is bush at fault? Options

[*disco infiltrator*]

I was being a little sarcastic with the college comment. Of course you were smart in high school too, otherwise you wouldn't be in college in the first place, no?

[*kryogenix*]

Just quoting Popular Mechanics here.

GOVERNMENT RESPONDED RAPIDLY
MYTH: "The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history."--Aaron Broussard, president, Jefferson Parish, La., Meet the Press, NBC, Sept. 4, 2005

REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.

Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day--some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, "guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways," says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.

These units had help from local, state and national responders, including five helicopters from the Navy ship Bataan and choppers from the Air Force and police. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries dispatched 250 agents in boats. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state police and sheriffs' departments launched rescue flotillas. By Wednesday morning, volunteers and national teams joined the effort, including eight units from California's Swift Water Rescue. By Sept. 8, the waterborne operation had rescued 20,000.

While the press focused on FEMA's shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success--especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state.

NEXT TIME: Any fatalities are too many. Improvements hinge on building more robust communications networks and stepping up predisaster planning to better coordinate local and national resources.

Too bad sensationalism sells, while the truth isn't reported.

[acid_high]

I think that its not his fault it happen but the respones after is his fault. It took way to long for them to get those people help. It took to long for the goverment to get people food and start to save those who were stuck it took to f**king long

[*kryogenix*]

I think that its not his fault it happen but the respones after is his fault. It took way to long for them to get those people help. It took to long for the goverment to get people food and start to save those who were stuck it took to f**king long

Too bad you didn't read the post above you.

[*mipadi*]

Too bad you didn't read the post above you.

Does that article really say that the federal government didn't act quickly? It specifically outlines the fast response of the National Guard and local units—personnel not under the control of the federal government—while pointing out that FEMA was, in fact, slow to respond.

But aside from the fact that I think it's foolish to point fingers now, as that does nothing, I do wonder who was responsible for failing to build an adequate protection system—although even such blame there is pointless. The key thing to take home from New Orleans is to make sure something like that never happens again. Assigning blame really doesn't accomplish much of anything, and is largely inspired by political motivations.

[colleen92]

and doesn't anyone remember about the levees? that wasn't bush it was just bad engineering that cause thousands of people to die. there was no way for anyone to knows those levees were going to break.

and you can't just take troops from iraq and put them in new orleans. we're in a war. that's not how war works.

[TeeNage_WasTeLan...]

Do you follow the news by any chance? Just a couple weeks ago it was reported that Bush and other officials were warned of the very likely possibility that the levees would not make it through the hurricane. There WAS a way they knew they were gonna break. All in all it was a sloppy job by the gov't. It's not just Bush's fault, there's plenty of ppl to blame. Bush deserves most of it though. Seeing the way those ppl in New Orleans had to fight to survive made me sick. We are the most powerful nation on earth! How can you tell me there couldn't have been better damage control. It took damn near 2 days before the government even responded with serious efforts!

[colleen92]

it makes me sick that they had to fight to stay alive too. but what were they going to do? rebuild the entire levee system a couple days before a hurricane hits? evacuation is part of the state's job, not the national government.

[TeeNage_WasTeLan...]

You're right, evacuation is state's job, but when the government has vital information like that, evacuation efforts need to be stepped up. That isn't even the only solution though. Its reasonable to say that a whole city cannot be evacuated on the basis of weak levees, but why were they not better prepared?? Do you realize it took a full 2 days before water and other supplies were delivered down there? Why were there ppl dying on the streets? Thats just crazy.

[colleen92]

i understand that it took two days. but here's a quote from an article that was posted above:

In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S.

in '89 Hugo hit south carolina. do you realize it took two weeks for us to get power? Hugo was a category 3. it's a good thing nothing like what happened in New Orleans happened to us.

it was a very fast response considering the situation, even though many died during that time.

[TeeNage_WasTeLan...]

Big deal- so this article supports the government's relief efforts, I could find multiple articles claiming the exact opposite.

[*kryogenix*]

Big deal- so this article supports the government's relief efforts, I could find multiple articles claiming the exact opposite.

Then by all means do so.

[TeeNage_WasTeLan...]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12528233.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/13/...in1308008.shtml

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ke...e_case_for_.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/opinion/...=rssnyt&emc=rss


http://www.windowatch.com/2005/september/edit11_9.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6021101409.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9174806/site/newsweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1616316&page=1

I really could post alot more but I think you get my point. I don't know whether this will make a difference to some, but the sources I posted aren't just mad rants by angry people, but respected sources such as Newsweek, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, and CBS and ABC News.

[*kryogenix*]

So did you actually read those articles?

The impression I get from them was that the government DID try, and the response was quick, but beuracracy got in the way in some cases, which is exactly what the Popular Mechanics article says. Some of the articles actually acknowledge the immediate response of some of the units, and only blame FEMA for beaurocratic problems. Some people may not have received help right away, but not because rescuers weren't trying.

[TeeNage_WasTeLan...]

Um, maybe you didn't read the articles. To sum them up, basically all of them detail how Bush failed to respond and prepare efficiently to information he received prior to the storm hitting. The first article and the one on poverty problems in America are really the only 2 articles that don't state this. So please, read the articles first, then try making an ass of yourself.

[AngelinaTaylor]

Just out of curiousity.. Does anyone know anything about the Kyoto Protocol? Because I don't think the U.S. signed it. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

And just for the record.. really, when does Bush take warnings seriously? Makes me think of August 6th, 2001..

Taylor``

[*mipadi*]

Just out of curiousity.. Does anyone know anything about the Kyoto Protocol? Because I don't think the U.S. signed it. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

No, the Kyoto treaty has not been ratified by the US.

[*swtcherriipie*]

No. Why because it was a NATURAL DISASTER, he did all he could to HELP the people who were affected but i dont think we should expect any president for that matter to just drop their presidential duties just to HELP victims of the hurricaine. Sure he did all he could to help but i mena we do have a red cross.

[*disco infiltrator*]

^ Alright, this is the second or third time I've seen this; please read the rules of the debate forum at the top of the forum and read the thread or at least the last couple of pages to get an idea of what's been discussed.

And, if you didn't know, the Red Cross is not a governmental organization; it works on charity and donations, so if no one donates, it doesn't work. You can't count on something that you yourself have to get in motion to work without you doing so.

And of course you should expect a president to be more concerned with the welfare of the citizens of his country than any other pressing issue. I certainly would.

[Respudious]

Yeah, this wasn't just some severe storm, this was arguably the worst natural disaster in US history. Which means that the government really needed to up their involvement. If you can't count on the goverment to care for its people in times such as this, then who do you turn to?