FEMA specifically warned White House about Katrina

[Thump553]

This is an ancient topic to most people's attention spans, but recent disclosures reveal alarming (to me, at least) defects in the present implementation of the new Homeland Security Department and the White House. According to documents just released as part of a Senate investigation, it was revealed that FEMA sent a 41 page report to both the Homeland Security Department and to the White House situation room specifically warning of the damage Katrina would ultimately do. This specific report was sent five hours before Katrina made landfall on the Gulf Coast and followed up earlier warnings.

What was the response? Bush's comments on TV three days later are telling: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Exactly how many wakeup calls does this administration need? What good is the new Homeland Security Department actually doing?

The full article is here:

FEMA Warned White House of Katrina dangers

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Thump553
What was the response? Bush's comments on TV three days later are telling: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Unless I missed it, this article doesn't mention the breaching of the levees, which is a far more dangerous situation than the storm surge going over the levees.

 

[daveshel]

Here we go again...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Here we go again...

Yep, desperate liberals desperately grasping at straws.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Thump553
What was the response? Bush's comments on TV three days later are telling: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Unless I missed it, this article doesn't mention the breaching of the levees, which is a far more dangerous situation than the storm surge going over the levees.

You suck at reading.

"The potential for severe storm surge to overwhelm Lake Pontchartrain levees is the greatest concern for New Orleans," the report said. The key 17th Street levee was breached late on the morning of Aug. 29.

The FEMA report had seen such a possibility. Any storm rated Category 4 or higher "will likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching," the report warned.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Thump553
What was the response? Bush's comments on TV three days later are telling: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Unless I missed it, this article doesn't mention the breaching of the levees, which is a far more dangerous situation than the storm surge going over the levees.

You suck at reading.

And you suck at tact. But what can you expect, right? If in doubt, go with personal insults. I don't think anyone saw *that* as a possibility. :roll:

 

[zephyrprime]

The whole concept of competence is as foreign to Bush as women's lib is to Al Qaida. Personally, I blame the people who elected Bush for screw ups like this. What do people expect to get when they elect a guy with such a long history of failure?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Thump553
What was the response? Bush's comments on TV three days later are telling: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Unless I missed it, this article doesn't mention the breaching of the levees, which is a far more dangerous situation than the storm surge going over the levees.

You suck at reading.

And you suck at tact. But what can you expect, right? If in doubt, go with personal insults. I don't think anyone saw *that* as a possibility. :roll:

Just pointing out the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS from the article.

No comment now on the article that you showed your ignorance to all?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Thump553
What was the response? Bush's comments on TV three days later are telling: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Unless I missed it, this article doesn't mention the breaching of the levees, which is a far more dangerous situation than the storm surge going over the levees.

You suck at reading.

And you suck at tact. But what can you expect, right? If in doubt, go with personal insults. I don't think anyone saw *that* as a possibility. :roll:

Just pointing out the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS from the article.

No comment now on the article that you showed your ignorance to all?

Perhaps you suck at reading, too:

Unless I missed it, this article doesn't mention the breaching of the levees

You know what, I *did* miss it. I'd much rather slip up, and, as you say, "show my ignorance" than do it intentionally by frothing at the mouth over conspiracy theories and absolute lies spoonfed to me daily by my handlers and talking point memos.

I realize I'm not infallible, apparently you haven't. Good luck getting through life with that undeserved massive ego of yours, kiddo.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Thump553
What was the response? Bush's comments on TV three days later are telling: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Unless I missed it, this article doesn't mention the breaching of the levees, which is a far more dangerous situation than the storm surge going over the levees.

You suck at reading.

And you suck at tact. But what can you expect, right? If in doubt, go with personal insults. I don't think anyone saw *that* as a possibility. :roll:

That wasn't very tactful:

My Dear Mr. Conjur, regarding your point it FuzzyBee I wish to point out that he himself admitted that he may have missed the data he was suggesting wasn't there and thereby admitted, as it were, that his reading skill may suck, and it was therefore, in my opinion, 'pilling on' to specify with a pejorative like 'suck' as much. You could have, in my humble opinion, therefore, simply have pointed out to him the words he missed and allowed us to determine if that was simply an oversight based on his reading skill or some other factor. In fact, if one's reading skills really sucked one might even imagine a mind that absorbed the written word like a vacuum cleaner in which case your facility at tactlessness also sucks.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Thump553
What was the response? Bush's comments on TV three days later are telling: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Unless I missed it, this article doesn't mention the breaching of the levees, which is a far more dangerous situation than the storm surge going over the levees.

You suck at reading.

And you suck at tact. But what can you expect, right? If in doubt, go with personal insults. I don't think anyone saw *that* as a possibility. :roll:

Just pointing out the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS from the article.

No comment now on the article that you showed your ignorance to all?

Perhaps you suck at reading, too:

Unless I missed it, this article doesn't mention the breaching of the levees

You know what, I *did* miss it. I'd much rather slip up, and, as you say, "show my ignorance" than do it intentionally by frothing at the mouth over conspiracy theories and absolute lies spoonfed to me daily by my handlers and talking point memos.

I realize I'm not infallible, apparently you haven't. Good luck getting through life with that undeserved massive ego of yours, kiddo.

What happened to tack?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Thump553
What was the response? Bush's comments on TV three days later are telling: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Unless I missed it, this article doesn't mention the breaching of the levees, which is a far more dangerous situation than the storm surge going over the levees.

You suck at reading.

And you suck at tact. But what can you expect, right? If in doubt, go with personal insults. I don't think anyone saw *that* as a possibility. :roll:

Just pointing out the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS from the article.

No comment now on the article that you showed your ignorance to all?

Perhaps you suck at reading, too:

Unless I missed it, this article doesn't mention the breaching of the levees

You know what, I *did* miss it. I'd much rather slip up, and, as you say, "show my ignorance" than do it intentionally by frothing at the mouth over conspiracy theories and absolute lies spoonfed to me daily by my handlers and talking point memos.

I realize I'm not infallible, apparently you haven't. Good luck getting through life with that undeserved massive ego of yours, kiddo.

Then all you had to do was, oh, I don't know, READ the article?

:roll:


As for the rest of your non-sensical rant:

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Thump553
What was the response? Bush's comments on TV three days later are telling: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Unless I missed it, this article doesn't mention the breaching of the levees, which is a far more dangerous situation than the storm surge going over the levees.

You suck at reading.

And you suck at tact. But what can you expect, right? If in doubt, go with personal insults. I don't think anyone saw *that* as a possibility. :roll:

Just pointing out the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS from the article.

No comment now on the article that you showed your ignorance to all?

Perhaps you suck at reading, too:

Unless I missed it, this article doesn't mention the breaching of the levees

You know what, I *did* miss it. I'd much rather slip up, and, as you say, "show my ignorance" than do it intentionally by frothing at the mouth over conspiracy theories and absolute lies spoonfed to me daily by my handlers and talking point memos.

I realize I'm not infallible, apparently you haven't. Good luck getting through life with that undeserved massive ego of yours, kiddo.

What happened to tack?

Unfortunately, a frothing rant is at Conjur's level. Just trying to stoop to his level so he'll comprehend.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Can we get back to the original topic? Yeah, Conjur displayed a little tactlessness in his response. It doesn't require 38 replies to see that. Fuzzy, please accept my humblest apologies for Conjur not reading when you stated that you "may have missed it".

Now, back on topic.

Either Bush was lying when he said that

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

or he has underlings that are completely incompetent (that he hired/appointed) or he has everyone afraid to tell him anything negative.

Regardless, I don't think that there was anything that he could have done to prevent the levee breaches. That is a moot point. Where he slipped us is not having response crews ready and waiting. That wasn't his direct responsibility per se, but it still falls in his lap for putting lackeys in positions that they have no right to be in.


Edit: grammatical error

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
not having response crews ready and waiting

This is where I disagree. In fact, from this same article:

FEMA had a strong network of resources in place all around the Gulf area, he said, but did not have many people on the ground because the agency keeps relief workers out of harm's way while a storm is in progress.

And, Bahamonde said, FEMA alone should not be targeted for any lagging response. "We certainly relied on local and state officials to do what they are supposed to do," he said. "And as one piece of the effort failed, the other pieces tended to fail."

I honestly believe that FEMA thought that the local and state authorities would at least tread water (no pun intended) until FEMA's effect kicked in. There were failures across the board - not just at the federal level, but, for some reason, people are willing to excuse the local/state municipalities.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I agree that everyone from Bush to Nagin dropped the ball on this one. Bush isn't the only one that deserves criticism on this one. But to think or act like he should be absolved from any/all criticism like some on this board have suggested/implied is completely ludicrious.

 

[DealMonkey]

Kill 'em with facts I always say:

Fact: The preparedness exercise that began in July 2004, dubbed Hurricane Pam, warned that a Category 3 storm would overwhelm the New Orleans area with flood waters, killing up to 60,000 people and destroying buildings and roads.

A month before Katrina hit, state and federal officials working on the Pam exercise estimated that government plans to evacuate people from New Orleans were only 10 percent complete.

Fact: In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war.

Fact: Lieberman also accused the White House of trying to stall a Senate investigation into the government's response to Katrina by failing to produce requested documents and prohibiting federal officials from answering questions. The inquiry is scheduled to be completed in March. "This assertion of a kind of virtual immunity of the White House from this inquiry has obviously frustrated our committee's ability to learn and tell the full story of Katrina," Lieberman said. "In my opinion, it is unacceptable."

Summary: Administration warned YEARS ahead of time. Recent "Pam" exercise in 2004 predicted very accurately the level of damage from a Cat3 or higher storm. What does Bush do? Cut flood control funding for NO nearly in 1/2. Well played sir, well played. And the icing on the cake? The administration tries to stall the investigation by not cooperating. Well played, indeed.

 

[DealMonkey]

nm

 

[Lemon law]

Anytime something goes wrong people come out of the woodwork saying their was ample warning. This is especially true of
911-----what is not considered is what if we assumed the worst case everytime-----every right and liberty would be taken away from us------you might do this that or the otherthing.------stop them before its too late------toss everyone in jail.

In the case of Katrina-----you have to fault the responce once the worst case senario became a reality-----and when the bureaucrats then respond with less than full force you know you are dealing with incompetents.---with Chertoff really most to blame.

But Katrina was a 100 year storm----rare but deadly---but in the new cause celeb----mine safety-----you do have to realise both Bush and the US congress dropped the ball on mine safety-----we had a long record of worst case senarios----but the regs were gutted and mine safety got funding cuts. Hardly requires a crystal ball to predict miners will soon be paying with their lives.

But these warning warning warning----don't go outdoors you might get struck by a meterorite stuff is a little thin. No such thing as perfect safety.------------but no matter what bad happens there is someone who warned you it might happen.

 

[Starbuck1975]

This specific report was sent five hours before Katrina made landfall on the Gulf Coast and followed up earlier warnings.

Five hours is hardly enough time to mobilize much of anything, and Governor Blanco was the only person who had the authority and jurisdiction to request federal aid in preparation for Katrina.

I remember a week before Katrina made landfall that one of the news networks ran a computer simulation of what would happen if a levee failed...I remember thinking how horrible it would be if something like that happened, and sure enough it did...New Orleans actually weathered Katrina fairly well...it was the levee failure that caused the most damage.

Short of reinforcing the levees prior to landfall, there was nothing much anyone could have done to prevent the Katrina catastrophe on such short notice...in terms of the response, that failure STARTS at Mayor Nagin, goes through Governor Blanco, and finally lands on FEMA...not vice versa.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Anytime something goes wrong people come out of the woodwork saying their was ample warning. This is especially true of
911-----what is not considered is what if we assumed the worst case everytime-----every right and liberty would be taken away from us------you might do this that or the otherthing.------stop them before its too late------toss everyone in jail.

In the case of Katrina-----you have to fault the responce once the worst case senario became a reality-----and when the bureaucrats then respond with less than full force you know you are dealing with incompetents.---with Chertoff really most to blame.

But Katrina was a 100 year storm----rare but deadly---but in the new cause celeb----mine safety-----you do have to realise both Bush and the US congress dropped the ball on mine safety-----we had a long record of worst case senarios----but the regs were gutted and mine safety got funding cuts. Hardly requires a crystal ball to predict miners will soon be paying with their lives.

But these warning warning warning----don't go outdoors you might get struck by a meterorite stuff is a little thin. No such thing as perfect safety.------------but no matter what bad happens there is someone who warned you it might happen.

Dude, we're not talking about meteors hitting the earth (a fairly unlikely event), we're talking about one of the three most likely natural disasters to hit the U.S. Our Southern and Eastern Coast gets hit with Cat 3 storms all the time. That's analagous to receiving a memo on your desk titled, "Bin Ladin Determined to Attack Inside U.S." and then putting on your stupid face and claiming you had no idea terrorists would attack inside the U.S. It was pathetic when Condi did it, and it's equally pathetic to see FEMA/DHS and the administration doing it now. And to top it off -- stonewalling the investigation.

Let's have some personal responsibility here. The administration F'd up. Period. That fact is distinct from whether or not the local/state authorities F'd up too.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Let's have some personal responsibility here. The administration F'd up. Period. That fact is distinct from whether or not the local/state authorities F'd up too.

They are not distinct, as the failure of local authorities trickled up to the federal level, and placed the burden of ownership entirely on the federal government.

The state of Florida, and others, have had almost three summers of brutal damage due to hurricanes...in every instance, evacuation plans and resources were staged and prepared well in advanced...local authorities have the greatest leverage and power to be quick responders to any disaster.

The federal government's role should be restricted to reconstruction and rebuilding efforts alone.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The state of Florida, and others, have had almost three summers of brutal damage due to hurricanes...in every instance, evacuation plans and resources were staged and prepared well in advanced...local authorities have the greatest leverage and power to be quick responders to any disaster.

When was the last time Florida had a major levee system fail and flood a huge populated area?

The federal government's role should be restricted to reconstruction and rebuilding efforts alone.

Should be in your opinion, but it's not. From FEMA's web site:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency - a former independent agency that became part of the new Department of Homeland Security in March 2003 - is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from and mitigating against disasters. FEMA can trace its beginnings to the Congressional Act of 1803. This act, generally considered the first piece of disaster legislation, provided assistance to a New Hampshire town following an extensive fire. In the century that followed, ad hoc legislation was passed more than 100 times in response to hurricanes, earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters.

Responding to. Planning for. Recovering from. Mitigating against.

Pretty clear to me. You?

 

[Starbuck1975]

When was the last time Florida had a major levee system fail and flood a huge populated area?

The levee failing is irrelevant to the discussion...there would not have been a human tragedy element to New Orleans had there been an evacuation plan in place for a contingency that was highly likely.

Responding to. Planning for. Recovering from. Mitigating against. Pretty clear to me. You?

The first line of defense is still local government...although there are some contingencies for which you cannot provide a fulproof solution...how could FEMA respond to say a major tsunami hitting the west coast, or a major earthququake in say San Francisco...you can't plan for natural disasters...you can possibly mitigate against them...and your respond and recovery is limited by the damage to infrastructure.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

When was the last time Florida had a major levee system fail and flood a huge populated area?

The levee failing is irrelevant to the discussion...there would not have been a human tragedy element to New Orleans had there been an evacuation plan in place for a contingency that was highly likely.

Responding to. Planning for. Recovering from. Mitigating against. Pretty clear to me. You?

The first line of defense is still local government...although there are some contingencies for which you cannot provide a fulproof solution...how could FEMA respond to say a major tsunami hitting the west coast, or a major earthququake in say San Francisco...you can't plan for natural disasters...you can possibly mitigate against them...and your respond and recovery is limited by the damage to infrastructure.

The city didn't have the resources to evacuate every single person. The costs involved in order to be able to do that would be a tremendous burden upon the city. That's why there are Federal depts to handle major disasters.

Just look at what Witt did for the North Dakota floods. He was actively managing it. Had there been someone worth a spit running FEMA (and DHS), then there's a good chance the magnitude of human loss and suffering would have been greatly diminished.

Michael "heckuva job" Brown and Chertoff didn't even know there were people trapped at the Convention Center until after several days had passed!