Mark Hickey

"Ben Tyner" <> wrote:

    >But Chertoff's Sept. 1 statement ignored the administration's own homeland
    >security response plan, which directed the federal government to act on its
    >own authority to quickly provide assistance and conduct emergency operations
    >following a major catastrophe, pre-empting state and local authorities if
    >necessary. According to DHS' December 2004 National Response Plan (NRP),
    >"catastrophic events," such as what occurred in New Orleans, call for
    >heightened and "proactive" federal involvement to manage the disaster. The
    >response plan listed "guiding principles" to govern the response to these
    >major events. The "Guiding Principles for Proactive Federal Response" make
    >clear that, in these "catastrophic" cases, the federal government will
    >operate independently to provide assistance, rather than simply supporting
    >or cajoling state authorities:

<snip>

One of the best articles I've read on the complicated and (obviously)
misunderstood situation was from (believe it or not) the New York
Times. They discuss in detail why the US government couldn't
realistically charge in over the objections of the LA governor, a
tactic last used in the civil rights era and before that, in the Civil
War.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/na...gewanted=print

Can you even IMAGINE the uproar had Bush sent military into New
Orleans over the objection of governor Blanco?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Bill Sornson

Mark Hickey wrote:

    > One of the best articles I've read on the complicated and (obviously)
    > misunderstood situation was from (believe it or not) the New York
    > Times. They discuss in detail why the US government couldn't
    > realistically charge in over the objections of the LA governor, a
    > tactic last used in the civil rights era and before that, in the Civil
    > War.
    > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/na...gewanted=print
    > Can you even IMAGINE the uproar had Bush sent military into New
    > Orleans over the objection of governor Blanco?

Mark, stop it! You MUST mean he considered the political fallout before
acting then! {Sarcams Mode Activated}

Bill "now you'll probably stop talking to me, too" S.

Petal and Leif

"Bob the Cow" <> wrote in message
news:wZKdnbkCs-7mh7_eRVn-...
    > "Petal and Leif" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>> Katrina, like 9/11, was unprecedented in our nation's history.
    >> Discovery Channel.
    >> And one of the worst case scenarios for USA, was said that a powerful
    >> hurricane would come into the area of New Orleans, making the water go
    >> over, or break the dikes that protect the city from flooding.
    >> So, it can not have been that unpredicted, can it?
    > Note that I said "unprecedented". Meaning -- without PRECEDENT. Nothing
    > like Katrina, inundating an entire city like New Orleans has EVER happened
    > on our shores before.
    > Watch the same Discovery Channel long enough and you'll see a PREDICTION
    > that a major earthquake will kill thousands of people in Southern
    > California. It HAS been predicted. It HAS NOT happened. Therefore, it
    > is NOT unpredicted, but it IS unprecedented.
    > I sense that we're divided by a common language by your sentence structure
    > and your spelling of "programme". My statement was accurate, as was
    > yours.

Ahhh.... sorry. I see there was a language problem here. Not only have I a
slight bit of dyslectia, and in adition, my mother language is norwegian.
Sorry.
Thanks for a good explanation.

Leif

Paul Turner

Mark Hickey wrote:

    > One of the best articles I've read on the complicated and (obviously)
    > misunderstood situation was from (believe it or not) the New York
    > Times. They discuss in detail why the US government couldn't
    > realistically charge in over the objections of the LA governor, a
    > tactic last used in the civil rights era and before that, in the Civil
    > War.
    > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/na...gewanted=print
    > Can you even IMAGINE the uproar had Bush sent military into New
    > Orleans over the objection of governor Blanco?

Funny, I thought the NYT article was full of doubletalk. I read it several
times and could not make sense of what the anonymous sources the reporters
quoted were trying to say.

It is absolutely clear, both from that story and from others, that
Governor Blanco asked that the military be sent. The story says she asked
for federal troops on Monday and then asked for 40,000 troops on
Wednesday, August 31. Moreover, the story says that the Justice Department
concluded that troops could be sent even if the state had objected: "On
the issue of whether the military could be deployed without the invitation
of state officials, the Office of Legal Counsel, the unit within the
Justice Department that provides legal advice to federal agencies,
concluded that the federal government had authority to move in even over
the objection of local officials."

What the story claims the Bush administration thought Gov. Blanco would
object to was being asked to yield her command of the Louisiana National
Guard. That's interesting, and I don't know if she should have done that,
but neither this story nor any other explains why that has anything to do
with deploying troops. The key is allegedly the Insurrection Act, but that
seems completely irrelevant. The Insurrection Act (10 USC sec. 331) says:
"Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government,
the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor
if the legislature cannot be convened ... use such of the armed forces, as
he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection." It just says the
governor has to request troops; it doesn't say she has to give up command
of the National Guard.

So the story sounds like the anonymous sources are trying to use a red
herring to confuse the reporters, implying that because Gov. Blanco would
not do one thing -- turn the Louisiana National Guard over to the federal
government -- the Bush team could not do something completely different:
send troops. It would be clearer, of course, if an actual spokesman would
explain this for the record. The anonymous sources for this story sound an
awful lot like the anonymous source who earlier told the Washington Post
that the federal response was delayed because Gov. Blanco failed to
declare a state of emergency until after Katrina hit, a story the Post had
to retract since the declaration came August 26.

In sum, I don't think it was a very good story at all. The reporters
needed to ask some questions, not just act as conduits for administration
leaks.

Kurt Ullman

In article <>, "Petal and Leif"
<> wrote:

    >> Watch the same Discovery Channel long enough and you'll see a PREDICTION
    >> that a major earthquake will kill thousands of people in Southern
    >> California. It HAS been predicted. It HAS NOT happened. Therefore, it
    >> is NOT unpredicted, but it IS unprecedented.
Heck you watch the Discovery Channel long enough and you'll see
a show about major flooding in Las Vegas and a drought in the Amazon
Rain Forests (g).

Mark Hickey

"Paul Turner" <> wrote:

    >In sum, I don't think it was a very good story at all. The reporters
    >needed to ask some questions, not just act as conduits for administration
    >leaks.

Oh yeah, the New York Times is infamous for going out of their way to
protect the Bush administration.... (rolls eyes)

The synopsis of the article is "should Bush have employed the
Insurrection Act to restore order to Louisiana's bad management of the
National Guard?". They did a reasonably good job of explaining why it
was considered, and why that option wasn't used.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Petal and Leif

"Kurt Ullman" <> wrote in message
news:oTBUe.8414$...
    > In article <>, "Petal and Leif"
    > <> wrote:
    >>> Watch the same Discovery Channel long enough and you'll see a PREDICTION
    >>> that a major earthquake will kill thousands of people in Southern
    >>> California. It HAS been predicted. It HAS NOT happened. Therefore, it
    >>> is NOT unpredicted, but it IS unprecedented.
    > Heck you watch the Discovery Channel long enough and you'll see
    > a show about major flooding in Las Vegas and a drought in the Amazon
    > Rain Forests (g).


Well, what they were talking about were true though.... and many lives has
been lost because of lack of action before and during the hurricane. So to
me, there is nothing wrong with what they predicted could happen in New
Orleans.
But you don`t really care, do you?


Leif

Mark Hickey

(Kurt Ullman) wrote:

    >In article <>, "Petal and Leif"
    ><> wrote:
    >>> Watch the same Discovery Channel long enough and you'll see a PREDICTION
    >>> that a major earthquake will kill thousands of people in Southern
    >>> California. It HAS been predicted. It HAS NOT happened. Therefore, it
    >>> is NOT unpredicted, but it IS unprecedented.
    > Heck you watch the Discovery Channel long enough and you'll see
    >a show about major flooding in Las Vegas and a drought in the Amazon
    >Rain Forests (g).

And the eruption of a super volcano in Yellowstone that will kill
millions and essentially wipe out the US economy for years if not
decades. I think there's one about an asteroid hit that'll wipe out
virtually all human life as well (but that should reduce the number of
cars, so those of us who are left should have some great cycling until
the roads crumble). ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Petal and Leif

"Mark Hickey" <> wrote in message
news:...
    > (Kurt Ullman) wrote:
    >>In article <>, "Petal and Leif"
    >><> wrote:
    >>>> Watch the same Discovery Channel long enough and you'll see a
    >>>> PREDICTION
    >>>> that a major earthquake will kill thousands of people in Southern
    >>>> California. It HAS been predicted. It HAS NOT happened. Therefore,
    >>>> it
    >>>> is NOT unpredicted, but it IS unprecedented.
    >> Heck you watch the Discovery Channel long enough and you'll see
    >>a show about major flooding in Las Vegas and a drought in the Amazon
    >>Rain Forests (g).
    > And the eruption of a super volcano in Yellowstone that will kill
    > millions and essentially wipe out the US economy for years if not
    > decades. I think there's one about an asteroid hit that'll wipe out
    > virtually all human life as well (but that should reduce the number of
    > cars, so those of us who are left should have some great cycling until
    > the roads crumble). ;-)

I think most of us understand that it is more likely that a category 5
hurricane one day eventually would hit the city of New Orleans, than an
asteroid hit our planet. Don`t pretend to be more stupid than what you are.
We know New Orleans is under the water surface, we know it is in the region
that is hit by hurricanes. We know that dikes could break and kill a lot of
people and make a great damage.

I think it is crazy and very very irrisponsible if people look at it the way
you do, like comparing that to an asteroid could hit the earth.


LA

Bill Sornson

Petal and Leif wrote:
    > "Mark Hickey" <> wrote in message

    >> And the eruption of a super volcano in Yellowstone that will kill
    >> millions and essentially wipe out the US economy for years if not
    >> decades. I think there's one about an asteroid hit that'll wipe out
    >> virtually all human life as well (but that should reduce the number
    >> of cars, so those of us who are left should have some great cycling
    >> until the roads crumble). ;-)
    > I think most of us understand that it is more likely that a category
    > 5 hurricane one day eventually would hit the city of New Orleans,
    > than an asteroid hit our planet. Don`t pretend to be more stupid than
    > what you are.

INVECTIVE! INVECTIVE!