Lonni J Friedman wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Alma J Wetzker wrote:
Or is the real problem that it no longer looks like Bush can be blamed
if you are aware of these facts?
I've yet to see any evidence to support that.
The two articles mentioned here contain plenty of it. As do many other
sources that corroborate much of it. What *would* constitute evidence?
Does such not serve to at least cast doubt on the "it's all Bush's
fault" cry?
- The mayor had an emergency plan that might very well have greatly
reduced the suffering and loss of life and an implied commitment to
follow that plan. He didn't.
- The governor was well aware of the risk facing New Orleans from a Cat5
storm and could have asked for federal help days earlier. She didn't.
- I've read at various places that the feds (NG and FEMA) had personnel
and provisions at staging areas inland waiting on the order to move
(which came days late).
- FEMA responded in about the same way and same timeliness they usually
do (and it's not particularly impressive, but that's not unique to this
administration).
Thus far the only thing I can find to pin on Bush in this catastrophe is
that he appointed an unqualified political hack to head an agency that
desperately needs someone with real operational experience. (Not that
such is in any way a small thing, but whether it would have affected the
outcome is debatable.)
I see references here and there to the Corps of Engrs budget for the
levees being cut in the Bush budget, but whether that contributed to the
levee failures I dunno.
Tell me what I'm missing.
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
