The Command T.O.C.

62 -2 and Bush is Screwed

Well, poor Bush is screwed. The House appropriations committee today voted 62-2 to not allow DPW to buy US ports (seems like a good idea).  But, what I like is the great way they did it. They attached it to a Hurricane Katrina and Iraq War emergency appropriations bill.

What this means is that if Bush is going to veto it, he will have to veto a bill for Hurricane Katrina and Iraqi war money. I hope he does it then I can see the Democrats in 2008 running for President, telling the American public that Bush voted against the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina relief.

Senator Schumer initiated an amendment in the Senate about the same topic.

What Should Bush Have Done

Crazy Politico has posted a comment basically asking, "What Should Bush Have Done" and I have chosen to raise it to a "posting" so I can answer this question(s). Here are his questions and my responses in red (or you can read the questions directly in the comment):

1. So, considering the states dismal failure in evacuating New Orleans (which is their responsibility), highlighted by 200 school buses up to their engines in water, while thousands were stranded, what exactly should the President have done, during the storm, to prevent this? My blog space does not allow me to post gigabytes but suffice it to say he could have brought in buses, helicopters, cargo planes, people to direct traffic, etc. but hundreds of helicopters might have helped (to start). Are you telling me that this is what we are going to go through should a terrorist blow up a levee? We are "on our own"?
2. Keep in mind both the Constitution and federal law prohibit him from taking federal action without the states permission. They also forbid him from sending in federal troops, without their permission. I am not a constitutional lawyer and neither are you (I do not think) but I am sure this is a very basic and cursory look at Presidential powers. If a terrorist blows up a dirty bomb in Milwaukee tonight will the President say, "I have to wait for the states to invite me in"?
3. FEMA Regs and federal and Louisiana laws all make it abundantly clear that the City and State government were responsible for the evacuation, they even ran a drill "Hurricane Pam" to test if it would work. The results were it probably wouldn't, but the city and state never got around to revising their evacuation plans. This is not a question but if the point you are making is that the state and local governments were inept as well, I agree. So, what does that have to do with the fact that the President was inept?
4. Should Bush have federalized the operation on the 28th, and kicked out all state authority? No, of course not. This is like saying our two choices are nuclear war or nothing. How about staging hundreds of helicopters, troops (which ever ones we have left), supplies and other things within minutes so that as soon as the political bureaucracy stuff is worked out they can be there in 2 minutes? What about, rather than talking about immigration to Chernoff, he actually talked about the disaster and told Chernoff to get supplies down there no matter what? How can Wal-Mart have a better national reaction system than our Government? If the product was staged then we did an abysmal job getting it to the people who needed it.
   
   Further, what about just ordering the helicopters to go in and rescue the people off the roof tops immediately without "paperwork"? What you are saying is that the President is sitting there, watching people die on T.V., knowing he could pick up the phone and call a fleet of helicopters in to save them  and he says to himself, "I have not received official requests and paperwork yet, so I will have to just let them die"? Come on. Did he think that if the Helicopters went in that Nagin would declare war on the US or something?
5. Should he have violated the Posse Commitatus Act, and sent federal troops in to evacuate and enforce the law? Probably but then you do not know the details of this act and neither do I. But, if I were to choose between people dying and me doing nothing or trying to save them running the risk I may get "sued" later on, I would take the risk.
6. When Blanco said the day before they were ready, should he have told her no you aren't get the hell out of the way? Yes. Politely, he could have done this easy.
7. What is the solution? I've seen a lot of name calling, and accusation, but what should have been done? See answers above.

There is one more thing you still do not address in your comments. We developed, after 9/11, a department called Homeland Security. In 2002, I believe its budget was $38Bl and it must be much more now. We put FEMA into DoHS since we realized that a natural disaster and a man made disaster were about the same thing. We have been told that this Department has "solved" interoperability issues and is "johnny on the spot" should there be a surprise terrorist attack.

Katrina was the first test. Katrina was predicted and tracked for days prior to hitting landfall and my question is, "Is this what we have to look forward to from the Federal Government if a terrorist hits us"? Is this what my money is going to? Take the $38Bl and divide it out among the states and tell them to "go it alone" since basically your point is that the states are on their own anyway. Where is this $38Bl going? They looked like the Keystone Cops when a predicted and tracked emergency hit can you imagine what they will look like if something happens out of the blue?

Crazy Politico's Argument is as circular as a tire

Ok. Here is an on-going discussion I have with the right wing-nuttery and this time Crazy Politico is the lead fodder. Here is his argument about how the problem with Katrina and the horrible response can in no way be Bush's fault. Here it is:

1. Bush was never told that the levees had been breached only that they had been overtopped.
2. The difference means that very little water would have been present and over topping is far less an issue than breaching.
3. At the time of this breach the water was 8 - 10 feet deep and rising (Maybe an indication of a breach and not an "overtop"?).
4. 9:00am, August 29th,  the National Weather Service reports a breach
5. People are starting to climb into their attics (but we are still not sure if it is a breach could just be an overtop... no one has said the word "breach" yet so there would be no way for him to know this)

Now, while all this is going on, we know what President Bush was doing thanks to the Think Progress timeline:

1. In the morning of August 29th, while Katrina hits land, Bush immediately calls DHS chief Chertoff about.... IMMIGRATION.
2. Later in the morning, Bush is so concerned with Katrina he goes to.... A birthday party with John McCain.
3. The Levee is reported as potentially broken at 9:00am... President Bush does....what? He does what all Presidents would do when a natural disaster is happening, you go to Arizona to discuss the new Medicare Drug program (A National Disaster in and of itself).
4. By 8:00pm we know we have a disaster on our hands and the best people to handle a major disaster is clearly the defense department. Given that, our Great SecDef, showing his leadership decides to do what most leaders would do in the time of emergencies... he goes to a San Diego Padres Game.
5. By Tuesday, August 30th it is very clear (even to the right wing nuttery) that the levees have been breached. President Bush? Plays guitar with Country Singer Mark Willis then returns to Crawford for a little R&R.

So, I suppose the only argument that maybe Politico and I can agree on is that Bush was never formally informed of a breach nor did he see 10 feet of water rising and make a conclusion himself that maybe the levees had breached.  Between all the Birthday parties, discussions about immigration and drug programs and vacation, who the hell would have time to think that just maybe 10 feet of water might indicate a levee breach?

But, then again, After 4 years and 2,000 plus soldiers dead he still believes that "Major Combat operations are over" in Iraq so given that standard, he most likely was concerned about a potential drought in New Orleans.

Breached V. Overrun

Ok, you are in your attic and the water is rising fast. You cannot cut a hole in the roof and you are about to drown. Apparently, Crazy Politico believes it matters whether the water is coming from a "breached" levee or an "overrun" levee. But, this is not surprising since....

You are in Iraq, you are shot and killed  by a bullet or maimed from an IED. Apparently it matters to John Schoen (An Army officer no less) whether you were shot in an action stopping an "insurgency" or whether you were at "war".

The same people that made fun of Clinton when he said "it depends on what your definition of "is" is" are the ones that believe since you drowned in an "overtopping" v. a "breach" things are a lot better.

I say, what the F**k is the difference? What would Bush do differently? I can see it now, Bush says:

"Oh, the 10 feet of water that is rising is coming from an "overtopped" levee? Thank God, I thought it was coming from a breached levee. Now I can go back to planning other things, like how to get 2,000 soldiers killed for nothing. Call me back when it is "breached" please"

What We Can Learn From Katrina

Crazy Politico has a balanced post  about the Hurricane Katrina response however his conclusion is questionable. He basically says that that this year the President should realize he will be blamed if something goes wrong (Well, duh.. he is the President) and he should be prepared to nationalize certain regions. If the states disagree, he says the President should tell them to F*** off.

I have a different idea. Why doesn't Bush show us what his reaction force would be if there was a terrorist attack? We have spent billions of dollars building this thing called The Department of Homeland Security and because FEMA's mission was so related, we even put FEMA into DoHS. So, what was their plan if a terrorist had blown up the levees to flood the city (I would think a reasonable and likely scenario)? What would his response be or have been? Why not just do that?

My biggest learning, and biggest fear, from the Katrina nightmare is that it shows just how unprepared we are for a terrorist attack. Bush ran on the idea ( and sold the American Public) that we would somehow be "unsafe" with Kerry at the helm and that we could sleep easy at night if Bush was elected. Well, their first big test was Katrina and they can run blame games all they want but the grade on the test is an "F". Bush is the President and the Buck stops there. He gets a "F". Simple as that.