Will New Orleans be abandoned/politics of Huricane Katrina [mega merged thread]

bonkey

supersheep wrote:

Just a few minutes ago, Michael Brown was removed from his position overseeing the Hurricane Katrina rescue efforts.

Not a moment too soon, if true.

Apparently, there were discrepancies between his CV and reality...

Which, if true, begs the question of just how hard peoples
' resumes are screened when they're being put forward for stuff like this - one of the most important jobs in the land.

It warms me to the cockles of my heart to see all the due diligence, it does.

This is the guy who left the USS Bataan, an amphibious warfare ship with a 600 bed hospital and space for 2000 marines and their equipment, offshore for a week while people were dying in the Superdome.

Amazingly, in the article you linked to, it mentions that McClellan maintains the President still has confidence in the man.

jc

supersheep

bonkey wrote:

Not a moment too soon, if true.

Well, by now it's been in every newspaper and TV report I've seen, so I guess it must be.

pete

No surprises here I guess...

Bush allies getting Katrina work
Companies with ties to the White House among the first awarded reconstruction deals.
September 12, 2005: 2:48 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Companies with ties to the Bush White House and the former head of FEMA are clinching some of the administration's first disaster relief and reconstruction contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

At least two major corporate clients of lobbyist Joe Allbaugh, President Bush's former campaign manager and a former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have already been tapped to start recovery work along the battered Gulf Coast.

One is Shaw Group Inc. and the other is Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. Vice President Dick Cheney is a former head of Halliburton.

Bechtel National Inc., a unit of San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp., has also been selected by FEMA to provide short-term housing for people displaced by the hurricane. Bush named Bechtel's CEO to his Export Council and put the former CEO of Bechtel Energy in charge of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/12/news/economy/katrina_contracts.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Hobbes

Oh it gets better. Appears that the government is offering jobs to the refugees "in Iraq". Army recruiters have been allowed visit the people.

rsynnott

Hobbes wrote:

Oh it gets better. Appears that the government is offering jobs to the refugees "in Iraq". Army recruiters have been allowed visit the people.

That's one of the most ethically derelict things I've heard in a good while.

Zynks

pete wrote:

No surprises here I guess...



http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/12/news/economy/katrina_contracts.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Oh it gets better. Appears that the government is offering jobs to the refugees "in Iraq". Army recruiters have been allowed visit the people.

I always believed nations have the government they deserve (when they vote them in that is), but I am starting to wonder if the Americans REALLY deserve this. I know they are gullible and have voted the man in a second time, but what the US is going through under this man is incredible...

supersheep

rsynnott wrote:

That's one of the most ethically derelict things I've heard in a good while.

Anyone surprised, though? It's killing two birds with one stone - getting more soldiers (which they need) and getting refugees off federal support (which costs money that could be spent on guns).
Also, Michael Brown is now resigning from his position as head of FEMA. From the Houston Chronicle. His replacement actually has experience in emergencies, as opposed to horse shows.

bonkey

In fairness to Bush, it should be pointed out that he has yesterday publically accepted that any blame for federal-level failings should fall on his shoulders.

It seems as though Bush is agreeing with all those anti-Bush lefties because he's admitted that there has been failings at federal level, and that the blame should be laid at his feet.Could it be that Bush is actually an anti-Bush lefty himself?

I wonder how all those who claimed that laying responsibility at Bush's feet was just political hay-making will respond to this. Will they call Bush the same names that they called those who suggested that there was blame to be laid at Bush's feet for making said suggestion?

jc

Hobbes

bonkey wrote:

In fairness to Bush, it should be pointed out that he has yesterday publically accepted that any blame for federal-level failings should fall on his shoulders.

If you check the video footage his body language is saying a totally different thing. He clearly wasn't being sincere about it.

Also saying he is responsible is one thing. Does this mean he will resign for such gross negligence?

Seriously, this is a guy who orders FEMA before the hurricane to spring into action but leaves out a number of states (reference), didn't know there was a problem in New Orleans until days later, tells his FEMA head hes doing a great job and then claims he didn't know Brown had resigned despite Brown claiming he had spoken to the president beforehand (reference).

How can this guy be allowed to stay in office?

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

If you check the video footage his body language is saying a totally different thing. He clearly wasn't being sincere about it.

jaysus Hobbes,
It's clear ya don't like the guy or his administration but a public declaration is a public declaration.It's the words that are important in the case of calling what he has admitted to, not the movement of his shoulders.
And anyway,his advisors mindfull of their Republican senators and Reps reelection hopes are probably the ones as usual leading him in this direction.

It's a bit late for them though,the stench of coffee amongst a lot of people in the States previously Bush friendly is so strong it's corrosive.

Hobbes

Earthman wrote:

jaysus Hobbes,
It's clear ya don't like the guy or his administration but a public declaration is a public declaration.It's the words that are important in the case of calling what he has admitted to, not the movement of his shoulders.

There are many ways to say things, just because someone says one thing body language will clearly show if a person means what they say or not. Its a proven field of science and used by the police. (kinesics).

I heard the story before I saw the footage and thought "At last". However after seeing the footage it was quite clear that.
1) He did not want to say it.
2) He did not mean it sincerly.

Which leads me to believe thats all it is, words nothing else. Spin it so that Bush sounds like he is sincere and then brush everything under the mat because "Bush apologised". He has taken responibility for numerous deaths. It is only right he should step down.

Btw watching many of his TV speeches its quite clear he is coached in trying to avoid giving away body language. For example, normally the eyes are the best indicator of lying but he moves his head to various directions after speaking to draw attention away or stop you from reading his eyes. It is only recently he is clearly shaken by whats going on.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

I heard the story before I saw the footage and thought "At last". However after seeing the footage it was quite clear that.
1) He did not want to say it.
2) He did not mean it sincerly.

After 5 years of this man on TV, I've rarely seen otherwise
His first trip to the Gulf coast where he was hugging people looked as awkward as any of his interactions with the common people
I'd be surprised if that was not what you were expecting prior to seeing the footage either though as you have pointed out you are already familiar with his body language.

Will voters be convinced ? It's a big hole that was dug this time.

dingbat

Well done indeed, but let's focus on what he actually said because it is, shall we say, somewhat equivocal...

"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said.

Of course he's responsible for the work of the federal government, he's the damn President. What he has not said is that he is responsible for doing anything wrong personally. "To the extent" and "fully" are get-out clauses.

Small beer, some will say.

I say it's just another example of not being forthright with the public. And, by the way, taking responsibility in any form is not the same as an apology.

dingbat

...at least if it involves restoring power to a fuel pipeline.

Shortly after Hurricane Katrina roared through South Mississippi knocking out electricity and communication systems, the White House ordered power restored to a pipeline that sends fuel to the Northeast.

That order - to restart two power substations in Collins that serve Colonial Pipeline Co. - delayed efforts by at least 24 hours to restore power to two rural hospitals and a number of water systems in the Pine Belt.

It's interesting to note the immediacy of this particular response when compared to the inadequacy of the humanitarian response. It's all about appearances folks, and to me this isn't a good one.

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050911/NEWS05/509110304

bonkey

David Corn drew reference in his blog to a 2003 report which basically said that first-responders in the US were facing something like a 100 billion shortfall over 5 years.

The Bush Administration's response was to but federal budgets for first responders by 30 percent in the following budget.

"To the extent" and "fully" are get-out clauses.

I don't believe they are. No-one is going to be so foolish as to suggest that nothing was done correctly and that nothing worked, so what, exactly, do they get him out of? Anything and everything at a federal level that wasn't done correctly but which should have been is what he has taken responsibility for.

His words leave no get-out room on that. I believe the choice of words was to make very very sure that he wasn't seen to be taking any credit for the stuff that worked. The last thing GWB needs right now is to be seen to be trying to make political hay to offset the criticism. So he took responsibility, but only for what went wrong. Responsibility - and thus credit - for what went right will go elsewhere.

jc

dingbat

bonkey wrote:

David Corn drew reference in his blog to a 2003 report which basically said that first-responders in the US were facing something like a 100 billion shortfall over 5 years.

The Bush Administration's response was to but federal budgets for first responders by 30 percent in the following budget.




I don't believe they are. No-one is going to be so foolish as to suggest that nothing was done correctly and that nothing worked, so what, exactly, do they get him out of? Anything and everything at a federal level that wasn't done correctly but which should have been is what he has taken responsibility for.

His words leave no get-out room on that. I believe the choice of words was to make very very sure that he wasn't seen to be taking any credit for the stuff that worked. The last thing GWB needs right now is to be seen to be trying to make political hay to offset the criticism. So he took responsibility, but only for what went wrong. Responsibility - and thus credit - for what went right will go elsewhere.

jc

The stuff that worked? I won't ask you to list those things, after all we might be here for all of a couple of seconds...

They are get-out clauses because, even though he uses the word "resonsibility", he still lays all the blame everywhere else. It's a limited statement rather than an all-encompassing one - pure Sir Humphrey in fact.

Nuttzz

Hobbes wrote:

Which leads me to believe thats all it is, words nothing else. Spin it so that Bush sounds like he is sincere and then brush everything under the mat because "Bush apologised".

Sounds like politics to me...

TomF

There's a good analysis of the Hurricane Katrina disaster by Jack Welch, former boss of General Electric.

"...Hurricane Katrina is practically a case study of the five stages people seem to have to go through during severe crises. Over the past 40 years, I've seen these stages unfold in companies large and small, of every type, in every part of the world, and I went through them myself at my own company more than a few times.

"The first stage of that pattern is denial. The problem isn't that bad, the thinking usually goes, it can't be, because bad things don't happen here, to us. The second is containment. This is the stage where people, including perfectly capable leaders, try to make the problem disappear by giving it to someone else to solve. The third stage is shame-mongering, in which all parties with a stake in the problem enter into a frantic dance of self-defense, assigning blame and claiming credit. Fourth comes blood on the floor. In just about every crisis, a high profile person pays with his job, and sometimes he takes a crowd with him. In the fifth and final stage, the crisis gets fixed and, despite prophesies of permanent doom, life goes on, usually for the better.

We are a way off from the fifth stage in New Orleans, but the first four played out like an old movie."

The most incisive part of his column is this:
"Shame-mongering: This is a period in which all stakeholders fight to get their side of the story told, with themselves as the heroes at the center. Katrina's shame-mongering had blasted into overdrive by Tuesday, about 48 hours after landfall. I would wager that never before has a storm become so politicized. Very quickly, Katrina wasn't a hurricane--it was a test of George Bush's leadership, it was a reflection of race and poverty in America, it was a metaphor for Iraq. The Democrats used the event to define George Bush for their own purposes; the Republicans--after a delay and with markedly less gusto--used it to define them back. The key word here is delay. Because in any crisis, effective leaders get their message out strongly, clearly--and early. George Bush and his team in Washington didn't do that, and they are paying for it."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007256

Hobbes

Erm the six stages of Crisis are..
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Blame
4. Bargining
5. Depression
6. Acceptance

Containment? Blood on the floor? wtf.. lol. What crisis management class did he go to?

TomF

I thought that list was known as "Stages of grief." If I look around the Internet for "Stages of crisis" or "Crisis stages" I get many different lists. However "Stages of grief" indeed seems to have been set in concrete as per Hobbes' list, except that most spell item 4 as "Bargaining" .

Hobbes

Don't suppose you found any with "Blood on floor" and "Containment" that didn't involve having to hide someone you just killed?

billy the squid

TomF wrote:

I thought that list was known as "Stages of grief." If I look around the Internet for "Stages of crisis" or "Crisis stages" I get many different lists. However "Stages of grief" indeed seems to have been set in concrete as per Hobbes' list, except that most spell item 4 as "Bargaining" .

i suppose all those exclusive contracts being given to halliburton could be considered "bargaining"

bonkey

TomF wrote:

... in any crisis, effective leaders get their message out strongly, clearly--and early. George Bush and his team in Washington didn't do that...

I must say....I never expected TomF to declare as incisive an article which all-but-states that Bush is not an effective leader, as it does here.

The world is indeed a strange place.

jc

lili

bonkey wrote:

I must say....I never expected TomF to declare as incisive an article which all-but-states that Bush is not an effective leader, as it does here.

The world is indeed a strange place.

jc

maybe finally he saw the light. for what i read of tomf posts, i thought that at least he argued in a fair way. i have to say that it's not the case in another forum i used to go.
might be difficult when you are the citizen of a country which put patriotism so high, to have objective opinions.