to be instituted broadly. It isn't enough to have one levee, but there should probably be 'rings' of levees to partition issues into smaller failure cells. Power systems, such as San Francisco's, should have a multitude of variously dissimilar delivery vehicles, so as to keep from being 'single point' vulnerable. Los Angeles' water supply should be dividied up into multiple pumping stations, multiple - and widely spaced pipes. They probably should be underground.

Yes, there's an expense to all this, but if rather than rail at the fact that there are terrorists (and all nature of disaster-planning scenarios, we should instead plan for them, ensuring that life will go on after their giant pop-guns and suicide missions create a bit of havoc. A stiff upper lip, I say, and good civic planning.

GoatGuy

Yes, yes it is.
And what a great speach, I was expecting him to say we should go to the mall and shop at any moment.

Here's a piece from March 7, 2002 from the Clarion-Ledger on the circumstances of Parker's firing. Here are the first several grafs ...

The assistant secretary of the Army, Mississippi's former U.S. Rep. Mike Parker, was forced out Wednesday after he criticized the Bush administration's proposed spending cuts on Army Corps of Engineers' water projects, members of Congress said.
"Apparently he was asked to resign," said U.S. Rep. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., a member of the House Appropriations Committee's energy and water development subcommittee that oversees the corps' budget.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, also said Parker was dismissed.

Parker's nomination to head the corps drew heavy criticism last year from environmental groups pushing to downsize the agency, calling its flood control projects too costly and destructive.

Parker earned the ire of administration officials when he questioned Bush's planned budget cuts for the corps, including two controversial Mississippi projects.

"I think he was fired for being too honest and not loyal enough to the president," said lobbyist Colin Bell, who represents communities with corps-funded projects.

Bell said Parker resigned about noon after being given about 30 minutes to choose between resigning or being fired.

Pretty much the Bush administration in a nutshell.

The only thing "in a nutshell" that there is here is the entitlement mentality- the idea that someone else is responsible for any potential problem or disaster. Is the government couldn't or wouldn't pay for it, then it was the people who would be affected by the disaster's responsibility to make sure that these things were addressed. It was not exactly a big secret that those levees wouldn't survive greater than a Cat3. Rather than do that, they chose instead to take a risk that something of this magnitude wouldn't happen, because for whatever reason, the urgency wasn't there to upgrade them.

They were wrong.

So Max apparently thinks that if he needs a colonoscopy to make sure he doesn't have colon cancer, and his insurance company doesn't pay for it, when he dies from colon cancer because he never got one that its the insurance company's fault.

There is a certain amount of individual responsibility that can be leveled at the state, the county, and the individuals living in New Orleans since the last major hurricane. Much as I already see the mounting desperation to assign something, anything to an already overfed Bush Derangement Syndrome, this is simply not the responsibility of any Presidential administration, Republican or Democrat.

Notice that Max skips over the part about environmental groups opposing the Army Corps of Engineers' flood control projects.

Ah, Bush Derangment Syndrome ...

"The only thing "in a nutshell" that there is here is the entitlement mentality- the idea that someone else is responsible for any potential problem or disaster."

Actually, what this disaster shows "in a nutshell" is the abject failure of the conservative "every man for himself" mentality. Life is full of events that require a collective response and cannot be successfully addressed by individuals or the private sector. When these events occur, the conservative reflex is to blame the victims.

But, the reason that federal, state, and local governments developed was to address exactly these larger challenges. Flood control, levee systems, and wetlands protection on a river which drains much of the US are clearly a Federal responsibility. The facts that the Bush administration and the GOP defunded the Army Corps of Engineers, wetland protection, levee reconstruction will of course make no impact on the impervious conservative mindset, but the rest of the country is paying close attention.
Similarly, rigid conservatives will give the Bush administration a free pass on the unbelieveably incompetent and inefficient Federal response to this disaster, but the general public will notice.
The fundamental problem is that leaving government administration to those who are ideologically opposed to government results in very poor administration and execution.

Um, johnny, that makes no sense. You are telling me that the people of NOLA should have paid for it themselves? If that is so, get a clue and hope that LA doesnt decide to put a big tax on every gallon of gas and item of trade that comes in or out of their state. It is called teh Federal government for a reason. Should the people who live in FLA should take care of their yearly hurrican issues themselves? The issue of the leeves was not brought up repaetedly to this admin. This exact senario was laid out as one of the top three possibilities of catastophic damamge to our country. Why not answer the questions related to the moving of money by our admin from levees to Iraq, why not talk about those "risks" and 'choices' and how they have changed the lives of countless Americans- beyond the boarders on LA and Miss (hint- that is one of the reasons for a Federal Government).

Point taken, Johnymozart, Max, Tom, SPQR, everyone---

Have you made a relief fund contribution? I mulling between the Salvation Army, Southern Baptist Disaster Relief and the Samaritan's Purse.

Do your duty if you haven't. And if you have, thanks. Let me know who you made your contribution to.

People, I would love the comments to this essay to be about who you gave your money to, and how smooth the process was.

As the article below notes, the US Army Corp of Engineers has historically had the lead role in flood protection, but suddenly in conservativeworld the responsibility should not fall on the GOP for defunding them, but on some New Orleans flood victim's failures to build up the levees?
Mental gymnastics to avoid ever assigning any responsibility to GWB and the GOP are a predictable conservative trick, but this is ridiculous.

From USA Today
"Engineers had warned of a looming disaster For years, engineers up and down the Mississippi River have talked about the disaster that would result if New Orleans' bulwark of levees and flood walls were hit by a hurricane like Katrina. But when it was time to find money to strengthen them, the city's defenses ended up far down the federal government's priority list.
Now, with 80% of the city submerged by water pouring through three breaches in its protections, dealing with the consequences is proving far more difficult than anyone anticipated. The flooding is worse, and the rehearsed responses aren't working.
"This is horrible, terrible and devastating," says Claude Strauser, who retired in January from the Army Corps of Engineers. "But everybody knew it was vulnerable."
Joe Suhayda, an oceanographer and retired engineering professor at Louisiana State University, says the weakness was "an acknowledged, likely scenario that was not dealt with in the sense that (officials) solved the problem."
"The Corps has the lead role in most of the construction and maintenance of flood controls, working with local and state agencies. Every year, the Corps spends tens of millions of dollars repairing and upgrading flood walls, levees and pump stations, setting priorities for which jobs it tackles. But Congress hasn't given the Corps the money it says it needs to make the upgrades needed to protect New Orleans from the most serious storms."

I say it's fair game, as this was a perfectly forseeable event. I hope Congress gets tossed out, too. This is why we have elections; to punish people who screw up in office.

... the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for.

You could have easily raised $2 million from the New Orleans business community and the Lousiana gentry. Or from Pepsico, Walmart, and BP. You could have easily raised ten times that amount: "Save historic New Orleans", etc. Hire some professional money-grubbers and you could have raised a hundred times that amount.

Not to mention that you could have done the whole thing vastly cheaper with non-union labor and competitive bids, if public safety was more important than keeping the unions greased and happy.

The fact is that the city or the state could have paid that $2 million if they had thought it was worth bothering with, which they didn't. Just like the soaring crime rate was not worth bothering with.

If the federal government had refused to ever give a single dime to states for such projects, forcing states to squarely face their basic responsibilities, I'll bet those levees would have been in very good repair. At least in better repair than they were.

What New Orleans badly needed was a Rudy Giuliani. He ought to be cloned and deployed all over the region.

"If the federal government had refused to ever give a single dime to states for such projects, forcing states to squarely face their basic responsibilities, I'll bet those levees would have been in very good repair. At least in better repair than they were."

Man, some people are hard-headed. The reason that major rivers are a Federal rather than a State responsibility is that they cross State lines (duh). So, flood control activities(levees) in Montana can negatively impact flood conditions in Louisiana. For this obvious reason, flood control strategies are not a state's "basic responsibility" but fall into the Federal realm. Even with the limited Federal coordination under GOP government, levees upstream reduce flood absorbtion by flood plains and send a bigger pulse downstream.

The "bake sale" model for funding major national infrastructure is just BS, another weak excuse for failure at the Federal level. Civilization and nation states essentially began with national level irrigation and river administration in Mesopotamia and China many centuries ago. Somehow, hamstrung by rigid political beliefs, the US cannot seem to figure this basic government responsibility out in 2005, and the conservative response is to go begging with "professional fundraisers"? The ancient Egyptians in the time of the Pharoahs had figured out that flood control and irrigation should be funded from taxes. Do conservatives really want to go that far back in history?

- I would love the comments to this essay to be about who you gave your money to, and how smooth the process was.

Marcus, if that was your intent, perhaps you might have left Sullivan's silly "analysis" out of the post. ;-)

Blaming Bush for the N.O. flood is no more "legitimate" than blaming his administration for 9/11, which was planned in the '90s, or blaming him for the faltering economy resulting from the dot-com/stock bubble burst/crash that started before he took office, or blaming him for Enron, Worldcomm, et al., which were stealing people blind in the '90s, ... the list goes on.

American History did not begin on January 20, 2001, although that appears to be a common hallucination for the growing number of BDS victims.

And just to end the irrational notion that "repair" was an issue, the levees in question were built for a Cat 3 storm. In the best of repair they would not have withstood Katrina's force, by definition. That was not a choice made by the Bush administration.

Cicero #11,

Elsewhere, I've been called for Monday morning quarterbacking, with some justification. Even at this early stage, one can say that there are narrow issues, and deep issues. The system failed in important respects and is performing acceptably (under the crushing circumstances) in others. It's a difficult exercise to turn information into well-founded opinions about who, exactly was culpable. Viz. the 9-11 and Senate Intelligence Committee reports.

Those who are quick to place the most blame on national politicians could consider the implications of this Fox story on the Superdome from Ivan's aftermath (via TTLB).

As to your more important question: World Vision. And another organization to follow.

Competing answers, please.

Tom: The reason that major rivers are a Federal rather than a State responsibility is that they cross State lines (duh).

Tom, New Orleans was founded by the French a hundred years before there was any Federal government. Levees are a very old idea. Andrew Jackson used them as defensive ramparts.

New Orleans survived for almost three hundred years, only to die in the age of stupendous wealth, taxpayer largesse, and zero responsibility.

The city could have addressed the problem of the levees far better than they did. But why should they? Washington will pay for it sooner or later, and if a disaster happens in the meantime, Washington will fix it and make it all better.

The fact that Lousiana doesn't own the damn Mississippi River doesn't mean that state and local authorities are absolved of any sense of self-preservation.

Federal Disaster Relief has been a scourge all along the Mississippi. We replace every community that drowns, so new communities can drown. Unfortunately we can't replace the people.

Amazing as it might seem to you, I'll bet even a Democratic adminstration (which New Orleans has had since the days of General Butler) can't raise the dead.

There's plenty of governemnt failure to point fingers for this disaster; and it it's about equally shared between both parties. Anyone trying to lay this solely on the Bush administration is being unseriously partisan, likewise the ones saying that they are blameless.

It is granted that the federal goverment had assumed authority for controlling Mississippi river flooding, having vested it to the Army Corps of Engineers. Seriously though. Would the Corps of Engineers have turned down extra funding from the City of New Orleans or the State of Louisiana dedicated to improving huricane survivability? Obviously, the Corps would have happily accepted it and done a good job. No money was provided. Why?

New Orleans and Louisiana obviously had priorities that were more important than huricane and flood protection... like building a new basketball arena and luring the NBA Charlotte Hornets to town with huge subsidies.

EVERYONE knew that this was a disaster waiting to happen, anyone that has watched any TV news during the last couple of Gulf huricanes at least. Sorry if the Feds didn't take the problem anymore seriously than the locals, whose very own lives and fortunes were at stake.

Let's all move along now. And don't forget to whistle past the graveyard.

"Blaming Bush for the N.O. flood is no more "legitimate" than blaming his administration for 9/11, which was planned in the '90s, or blaming him for the faltering economy resulting from the dot-com/stock bubble burst/crash that started before he took office, or blaming him for Enron, Worldcomm, et al., which were stealing people blind in the '90s, ... the list goes on.

Yes, the list of evasions of responsibility does go on. It begs the question "What does Bush take responsibility for?"

How will the GOP spinmeisters evade responsibility for the ongoing chaos in New Orleans, and how will they blame it on the Dems?
Is the situation below acceptable because it happens under a GOP administration?
From AP
"NEW ORLEANS - Fights and fires broke out, corpses lay out in the open, and rescue helicopters and law enforcement officers were shot at as flooded-out New Orleans descended into anarchy Thursday. "This is a desperate SOS," the mayor said.
Anger mounted across the ruined city, with thousands of storm victims increasingly hungry, desperate and tired of waiting for buses to take them out.
"We are out here like pure animals. We don't have help," the Rev. Issac Clark, 68, said outside the New Orleans Convention Center, where corpses lay in the open and the and other evacuees complained that they were dropped off and given nothing — no food, no water, no medicine.
The plea from Mayor Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen poured in to help restore order and put a stop to the looting, carjackings and gunfire that have gripped New Orleans in the days since Hurricane Katrina plunged much of the city under water.
About 15,000 to 20,000 people who had taken shelter at the convention center to await buses were growing angry and restless in what appeared to be a potentially explosive situation. In hopes of defusing it, the mayor gave them permission to march across a bridge to the city's unflooded west bank for whatever relief they can find.
In a statement to CNN, he said: "This is a desperate SOS. Right now we are out of resources at the convention center and don't anticipate enough buses. We need buses. Currently the convention center is unsanitary and unsafe and we're running our of supplies."
Terry Ebbert, head of the city's emergency operations, warned that the slow evacuation at the Superdome had become an "incredibly explosive situation," and he bitterly complained that FEMA was not offering enough help.
"This is a national emergency. This is a national disgrace," he said. "FEMA has been here three days, yet there is no command and control. We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can't bail out the city of New Orleans."

Max (#5) has a point. So do his critics. The bottom line is simple: governments, at all levels and for many years, gambled. They just lost the bet. And the table.

What Max establishes is that there was a warning, from the Army Corps of Engineers, and this was ignored. Those priorities were obviously off, and it's fair to call W. on it. See also this article re: the simulation exercise last year, which showed that a (much more common) category 3 could even swamp the system if it hit directly.

Not good.

It's also fair to note that if they had kept that guy and given him all he wanted, New Orleans would still be Lake New Orleans today in the face of a Cat 5 storm. The system was never built to handle that, and with each foot increase in a levee, the cost rises nearly exponentially (if you've ever built sand-castles, you know why).

That inadequate system has been around for a long time - and indeed, the length of time it has survived is a commentary on the odds that led to this eventuality being ignored. Nevertheless, that length of time involves the federal responsibility of many adminstrations, and the state responsibility of many adminstrations, and local responsibility too.

Tom, the bottom line for New Orleans is that we're talking about hurricane defense here. If storms usually hit other states above LA first and then had waters rush downstream a la Bangladesh, you'd have more of a point. They don't. Which means the kind of measures that would defend the city successfully didn't need to go beyond Louisiana, and indeed if this is about protecting the city, much could have been done within Greater New Orleans itself. It wasn't, and those governments have the welfare of those citizens as primary responsibilities. They don't get to duck that, either.

At all levels of government, and for decades not years, required actions weren't taken to guard against this possibility. There are both Republicans and Democrats on those rosters.

The stuff I've seen says fixing the system to protect New Orleans alone from a Cat 5 would have been a multi-billion undertaking. $5 billion? $10 billion? Maybe.

Seems cheap now. Mind you, imagine that they had built that system in 1950, when the same warnings were similarly valid. Along comes 1980, 1990, 2000... and there's much higher ongoing maintenance costs too, and it's been what, 50 years? Doesn't seem so cheap. Not until the big one actually hits.

It has. Here we are. And there really is too much to do to waste time with finger-pointing now. But America doesn't have to make the same mistakes of foresight, either. I also agree with the commenters who say it's time to make some hard-nosed investment decisions. The parameters have changed now, but the need for that kind of foresight hasn't.

It's one thing to be blessed - quite another to be blessed idiots.

Still, it's easy to miss these things. The incentives in the system aren't well designed for them. Which is precisely why political coalitions need to be formed around this stuff, and tied into people's lives as a concrete political deliverable/ benefit, and non-performing activities in other areas killed or restructured to make room.

I'm sure A.L. will be addressing this in his extension of his earlier points re: sewer socialism and infrastructure as more viable foundations for the modern Democratic Party than the Kos Kidz cocktail of anti-Semitism, tolerance toward terrorism, and BDS. Or the skybox liberalism that currently prevails.

RE: political responsibility and distribution, see Tom Holsinger's comment to another post re: the state abdication that made New Orleans lucky to even have the inadequate system it did.

Tom: How will the GOP spinmeisters evade responsibility for the ongoing chaos in New Orleans, and how will they blame it on the Dems?

If GOP spinmeisters are looting gun stores in New Orleans and shooting at authorities, I say we hang them.

Methinks the entire discussion is bootless. For now.

#19, How the hell can the failure be "equally shared between parties" when the GOP controls Congress and the Presidency?
It was a GOP administration which dismantled FEMA (Wash Post has a great article about this). It was the GOP which cut New Orleans district Corps of Engineers budget by 44%. It was a GOP administration which failed to have anyone monitoring the levees even after the storm had passed.
Goy,
Just because the levees were designed to survive a Cat 3 storm, their failure AFTER the storm was not at all inevitable and a properly coordinated response might have closed the breaches, but to the Mayor's despair, no helicopters showed up until too late.
Glen,
Actually, we do have some points of agreement. I would agree that Federal flood insurance and disaster relief have encouraged irresponsibility. At a minimum, reconstruction funds should require flood-resistant design and relocation if necessary.
However, I would disagree that Bush is presiding over "taxpayer largesse" given that he has substantially reduced the tax rates for the wealthy (to 0% for estates). Maybe we could call his era, "middle-class taxpayer largesse" and I would agree, since effective rates on the upper middle class have actually increased under GOP rule.

I agree with the call to donate for relief. My guess is that my income percentage for charitable donation beats anyone else on this list, but we can all dig deeper.

One glaring point which applies to both Biloxi and New Orleans needs to be made.
Neither location provided evacuation transportation for those too poor, too old, or too disabled to drive away in their cars. How much cheaper would it have been to evacuate people in buses, rather than collecting survivors and bodies by helicopter and boat?

How the hell can the failure be "equally shared between parties" when the GOP controls Congress and the Presidency?

This problem was identified decades ago. The Republicans didn't have control of the Federal Government this whole time. And I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the governments of Louisiana and New Orleans been a virtual closed shop for the Democrats for, like, ever?

- ...the list of evasions of responsibility does go on.

So you're saying, Tom, that if you don't take responsibility for everything - even stuff over which you had no control - that you're "evading"? Ok. Thanks, there are plenty of other non-obtuse comments here to read.

As for #25, uhm, yeah - a Cat 3 levee is pretty much guaranteed to fail in a Cat 4 or 5 condition BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF STORM SURGE INVOLVED, which takes time to weaken and then breach the structure. And that is precisely what happened.

Have you seen ANY Of the pictures? The roads were impassable. You seem very unaware of just how widespread and extensive the damage from this storm turned out to be. It is an UNPRECEDENTED event. Second guessing any of the official response so far is an exercise in silliness, at best.

#11
I had the great good fortune to be near a relief effort at the local Salvation Army, putting together a truck load of 'stuff' for victims that are in Dallas. Also, a check to the Salvation Army was good, and is helping provide places for them to stay.

(Toiletries are a very recommended idea, especially the individual moist towelettes.)

Blame can wait.

Here is the wizdom of johhny-
"So Max apparently thinks that if he needs a colonoscopy to make sure he doesn't have colon cancer, and his insurance company doesn't pay for it, when he dies from colon cancer because he never got one that its the insurance company's fault."
Uh, yeah. I pay them over $5K a year and if they didnt pay for a test that could save my life, I think I would be quite correct in being pissed.
Or should I have taken "responsibilty" for my afliction and done a little home surgery? You make no sense.
You seem to represent the best of the Compassionate Conservative - which is to blame poor people for not having the options you do. Because as we all know, our country is so great that only losers and people who dont take responsibilty for themselves are poor and unable to hop in their cars and zip off ofr a few weeks in a hotel.

To the contrary, the second guessing of the response for New Orleans I've seen so far is not merely silly, it is astonishing in its ignorance and arrogance.

The storm has destroyed a major city and the infrastructure that supported its inhabitants. It takes time to put together the logistic support for the relief efforts. One cannot just plop thousands of troops and relief workers into the middle of a city that is already unable to support its inhabitants.

And both that relief and the logistical support must be moved through neighboring areas just as devastated ( and nearly as deserving of relief efforts ). That kind of operation isn't completed in a day, its not even launched in days, its barely planned in one day.

New Orleans is build on land in a floodplain. You have subsidence with that kind of land. If it is clay and you drain it then the clayparticules will set closer together so the land will get lower. If it also contains a lot plant material that that will also oxidize and you will get an even bigger subsidence (In less than a millenium large parts of Holland had a subsidence of more than 15 feet)

The French quater, which i assume is the old part, is still dry so the fact that New Orleans survived for so long doesn't mean that much.

a, in fact New Orleans is not built in a flood plain. It is built behind levees below water level.

- ...the second guessing of the response for New Orleans I've seen so far is not merely silly, it is astonishing in its ignorance and arrogance.

Robin - when I wrote "...an exercise in silliness, at best" I was trying to be diplomatic. ;-)

To your credit, goy. To your credit.

Oh, for pity's sake....

Yes, yes, yes, everything is Bush's fault. 9/11 was Bush's fault, gas prices are high because of Bush, the suffering from the tsunami is Bush's fault,, a bad flu outbreak is Bush's fault, childhood obesity is Bush's fault, why, even the price of Jack Daniels is going up because of Bush's cozy relationship with the Saudis.

And of course, without question, Bush is responsible for the disaster in New Orleans and Mississippi.

Grow up. Anyone making these kinds of arguments is an unserious sophist. I am not arguing whether or not the government should have given them money to fix things. Personally, I think they should have. But they didn't, and despite that, those that would have been directly affected by a catastrophic failure did not assign the upgrade sufficient importance to insure that it got done, by any means necessary. They chose to take their chances that nothing would happen until the government paid for it, and they got burned. They made that decision, not Bush. In addition, this problem has been common knowledge for 40 effing years. The most that can be blamed on Bush was that he made them pay for it themselves, if even that can be articulately argued. But there was certainly local and state responsibility. No one, least of all me, is suggesting that it should have been "every man for himself." And anyone who would suggest that is a liar. But when the potential risks were this high (as in the colon cancer example I gave) you fix the problem first, and then you worry about remuneration later. That's not what happened here, and we can see the result. And despite the ravings of a few hopelessly partisan hacks, that fact simply cannot solely be laid with one man, one party, or one administration. Anyone who expects to be taken seriously can't, that is. I'm not saying mistakes weren't made, just that they cannot, and should not be laid solely at the foot of the President and Republicans. That is simply paranoid moonbattery of the first order.

I am not going to argue this any further, because it is pointless, and as I said before, disrespectful. So feel free to have the last word, fellas, if you must, "proving" how this is all the responsibility of George Bush. By all means, cling to this, for all the upcoming good it will do you. The majority of Americans will view it for what it is.

Moving on, to answer Marcus Cicero's question, I have already planned to join a physician group which will most likely be going to the Mississippi area. Have not received volunteer instructions. There is even some talk about going to Houston, also, and working with some local free clinics and the Red Cross there.

Our money will be going through Associated Catholic Charities, a very reliable charity.

Please give.

To Goat Guy's point, he has some fantastic ones. Several major cities have infrastructure Achille's heels that should addressed immediately. He gave several fine examples.

Uh, yeah. I pay them over $5K a year and if they didnt pay for a test that could save my life, I think I would be quite correct in being pissed.

Yes, you would, but only for them not paying. If you died because you sat around and let yourself die of colon cancer because you couldn't beg, borrow, or steal money that would save your life, well, that isn't the insurance company's fault. Way to completely miss the point. Better luck next time.

Notably, the MD Labor Day telethon will be devoting/sharing its effort with hurricane relief. Jerry Lewis, you're being a MENSCH.

Goy,
Just for clarification, when Katrina struck New Orleans it was a Cat 3 storm, (from Toronto Metro)
"But it could have been worse. Meteorologists said a cat's-paw of dry air from the Midwest was enough to push the storm slightly off course and weaken it from a 380 km/h Category 5 behemoth to a Category 3, with winds maxing out at 230 km/h"

I notice you chose not to respond to "What does Bush take responsibility for?"
As an aside, GWB and the GOP have been the major architects of corporate deregulation and Enron was GWB's major corporate supporter, with Kenny Lay often flying GWB around to corral Pioneers and Rangers. Since GWB and the GOP did plenty to weaken SEC oversight they clearly bear substantial responsibility for the Enron debacle, but evasions and denials do not suprise me.

So, Robin, I suppose you believe people like the following should just quietly die with complaining or noting how incompetent the Bush administration response has been...
Certainly, that would give some partisan advantage to the Bushies, but reality has a way of intruding on rigid belief systems, welcome or not..
"NEW ORLEANS, United States (AFP) - Survivors of Hurricane Katrina, huddled in sweltering squalor and terrorized by armed gangs, expressed outrage at the authorities' failure to stem rising chaos.
Residents trapped in this southern city three days after Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast, leaving thousands feared dead, reported nightmarish scenes of gunbattles, fistfights and people dying for simple lack of attention.
None of the victims could fathom what was taking so long to re-establish order and speed relief in one of the country's worst natural disasters which had been forecast in advance.
"This is America, I don't understand the lack of communications between the authorities and the people," Jessie said. "It's disgusting. We feel we have been forgotten."
Residents said hundreds of looters roamed the streets, including one group that used a forklift truck to break into a store. They reported a spate of carjackings and armed robberies.
But some of the National Guardsmen were unarmed. Murray, the Louisiana corrections officer had a gun tucked into her waist and a bulletproof vest but felt distinctly uneasy.
"They (the criminals) probably have more people in the street with guns than we do," said the pony-tailed Murray. "We are outgunned."
Sang Lee, 41, who was a refugee from the Indochina war 30 years ago, was stupefied to find himself in a similar setting in the United States he adopted as his home
"This is a little like Vietnam," Lee said as he stood in the heat with thousands of other people on a bridge overlooking the Superdome sports arena near the convention center. "It is bad, this place is getting really bad."
Misery and violence plagued the Superdome sports arena, which housed up to 20,000 homeless before an evacuation operation was launched.
Murray was astonished at the lack of progress in moving people out. She said people were dropping dead in the complex. One man snapped and jumped off the roof.
The Superdome was surrounded by water and unsavory looking crowds. National Guardsmen in vehicles took up positions around the stadium but conducted only limited patrols.
Murray said the rescue effort "doesn't seem real organized" and she had been on site for two days but had yet to see the crowds thin out.
"There are thousands of people standing inside the Superdome. Why has it taken four days to get inmates out? We knew this was coming," she said."

Mentioning the fact that Louisiana National Guard is at 78% of personnel with 35% of that reduced force currently in Iraq would probably be "silly" "astonishing in its ignorance and arrogance".

GWB is on his way to a well deserved historical record for low presidential public approval. My guess is that if you were waiting 4 days with no drinking water, food, or emergency services, you might do a little "second guessing" yourself!

Nobody that I am aware of argues that this should be "laid solely at the foot of the President and Republicans." Clearly, local and state government, levee boards, individual citizens, etc., all share responsibility.
However, the basic point is that before and after the storm, the Bush administration efforts have been ineffective, incompetent, and counterproductive. As with so many things, history will be a better judge than any current observor. I agree there little to be gained by discussing this more, but rest assured that many people in the US share my feelings of shame and disgust that our country is not providing a better response to this disaster.

Tom, I'm finding your comments to be completely devoid of foundation, logic or consistency.

On a positive note, Business Week has a good article Let Katrina Be A Warning about what we can do to mitigate future disasters.

Tom: Nobody that I am aware of argues that this should be "laid solely at the foot of the President and Republicans."

I guess you haven't seen the DNC blog today. You'd think that Katrina was a plot to eliminate the estate tax, which will end all civilization as we know it.

Daily Kos is even stooping to attack relief agencies like Operation Blessing. Pat Robertson is on the board of directors, so obviously any money you give to them might be used to assassinate the Kossack's favorite world leader.

At least Kuwaiti official Muhammad Yousef Al-Mlaifi is blaming Allah instead of Bush. Except that Allah is mad at Bush, so I guess he is blaming Bush.

Still, his is a relatively moderate position.

- ...when Katrina struck New Orleans it was a Cat 3 storm...

I think I'll trust the National Hurricane Center on that one:

"Katrina makes landfall as a Category 4 hurricane near Grand Isle, Louisiana and the mouth of the Mississippi River; with the storm "expected to reach the Louisiana-Mississippi border by early afternoon. ... The latest reports from the National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida indicate Katrina's maximum sustained winds are near 145 mph."

- I notice you chose not to respond to...

You chose to ignore my response, which is understandable given the weakness of your position.

- My guess is that if you were waiting 4 days with no drinking water, food, or emergency services, you might do a little "second guessing" yourself!

Heh. Yeah, I'd second-guess my stupidity at letting myself get into such a situation. Take a hint.

The way I see it, there are two issues getting all confused here.

The first is the human tragedy. I have no problems reaching out directly, or through federal intervention, to aid those in extreme need.

Where I have a real problem is with the suggestion that it is my moral responsibility to Make It Safe for people to take such chances, or my moral responsibility to fix things for them when they lose the bet.

Is the port of LA / New Orleans a critical economic asset for the country as a whole? You betcha, so I support federal funds for managing the channel through the Mississippi.

But New Orleans as a city? You know, I just don't see that it's a right to live in a dangerous place based on taxpayer dollars from elsewhere.

Now, those who love the city are more than welcome to contribute to its safety and/or rebuilding. I've been there multiple times, understand it's charm for some but found the puking-drunk-in-the-alleys culture to be less than compelling. And I've had insight into doing business with officials there and .... well let's not go there.

Care for those in need right now, especially those who were too poor to move elsewhere? Yes. Help those struck by disasters that could NOT be forseen? You bet. Do it the 2nd or 3rd or 4th time they want to rebuild in a place that gets hit by hurricanes, or to keep patching an inherently iffy infrastructure so they can live below sea level? Nope.

Lay blame on others for not making it Safe to Live Where They Wanted To? Nope, I don't buy that part one bit.

There is one fact that blurs the pretty black and white line I drew in that last comment.

It can be argued that by never demanding that New Orleans residents accept that their risky bet was their own responsibility, federal authorities and the rest of the country tacitly agreed to take that responsibility on for them.

It's not an argument I fully buy, but if I were going to buy it it would be on behalf of the very poor there, who might know the danger but be without means to move elsewhere easily.

That said, there's a difference between this argument and the one that Tom and others seem to be advancing here, which puts responsibility for making New Orleans possible and safe on the rest of us.

Well said, Robin. ( Couldn't resist )

There is another issue here which I think is of legitimate national interest and concern.

The two ports around New Orleans are critical to our economy: heavy goods shipping out from our midlands and in from suppliers, oil infrastructure etc. To the degree that those ports require a skilled workforce - which has to have a community to live in - I see a common stake we all have in building some city to replace what was lost.

Where and how to rebuild is a separate matter IMO.

Stratfor, which in a sense was created at LSU, just put out a "Geopolitical Intelligence Report" on New Orleans arguing that the city is economically indispensable in a way that I hadn't appreciated: "A simple way to think about the New Orleans port complex is that it is where the bulk commodities of agriculture go out to the world and the bulk commodities of industrialism come in. The commodity chain of the global food industry starts here, as does that of American industrialism." It's a very interesting article.

I want to add one thing from personal experience.

I had some involvement in the mass transit and emergency services arena a while back. From what I read, the New Orleans local and LA state authorities failed bigtime in their responsibility to have communications systems and emergency plans in place.

A common theme in the news accounts of the growing chaos is that police, firefighters and emergency personnel have had no comms since the storm hit. Without an effective communication system, coordinating rescue and relief services is a nightmare -- especially when you add in the difficulty of manuevering through the flooded city.

Last I was involved, the local and state governments have responsibility for purchasing, maintaining and coordinating use of that system. A good deal of money was funneled to the states and cities for that purpose, and more was done after 9/11.

A second theme in early news stories from New Orleans is that the city's emergency pumps all failed to operate except, briefly, for one. WTF??? That is key equipment, maintained by the city, whose condition and ability to function should be tested every year.

I mention this because it was failure to pump out the heavy rain fall that helped cause the levy breech. Water at the base of the levees erodes the foundation and weakens it substantially. One if not both of the breeches occurred, by reports, well before the waters of the lake rose to overtop the levees. By then it was an accelerating process which my Army engineer friends tell me is virtually impossible to halt until the water rise has leveled out - and doubly difficult where there is tidal motion to boot.

Any discussion of official fault or failure is off-base if it does not include these and several other apparent failures on the part of state and local officials to maintain and use systems that were funded in good part by the federal government precisely for such emergency use.

AND while I'm on a roll ...

My guess is that if you were waiting 4 days with no drinking water, food, or emergency services, you might do a little "second guessing" yourself

The New Orleans authorities specifically told people to bring 3-5 days' food and water with them to the Super Dome. I watched the mayor's announcement on live TV and it was spread widely throughout the day as Katrina approached up the Gulf.

I can accept that there are some too poor to have such in the way of supplies on hand. But for most, the potential need for food and water with a hurricane approaching was obvious. I wonder how many people actually did bring their supplies as directed ... and how many just assumed that someone else would take care of them?

Don't get me started on people who refused to go to the shelters and then wanted to be rescued -- at the potential risk of loss of life on the part of emergency workers -- later.

I know, it seems chary even to bring it up. And yes we should try to save the lives of these people wherever possible. But you know, at some point it really is appropriate to remind people that they are adults who can take responsibility for their choices. I saw way too many people bragging before the storm hit about how they weren't going to leave their homes despite official requests to get to where they COULD be cared for more easily.

#32 Yes it is a flood plain.

#45 The number of places in the US where you don´t have to fear Eartquakes, hurricans, blizzards, floods or other natural disasters are a bit numbered and New Orleans isn´t California so the people there are not completely out of their mind

I'll have to defend the folks I lived with and knew.

The really, really poor and paycheck to paycheck folks white or black had very little and were reluctant to leave it to looters. Same in Mississippi and New Orleans. I understand that. I also understand the total, grinding poverty that afflicts the really, really poor. They had no transportation and it was the City's duty to take care of them. THAT is why we have government, to take care of the poorest and more helpless.

They are without blame. The African American working class folks who took their boats out to rescue people? The word you are looking for is heroes.

The Levees? THE SAME DISCUSSION took place in 1995, and nothing was done. Just like in prior to 9/11, there was no political will and courage to take costly steps to do things that were unpopular. Fixing the Levees to withstand a Cat 4-5 would cost just too much money. Too much political capital that could be used for $200 million on the Canal Street streetcar system.

a: New Orleans isn´t California so the people there are not completely out of their mind

Hey, "a" made a joke. A witticism, almost. Not much of a joke, but I enjoyed it.

Hopefully this is not a sign that The End is Near.

Deus ex machina.

After tremendous effort and unflagging hope in the face of crushing disappointment, Katrina and her aftermath may finally prove the means by which Bush, Rove, their neo-con minions and the GOP are levered out of power.

Deus ex machina? Allah? Answered prayers?

Whatever. Make the best of it, boys and girls. Give it your very best shot. You may not get a chance as good as this one.

And just in case anyone is interested, the main failure of the levee as in a recently upgraded part of the levee.

So much for the anklebiting, I suppose.

Barry - it should be:

"Katrina and her aftermath may finally prove the goddess-delivered means by which BushMcChimpyHitlerDespotTheocrat, Darth Rove, their eeeevil neo-con minions and the racist, fascist, misogynist GOP are levered out of the power they stole."

Proper form is important, after all, and appropriate standards must be maintained even in the face of disaster.

So, Barry, you're advising the boys and girls to turn this event into a political pogrom?

Why not head down to the nearest aid collection station and lend a hand loading trucks instead. From experience, I can tell you that you'll feel a lot better about yourself in the morning.

Robin (and Robin ;-), excellent points all. Nagin's "french" outrage reported via AP, and others' carping about the federal response completely ignores the fact that New Orleans and surrounding areas had no effective disaster plan whatsoever. My wife and I were discussing this topic at breakfast. We have disaster drills of one form or another here almost every year - for what natural disaster I have no idea, since New England's worst natural threat is a devastating blizzard or a really left-field hurricane. The point being that a community that knowingly continues active development below sea-level, and which is fully aware of the insufficiencies in their levee system ought to at least have been preparing for something like this on a semi-annual basis. That lack of local government preparedness - not a "slow" federal response (is there any other kind??) - has been the cause of the worst of the aftermath.

To Nagin's empassioned "They don't have a clue what's going on down there," I would respond, "That's because YOU as MAYOR did not take responsibility for ensuring that anyone outside the region COULD know what's going on down there in the event of the worst-case scenario."

I think Barry is being a bit tongue-in-cheek here, goy.

Very fine points on the rest of it.

"WASHINGTON - President Bush, facing blistering criticism for his administration's response to Hurricane Katrina, said Friday "the results are not acceptable" and pledged to bolster relief efforts with a personal trip to the Gulf Coast.
For the first time, however, he stopped defending his administration's response and criticized it. "A lot of people are working hard to help those who've been affected. The results are not acceptable," he said. "I'm heading down there right now."

Just curious if this changes the conservative party line? Now that the Commander-In-Chief has called the the results not acceptable, is it OK to criticize, or is it still "silly, ignorant, and arrogant" for anyone other than the POTUS to notice things amiss, and must all good citizens still accept incompetence without "second-guessing"?

Guess it is time for us ankle-biters and goddess-worshippers to chime in with a chorus.
Why Katrina Is Likely To Be A Disaster For Bush Too

From the History New Network
"But on top of that, there is mounting evidence, both circumstantial and real, that this disaster can be laid at the doorstep of the Bush White House. A feeling hangs heavy in the air – like the quiet before a hurricane – that the catastrophe symbolizes a presidency profoundly out of touch with reality. It’s not just the basic fact, visible on all TV screens, that the victims of this tragedy are poor and black – the precise demographic that has fared the worst under George W. Bush, ever since its votes were undercounted in Florida. Or that President Bush was on one of his long vacations when the storm hit. Or that he did nothing the first full day of the tragedy.
It is more than that. The information is still coming in haphazardly, but it is becoming clear that New Orleans was the victim of extraordinary mismanagement by an administration more concerned about war in Iraq than desolation in Louisiana. A powerful Salon piece by Sidney Blumenthal, filed yesterday at 5 pm, lays out the case in black and white. The city’s flood control funding had been reduced by 44% since 2001. Weakening wetlands protections to favor developers also made the city far more vulnerable. Congress left town before dealing with any of New Orleans’s problems, even though a hurricane in Louisiana had been declared one of the three most significant possible disasters in 2001. The now submerged New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that “serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation.”
The Salon piece doesn’t even go into a question that also seems to be on people’s minds – why has the federal government been so slow and ineffectual in its response? An obvious thought is that the National Guard and Army – exactly whom you would expect to save people and maintain order – are too busy in Iraq. The president’s close friend, Joseph M. Allbaugh (former head of FEMA) frantically denied that in this morning’s Times, and insisted that everything was fine – before his cell phone seemed to stop working. It was unclear whether it cut out or was wrested away by a machete-wielding looter. In fact, more than 60% of the Louisiana Guard are available, as Allbaugh argued. But that means that roughly 40% are unavailable.
It is unfair to blame any president for all of the problems on his watch, especially those that come out of the sky with very little warning. But the dark new landscapes coming into focus – long gas lines, soaring heating bills, and plenty of hurricanes to come – do not bode well for President Bush.
There are so many articles to read about New Orleans that it is disorienting, but one stayed with me, posted on the Times’ website at 6:51 yesterday. It described President Bush’s eerie journey on Air Force One from Crawford to Washington, while swooping over the devastation at very low altitude, like a gigantic sea gull. The article began with a nervous non sequitur – as if anyone had even asked the question – stating that Bush’s long stay in Crawford had been a “working vacation.” An obvious quote followed from his press secretary, Scott McLellan: “It’s devastating. It’s got to be doubly devastating on the ground.” Twice as devastating as what? The cabin of Air Force One? Then it continued with McClellan’s grandiloquent announcement that the federal government, after a day and a half of dithering, had determined this to be an “incident of national significance.” One wonders what the thousands of people stranded without homes and loved ones thought as they saw the enormous presidential aircraft flying in circles, just over their heads, before accelerating away from the unpleasant view. Their voices, as usual, were silent."

Tom,
This is the first time that you've critizied the relief efforts. All your previous criticisms were post hoc efforts to assign blame for poor disaster preparations or for the disaster itself.

Perhaps you'd get a better reception if you made a fair case instead of just looking for whatever shit you can find that will stick to bush. This last comment is a prime example of looking for more shit when the previous shit wasn't stinking or sticky enough.

Oops Tom, I see with #60 you're back to your point of Bush being a first cause for the disaster.

The thing is Tom you are not pro porr people, or pro huricane protection, or pro anything, you are just anti-Bush, a perfect example of Bush Derangement Symdrome.

"#19, How the hell can the failure be "equally shared between parties" when the GOP controls Congress and the Presidency? "

Clinton refused to fund various flood-control proposals in the 90s. And NOLA has been facing these disasters for 100 years. And all the levees do is help the river run higher and faster and cause the land to sink more since the sediment is now running out to sea instead of being deposited in the delta. Etc etc. Read "The Control of Nature" by John McPhee. Also this.

I wonder if Tom reserves the same outrage for President Clinton, who thinks that it was handled properly. Just curious if this changes the view through the pathetic lens of Bush hatred. I supect not:

MALVEAUX: Let me ask you this: There are some people at the New Orleans Convention Center who say that they have been living like animals -- no food, no water, no power. And they are the ones who are saying: Where are the buses? Where are the planes? Why did it take three days to see a real federal response here? Mr. Bush, you, whether it's fair or not, had gone through some administration criticism about your handling of Hurricane Andrew. G.H.W. BUSH: I sure did.

MALVEAUX: Do you believe that this is legitimate?

G.H.W. BUSH: Yes, I do. What happened? We all sighed with -- not legitimate. I believe that they ought not to be as upset, but I can understand why they are. We thought, a lot of people thought, that when the hurricane went to the right a little bit, New Orleans was going to be spared. And it was only the next day that, you know, there were these horrible problems with the levee. But, look, if I were sitting there with no shower, no ability to use bathroom facilities, worried about my family, not knowing where they were, I'd blame anybody and so you have to expect that.

MALVEAUX: But do you think this administration responded quickly enough?

G.H.W. BUSH: Of course I do.

CLINTON: Let me answer this. The people in the Superdome are in a special position. And let me say, I've been going to New Orleans for over 50 years. There's no place on earth I love more. They went into the Superdome, not because of the flooding, but because we thought the hurricane was going to hit New Orleans smack dab and they'd be safe in there if they didn't leave town.

What happened was, when the levee broke and the town flooded, what did it do? It knocked out the electricity and it knocked out the sewage. They're living in hellacious conditions. They would be better off under a tree than being stuck there. You can't even breathe in that place now.

So I understand why they're so anxiety-ridden. But they have to understand, by the time it became obvious that they were in the fix they were in, there were a lot of other problems, too. There were people -- they were worried about people drowning that had to be taken off roofs.

MALVEAUX: So you two believe that the federal response was fast enough?

CLINTON: All I'm saying is what I know the facts are today. There are hundreds of buses now engaged in the act of taking people from New Orleans to the Astrodome in Houston. And you and I are not in a position to make any judgment because we weren't there.

All I'm saying is the way they got stuck there, I see why they feel the way they do. But the people that put them there did it because they thought they were saving their lives. And then when the problems showed up, they had a lot of other people to save. Now they've got hundreds of buses. We just need to get them out. I think they'll all be out by tomorrow. Didn't they say they would all be out by tomorrow morning?

G.H.W. BUSH: Yes.

MALVEAUX: OK. Well, thank you very much. I'm sorry. We've run out of time. Thank you.

G.H.W. BUSH: Let me -- I just to want finish. I believe the administration is doing the right thing, and I believe they have acted in a timely fashion. And I understand people being critical. That happens all the time. And I understand some people wanted to make, you know, a little difficulty by criticizing the president and the team. But I don't want to sit here and not defend the administration which, in my view, has taken all the right steps. And they're facing problems that nobody could foresee: breaking of the levees and the whole dome thing over in New Orleans coming apart. People couldn't foresee that.

CLINTON: Yes, I think that's important to point out. Because when you say that they should have done this, that or the other thing first, you can look at that problem in isolation, and you can say that.

But look at all the other things they had to deal with. I'm telling you, nobody thought this was going to happen like this. But what happened here is they escaped -- New Orleans escaped Katrina. But it brought all the water up the Mississippi River and all in the Pontchartrain, and then when it started running and that levee broke, they had problems they never could have foreseen.

And so I just think that we need to recognize right now there's a confident effort under way. People are doing the best they can. And I just don't think it's the time to worry about that. We need to keep people alive and get them back to life -- normal life.

Responding one at a time,
#62, Along with many other observers, I am arguing the Bush and the GOP, both underfunded flood protection (extremely well documented, I can give you 10 links or you can google 100) and that the Bush administration disaster response has been miserably ineffective and incompetent (even Bush himself has called the response "unacceptable). This is a case of AND rather than some un-necessary Exclusive Or.
As a avowed liberal supporter of effective "Big Government" I am certainly in favor of wise investment in public infrastructure and public services, especially including emergency services. I am also in favor of fully funding that government through progressive taxation, rather than through budget hoaxes, deficit spending, and burdening our children.
But, I am certainly anti-Bush, along with a majority of the US population (according to latest polls). If you qualify honest political disagreement as "derangement", then I must question your commitment to democracy which only functions with effective opposition.
#63
Sure, blame must be shared between parties, but NOT equally, given that a GOP controlled congress has cut flood protection for NO 44% since 2001, and also removed protection for wetlands and barrier islands which could have served to absorb the storm surge.
#64
I disagree with Clinton on this issue and believe history will prove him wrong. As a free-thinking Democrat I am not obliged to march in lock-step obedience to the party line of my party leaders, unlike some of the DittoHeads around me.

Guess it is time for us ankle-biters and goddess-worshippers to chime in with a chorus.

Yes, goodness, because you have been so conspicuously silent up to this point.

But, I am certainly anti-Bush, along with a majority of the US population (according to latest polls).

(Rolls eyes) Look Tom, this may come as a shock to you, but the only poll that mattered was the one in Nov, 2004. I know this upsets you, but you're simply going to have to get on with your life.

If you qualify honest political disagreement as "derangement", then I must question your commitment to democracy which only functions with effective opposition.

This is not honest political disagreement, Tom, its a partisan attempt to politicize the worst disaster in American history, and its sickening. And please look up the definition of "effective". And it is you, sir, whom are the dogmatic one here. No one said that you can't disagree with President, but who is the first person to claim that "everyone marches in lockstep" who fails to criticize him, including St. Clinton? (Hint- it wasn't a conservative)

And I suppose that its too much to ask to have anyone read anything, Tom. The part of the levee that failed had just been upgraded---as reported in the New York Times. I suppose that was Bush's fault. And then you have the audacity to argue that no one is laying this at the feet of the President after I linked at least one place and Cicero quoted Andrew Sullivan, that did.

There is simply no common ground with you and your type. I have not a doubt that had Bush acted earlier, you would have accused him of doing it for political gain. If you could present a coherent argument and remove some of the pedantic hyperbole, you might be a little more believable. But we all know that not a sparrow falls from the sky nor does the wind blow in your world but for a fiendish Bush conspiracy or Rovian plot.

Nurse the rage, Tom, its going to need to last you three and a half more years.

Johnny,
The next poll that matters comes in November 2006. I do not feel much need to "nurse the rage", because Bush and GOP actions make me angry on a far too regular basis. If you can watch the current events in New Orleans without some flicker of emotion, then probably we do not have much common ground.
I do not think that a "coherent arguement" exists that would diminish the blind support for GWB that diehards on WOC seem to feel. At some level, I must find that impossible effort entertaining, perhaps because I enjoy seeing the intellectual contortions of his defenders.
As far as the levee failure, a previous commenter noted that pump failure directly contributed to levee failure. One of the necessary expenditures that the GOP defunded was pump protection (from the Progressive,
"Published on Friday, September 2, 2005 by The Progressive
It’s not like there wasn’t any warning. The New Orleans project manager for the Army Corps of Engineers, Alfred Naomi, had warned for years of the need to shore up the levees, but the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress kept cutting back on the funding.
The most recent cutback was a $71.2 million reduction for the New Orleans district in fiscal year 2006. “I’ve never seen this level of reduction,” Naomi told the New Orleans CityBusiness paper on June 6. His district had “identified $35 million in projects to build and improve levees, floodwalls, and pumping stations,” the paper said. But with the cuts, “Naomi said it’s enough to pay salaries but little else.”

Krugman (of course) has a great column NO at
A Can't Do Government
some quotes,
"There will and should be many questions about the response of state and local governments; in particular, couldn't they have done more to help the poor and sick escape? But the evidence points, above all, to a stunning lack of both preparation and urgency in the federal government's response.
Even military resources in the right place weren't ordered into action. "On Wednesday," said an editorial in The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss., "reporters listening to horrific stories of death and survival at the Biloxi Junior High School shelter looked north across Irish Hill Road and saw Air Force personnel playing basketball and performing calisthenics. Playing basketball and performing calisthenics!"
"Third question: Did the Bush administration destroy FEMA's effectiveness? The administration has, by all accounts, treated the emergency management agency like an unwanted stepchild, leading to a mass exodus of experienced professionals.
Last year James Lee Witt, who won bipartisan praise for his leadership of the agency during the Clinton years, said at a Congressional hearing: "I am extremely concerned that the ability of our nation to prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded. I hear from emergency managers, local and state leaders, and first responders nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and worked well with has now disappeared."
I don't think this is a simple tale of incompetence. The reason the military wasn't rushed in to help along the Gulf Coast is, I believe, the same reason nothing was done to stop looting after the fall of Baghdad. Flood control was neglected for the same reason our troops in Iraq didn't get adequate armor.
At a fundamental level, I'd argue, our current leaders just aren't serious about some of the essential functions of government. They like waging war, but they don't like providing security, rescuing those in need or spending on preventive measures. And they never, ever ask for shared sacrifice.
Yesterday Mr. Bush made an utterly fantastic claim: that nobody expected the breach of the levees. In fact, there had been repeated warnings about exactly that risk.
So America, once famous for its can-do attitude, now has a can't-do government that makes excuses instead of doing its job. And while it makes those excuses, Americans are dying. "

Again, obfuscation and meritless accusations. Tom, 2006 holds for you the same thing 2000, 200, and 2004 held for you. Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem, Tom; I have already stated my intentions and my citation of charities. Which one one us has displayed "not a flicker of emotion", hmm? Maybe I missed it in your rush to blame Bush for this. I have posted now three times that I think there is federal resposibility for this, but that's not good enough for you, is it, Tom? Nope, has to be Bush's fault...somehow. Yeah...ummm.good luck with that. That attitude has worked so well for your party up to this point.

But this isn't a contest as you seem to be making it. Once again I find myself saying that federal money or no, the people directly affected in the Louisiana and New Orleans did not prioritize what was necessary. They have known that they were at risk for over 50 years. That, apparently, is Bush's fault, as well. And pumps are local and state responsibility. So you're telling me the city of New orleans had NO money? Of course they did, Tom, they just spent it on something else. So whose fault is that? Bush's, I suppose? Whose fault is it that funds were not realloctaed from something less important to cover pump function? Funny point, that. I notice that you just kind of skipped right over that. Surprise, surprise.

So by all means, continue to embarrass yourself by cutting and pasting the talking points from rabidly partisan hacks like Krugman, Blumenthal, Dowd, etc; the rest of will be grabbing buckets. Feel free to lend a hand.

You know, citing Paul Krugman isn't exactly a good way to build credibility. I'd take him apart myself, but others have done a fine job. He's right about the breaches being expected, though. And about the blind spot re: shared sacrifice.

He has no clue about the military, though, and never has. It will take a little while for us to really understand what was and wasn't ordered, and when, etc. But you really have to be in a command center and see the whole picture to make sound judgments at this stage, and Krugman has zero clue re: what's involved even on a working knowledge level. If he turns out to be right, it will be 100% by accident.

It's worth recalling that the military response is not even underway in full yet. I'm following it as part of my DID stuff, and across all the services, they're generally just finishing the survey and assess stage (itself indirectly a comment on the state government's competence, but I wouldn't read more than is justified into it because much of that surveying has involved military bases in the area) and restoring the local bases (which they'll need for any sustained effort) to working order. Meanwhile, there are some troops in the area and the Navy and Coast Guard work pulling people out of there goes on, as it has for a couple days.

The next week or so will tell.

Krugman also has no clue re: the why things happen dept., fgrom body armor on down. If you want to see what an informed "why" opinion on Katrina looks like, Belmont Club's Imperfect Storm series is excellent in its explanation of the problem's predictability + complete disunity on solutions, what needed to be done to fix them, and (Most neglected and deadly lack: would you believe zoning? A liberal issue, at that), and more.

You might also want to think about the environmentalists who blocked efforts to upgrade the levees. Looking at what is now the country's largest superfund site, I wonder how they like the environment now?

Pundita, meanwhile, levels a truly devastating critique of the state giovernment for their criminal neglect of things that were well within their power.

There seems to be more than enough blame here to go around, if that's what you're looking for, and many justified targets for rage. Not that it's productive in these circumstances, but it is justified. One wonders, in light of that, why your rage remains exclusively confined to George W. Bush?

Well OK, we don't wonder. But it doesn't make you credible, and it doesn't suggest that any of that rage is actually motivated by the situation on the ground.

And if you're not really motivated by the situation on the ground anyway, why should we be motivated by anythng you ahve to say?

Enjoy your rage. You and Krugman can savour it like a fine vintage at lunch together some time. But it does zero to solve the real problems - in the immediate term, or in the future.

I clearly acknowledge that state, local, and city governments also have responsibility for the ongoing debacle, as do individual citizens who contribute to anarchy and chaos by lawlessness and inaction. I certainly do not contend that Bush and the GOP have sole responsibility, but that they do bear primary responsibility both for failure to prevent/prepare and for ineffective response.
Our contributions are going to the American Red Cross.
I simply feel we have an obligation to treat the disease, in addition to the symptoms. In my opinion, the disease is degradation of public services and infrastructure under a government administration with an ideology that is rabidly anti-government. Attempting to operate the national government while maintaining an inflexible "anti Big Government" belief system is, not suprisingly, counterproductive.
Maybe 2006 will be just as bad for me (and for the United States) as 2000 and 2004 were. Countries have spiraled into disaster many times before in history, but that does not relieve citizens of the obligation to work for the best possible outcome. I believe we can and should do better.

Reading the international press, the world is aghast at the ongoing anarchy. Some quotes from Reuters (Al-Reuters to you, I guess).
"The pictures of the catastrophe -- which has killed hundreds and possibly thousands -- have evoked memories of crises in the world's poorest nations such as last year's tsunami in Asia, which left more than 230,000 people dead or missing.
But some view the response to those disasters more favorably than the lawless aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
"I am absolutely disgusted. After the tsunami our people, even the ones who lost everything, wanted to help the others who were suffering," Sajeewa Chinthaka, 36, as he watched a cricket match in Colombo, Sri Lanka.
"Not a single tourist caught in the tsunami was mugged. Now with all this happening in the U.S. we can easily see where the civilized part of the world's population is."
"Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn, in a veiled criticism of U.S. political thought, said the disaster showed the need for a strong state that could help poor people.
"You see in this example that even in the 21st century you need the state, a good functioning state, and I hope that for all these people, these poor people, that the Americans will do their best," he told reporters at a European Union meeting in Newport, Wales."

Tom,
Is this really about being internationally embarassed?

"Tom,
Is this really about being internationally embarassed?"

Of course not, but the Katrina disaster response should be looked at in historical context. Personally, I am saddened and disgusted by the whole event.

And yes, I disliked and disagreed with GWB long before Katrina, but his response epitomizes his detachment and incompetence for me and many others.

And no, this disaster is not all about Bush and the GOP. The failure of community and reversion to thuggery and anarchy are disturbing to any observor, not least for what they reveal about US society. Along those lines Nasty, Brutish -- Society's Net Snaps
from the Canadian viewpoint.
"At one point yesterday, as a helicopter-mounted camera showed a teeming swell of furious, gun-toting Louisiana residents mobbing a busload of supplies, a stunned British TV anchor spoke his mind on the air: "I'm having trouble believing that we're watching the continental United States of America. I mean, it looks like Rwanda."
A complete societal breakdown: Nobody expected that from hurricane Katrina, but that is what seems to have engulfed the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The threads that hold society together have unravelled, leaving destruction, looting, violence and desperation.
Americans, who rely on faith and fortune for so many of their most successful endeavours, are beginning to ask how those qualities have failed them so badly. Why is it that in some places struck by catastrophes of similar magnitude, entire societies pull together in enriching acts of mutual assistance, while other societies collapse into self-annihilation?
"Philosophers like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes tried to imagine what a 'state of nature' looked like -- we're now seeing it inside the United States and it's really brutal," says Alan Wolfe, a political scientist at Boston University who has written widely on the fragile foundations of U.S. society. "We're going to have to ask: 'How did we allow this to happen?"

Tom, I suspect A.L. is going to pick up your infrastructure point again rather soon. It's one he's been harping on for a while now, and I think he's on to something.

Tom,
I'd like to rachet down the tone a little. It's obvious your are a sincere person. Go look at your first post on this thread and think about it. Does it look like a rational post designed to change someones mind or just something aimed only to lash out?

I understand that you think Bush is evil and incompetent, yada, yada, yada. Know turn this around and think about it. You are acting the same why as the rightwingers did about Clinton!

Never being a winger, it's apparent to me that Bush Derangement Syndrome and Clinton Derangement Syndrome are conditions that present with the same symptoms, e.g. irrational dislike, over the top rhetoric, demomiztionb of those not suffereing from the syndrome's effects, etc.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

The thing is you do suffer from it. You took this disaster and went straight to blaming Bush. And then you accused anyone that disagreed with your assessment of being Bush bootlickers.

Yeah, Like I really wanted to understand your POV after that. I voted for Gore ya know! Unfortunately, he seems to have become infected by the BDS contagion since then. Alas.

P.S. Can you add somemore whitespace to your comments? It aids readibility considerably

IRT #56 from Joe Katzman

Mr. Katzman,
Kindly keep your religious aspersions to yourself. And yes, it was an aspersion to lump my religion in with moonbat bullshite from the "racist, fascist, misogynist" totalitarian Left.

Not that Bush hasn't made some incredibly bone-headed moves. A major one, allowing his new DHS head to take FEMA out of disaster relief and not reassign that function to anyone else. Although blaming the President for acts of Congress (removing funding, etc.) is equally bone-headed and utterly ignorant.

The state and local government could have done a lot to mitigate the shortfall from the Feds. Seems people have forgotten that "federal" means a division of labor at different levels of government, and not a top-down hierarchy that should remain utterly holy and inviolate.

Unfortunately, I can't say I'm surprised that New Orleans chose to spend its money on cable cars instead of levees. Blowing the budget on prettification projects and letting the infrastructure rot waiting for someone else to cough up the money for it seems endemic to city governments.

Seems I wasn't as clear as I had thought. Apologies.

To paraphrase Ecclesiastes, there's a time to criticize and a time to just shut up and do one's best to ease a catastrophic situation.

And this is not the time to criticize. No matter what one's views are.

It's a matter of common decency, no matter what one's views are, once again.

But then, like most things these days, it seems, there's precious little agreement on what constitutes common decency.

And for those eager to find fault, chomping frenziedly at the bit, there will be ample time for that.

Just try to make sure you don't overplay your hand.