It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ok could someone please explain to me why the governor of Louisiana is supposed to be at fault

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
in what happened more so than Bush and Fema? Why she was supposed to have called out the National Guard sooner? She did declare a state of emergency even before the storm hit. I'm not sure who is at fault and why.




posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Well, to begin with, the Governor, after the mayor, is the first person responsible to prepare for a disaster and to act appropriately after a disaster such as Katrina. Another reason why the Governor of LA might carry a good deal of culpability is the fact that the President did tell the Governor to issue an evacuation order more than 48 hrs. before Katrina hit. To the Governors defense, I should add that a number of evacuation orders had been issued for previous Hurricanes but these never proved to be Hurricanes that were terribly destructive. In a sense, the governor gambled that Katrina would bypass N.O. as had previous storms. Unfortunately, she gambled and lost.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Unfortunately, she gambled and lost.


I'd say she gambled and the people of New Orleans lost.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Unfortunately, she gambled and lost.


I'd say she gambled and the people of New Orleans lost.



Absolutely correct...I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the governor of LA certainly dropped the ball and she scrambled to pass the blame on to anyone and everyone around her. At least President Bush, in spite of all of his shortcomings, accepted whatever blame that could be squarely placed on his shoulders.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Read the entire article below please and then tell me why she is to blame. I do not understand if this is true why she can be blamed.. excerpt of article below the link.
www.cnn.com...

Beginning the previous Friday, when the forecasts still had it that the hurricane was more likely to hit the Florida Panhandle, the Governor had followed her responsibilities under the state's disaster plan to the letter. She proclaimed a state of emergency; put the National Guard on alert; arranged to have traffic patterns on outgoing roadways reconfigured; made sure the parishes that were not at risk would have shelters and supplies for people from the ones that were.

The day the storm hit, she asked President Bush for "everything you've got." But almost nothing arrived, and she couldn't wait any longer. So she called the White House and demanded to speak to the President. George Bush could not be located, two Louisiana officials told Time, so she asked for chief of staff Andrew Card, who was also unavailable.

Finally, after being passed to another office or two, she left a message with DHS adviser Frances Frago Townsend. She waited hours but had to make another call herself before she finally got Bush on the line. "Help is on the way," he told her



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by goose

The day the storm hit, she asked President Bush for "everything you've got." But almost nothing arrived, and she couldn't wait any longer. So she called the White House and demanded to speak to the President. George Bush could not be located, two Louisiana officials told Time, so she asked for chief of staff Andrew Card, who was also unavailable.



From what I understand, this is, essentially correct, unfortunately, the US government is a beuracracy and operates under established protocol. In this case, the established protocol was not followed. By the way, when she said, "send everything you got" was that meant to include the fifth fleet, blimps, Navy SEALS, snipers, nuclear submarines, etc.? The point is, there is an established procedure and, by everything that I've heard, she did not follow it. And, for that matter, neither did the maverick mayor of N.O. But, as others have stated, now is not the time to point fingers, we'll have enough time for that and, believe me, we will.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   
If you are correct then what kind of President and government do we have who would NOT say to her, you know I can't send it until you ask me for it according to protocol, so until protocol gets taken care of tell your residents to swim harder. Thats crazy! Its almost as crazy as people believing the man who is leading our country does not have the sense and knowledge and manners on how to excuse himself to leave in front of a classroom of kids without scaring them to death so it is understandable that he just sat there for those seven minutes.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   
goose, don't you understand there are strict laws and rules governing the interaction between the State and Federal governments? The Feds can't just go into a state and take over with troops unless there is a bona fide insurrection. The U.S. gov't actually contemplated invoking the Insurrection Act due to the incompetence of the State gov't, but the lawyers said it would basically be an improper, probably illegal use of the act.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
You surely understand that Louisianna is a state and that it is not guaranteed to be bailed out by the federal government. Nor do I think it should be. Why rebuild a city that is below sea level? Why should my federal tax dollars be spent on it? Move it up past Lake Ponchatrain.

By the way, I was born in Louisianna. But tell me why in the hell the federal government should spend billions on a city that will get wiped out again...............Camille and Katrina.........Now Rita.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
goose, don't you understand there are strict laws and rules governing the interaction between the State and Federal governments? The Feds can't just go into a state and take over with troops unless there is a bona fide insurrection. The U.S. gov't actually contemplated invoking the Insurrection Act due to the incompetence of the State gov't, but the lawyers said it would basically be an improper, probably illegal use of the act.


I do understand that but it looks as though she did what she is supposed to have done right down to the letter(read the article from CNN in my post above) and is being made a scapegoat.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
You surely understand that Louisianna is a state and that it is not guaranteed to be bailed out by the federal government. Nor do I think it should be. Why rebuild a city that is below sea level? Why should my federal tax dollars be spent on it? Move it up past Lake Ponchatrain.

By the way, I was born in Louisianna. But tell me why in the hell the federal government should spend billions on a city that will get wiped out again...............Camille and Katrina.........Now Rita.


I totally agree and who in their right minds would want to live there after seeing what happened?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join