Katrina fall-out

in article X9XRe.82236$084.46538@attbi_s22, Jay Honeck at
wrote on 9/2/05 5:00 AM:

Next: The end of the west coast, since it is in an earthquake area.
Imagine Silicon Valley vanishing in a major quake...

Silicon Valley is another perfect example of human arrogance.

Hey -- wait -- I've got it! Let's build a 100 billion dollar
infrastructure on top of a major fault line!

And when (not if) it is destroyed, there will be people begging the Federal
Government to come rebuild it.

Yeah, let's only settle in places that are completely safe from natural
disaster. Why don't we make a list of such places? I'll let you start.

Philip S. wrote:
in article , Matt Whiting at
wrote on 9/2/05 3:29 AM:


Philip S. wrote:

Terrorist attack or natural disaster, it really makes no difference--the
current administration ran for re-election less than a year ago on the
premise that they could keep us all safe, that they were better than their
opponents on issues of "homeland security", that when it came to protecting
the homeland, only they could do the job.

How do you propose that the Feds stop a hurricane? Put up a tall fence?
Protecting the homeland from a hurricane. That is hilarious...

Matt


Um, are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said, or do you just not
know how to read? I clearly was referring to the response to the disaster,
not the disaster itself. But feel free to erect as many strawmen as
possible.

No, simply pointing out that what you wrote was ludicrous. Maybe you
didn't write what you intended, but above you clearly say that
"terrorist attack or natural disaster, it really makes no difference"
and then you say the Bush administration ran for re-election on the
premise that they could keep us all safe from either of the above. And
then you say that they should have protected the homeland. So you are
clearly saying that they should have been able to protect the homeland
from EITHER a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. They have clearly
done the former and they can't possibly do the latter so your assertion
is hilarious as I stated.


Matt

in article , Matt Whiting at
wrote on 9/2/05 5:52 PM:

Philip S. wrote:
in article , Matt Whiting at
wrote on 9/2/05 3:29 AM:


Philip S. wrote:

Terrorist attack or natural disaster, it really makes no difference--the
current administration ran for re-election less than a year ago on the
premise that they could keep us all safe, that they were better than their
opponents on issues of "homeland security", that when it came to protecting
the homeland, only they could do the job.

How do you propose that the Feds stop a hurricane? Put up a tall fence?
Protecting the homeland from a hurricane. That is hilarious...

Matt


Um, are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said, or do you just not
know how to read? I clearly was referring to the response to the disaster,
not the disaster itself. But feel free to erect as many strawmen as
possible.

No, simply pointing out that what you wrote was ludicrous. Maybe you
didn't write what you intended, but above you clearly say that
"terrorist attack or natural disaster, it really makes no difference"
and then you say the Bush administration ran for re-election on the
premise that they could keep us all safe from either of the above. And
then you say that they should have protected the homeland. So you are
clearly saying that they should have been able to protect the homeland
from EITHER a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. They have clearly
done the former and they can't possibly do the latter so your assertion
is hilarious as I stated.


Matt

It's not hilarious, it's sad. It's incompetence on a scale I've seldom seen
before, and thank God people are starting to catch on. Just today, I've read
editorials and heard statements by the likes of The Washington Times
(extremely pro-Bush paper), The National Review, Red State.org (extremely
conservative website), Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and a host of
conservative politicians and pundits all blasting Bush and the federal
response to this disaster. Good. If they're catching on, the rest of the
country can't be far behind.

Philip S. wrote:

in article , Matt Whiting at
wrote on 9/2/05 5:52 PM:


Philip S. wrote:

in article , Matt Whiting at
wrote on 9/2/05 3:29 AM:



Philip S. wrote:

Terrorist attack or natural disaster, it really makes no difference--the
current administration ran for re-election less than a year ago on the
premise that they could keep us all safe, that they were better than their
opponents on issues of "homeland security", that when it came to protecting
the homeland, only they could do the job.

How do you propose that the Feds stop a hurricane? Put up a tall fence?
Protecting the homeland from a hurricane. That is hilarious...

Matt


Um, are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said, or do you just not
know how to read? I clearly was referring to the response to the disaster,
not the disaster itself. But feel free to erect as many strawmen as
possible.

No, simply pointing out that what you wrote was ludicrous. Maybe you
didn't write what you intended, but above you clearly say that
"terrorist attack or natural disaster, it really makes no difference"
and then you say the Bush administration ran for re-election on the
premise that they could keep us all safe from either of the above. And
then you say that they should have protected the homeland. So you are
clearly saying that they should have been able to protect the homeland
from EITHER a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. They have clearly
done the former and they can't possibly do the latter so your assertion
is hilarious as I stated.


Matt


It's not hilarious, it's sad. It's incompetence on a scale I've seldom seen
before, and thank God people are starting to catch on. Just today, I've read
editorials and heard statements by the likes of The Washington Times
(extremely pro-Bush paper), The National Review, Red State.org (extremely
conservative website), Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and a host of
conservative politicians and pundits all blasting Bush and the federal
response to this disaster. Good. If they're catching on, the rest of the
country can't be far behind.


Except that you weren't talking about a response to a terrorist attack
or natural disaster, you were talking about protecting the homeland from
either of these. Is English a second or third language for you?

Matt

Philip S. wrote:
I don't know about the story you're hearing, but what I'm hearing is that a
heck of a lot of people simply had no way of leaving. Believe it or not, it
really IS that simple. Hell, I heard a woman at the N.O. Ritz Carlton
interviewed. She said the hotel was packed with (presumably well-off)
tourists just like herself, who had tried like hell to get out of town last
Saturday. These are rich people we're talking about, Jay--people who can
charter a plane if they have to. And THEY couldn't get out.

And they re-interviewed her this afternoon.
She was calling from BWI.
She related that shortly after the conversation ended yesterday,
helicopters began to buzz around the hotel.
Shortly thereafter, the hotel manager called everyone to the ballroom.
The manager then told them arrangements had been made to evacuate them.
Because of the high water, they had to walk four blocks to the Marrriot
to get to the busses.
The 300 people at the Ritz Carlton were infectious disease specialists
attending a convention. They liberated antibiotics from the CVS across
the street and gave everyone a dose to protect them from the waters they
would have to wade through.
When they got to the Marriot, instead of the eight buses they were told
to expect, there were 18. These buses were being protected by security
with automatic weapons. Additionally, they had military helicopters for
aircover to watch for snipers.

Someone with influence heard that broadcast.

Philip S. wrote:
Go without food, water and breathable air for a week sometime, Jay, and let
us know how "able-bodied" you're feeling.

3-hours / 3-days / 3-weeks

3-hours without water, dehydration sets in

3-days without sleep, the brain begins to lose cognitive function

3-weeks without food, the body begins to break down tissue

in article , Matt Whiting at
wrote on 9/2/05 6:11 PM:

Philip S. wrote:

in article , Matt Whiting at
wrote on 9/2/05 5:52 PM:


Philip S. wrote:

in article , Matt Whiting at
wrote on 9/2/05 3:29 AM:



Philip S. wrote:

Terrorist attack or natural disaster, it really makes no difference--the
current administration ran for re-election less than a year ago on the
premise that they could keep us all safe, that they were better than
their
opponents on issues of "homeland security", that when it came to
protecting
the homeland, only they could do the job.

How do you propose that the Feds stop a hurricane? Put up a tall fence?
Protecting the homeland from a hurricane. That is hilarious...

Matt


Um, are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said, or do you just not
know how to read? I clearly was referring to the response to the disaster,
not the disaster itself. But feel free to erect as many strawmen as
possible.

No, simply pointing out that what you wrote was ludicrous. Maybe you
didn't write what you intended, but above you clearly say that
"terrorist attack or natural disaster, it really makes no difference"
and then you say the Bush administration ran for re-election on the
premise that they could keep us all safe from either of the above. And
then you say that they should have protected the homeland. So you are
clearly saying that they should have been able to protect the homeland
from EITHER a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. They have clearly
done the former and they can't possibly do the latter so your assertion
is hilarious as I stated.


Matt


It's not hilarious, it's sad. It's incompetence on a scale I've seldom seen
before, and thank God people are starting to catch on. Just today, I've read
editorials and heard statements by the likes of The Washington Times
(extremely pro-Bush paper), The National Review, Red State.org (extremely
conservative website), Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and a host of
conservative politicians and pundits all blasting Bush and the federal
response to this disaster. Good. If they're catching on, the rest of the
country can't be far behind.


Except that you weren't talking about a response to a terrorist attack
or natural disaster, you were talking about protecting the homeland from
either of these. Is English a second or third language for you?

Matt

Okay, if it'll stop you obfuscating the matter with semantics, I'll clarify
my remarks:

Nobody expects the President to prevent a natural disaster. What reasonable
people should expect from the President (especially one who ran on a
platform of "homeland security") is a competent, timely response to perhaps
the worst natural disaster to ever strike this country. They should expect
that he not wait until two days after the scope of the disaster became
apparent to end his vacation. They should expect that the Secretary of State
(who happens to be in charge of coordinating relief efforts from other
countries) not spend Wednesday evening taking in a Broadway show and
Thursday shoe-shopping. They have a right to expect that the head of FEMA
know more about the situation than a CNN reporter.

Oh, and this just in--a Senate Republican is co-sponsoring a full
investigation into the whole thing. Good. The apologists are rapidly
dwindling, and I'm thinking most of them can be found on this newsgroup.

in article , john smith at
wrote on 9/2/05 6:15 PM:

Philip S. wrote:
I don't know about the story you're hearing, but what I'm hearing is that a
heck of a lot of people simply had no way of leaving. Believe it or not, it
really IS that simple. Hell, I heard a woman at the N.O. Ritz Carlton
interviewed. She said the hotel was packed with (presumably well-off)
tourists just like herself, who had tried like hell to get out of town last
Saturday. These are rich people we're talking about, Jay--people who can
charter a plane if they have to. And THEY couldn't get out.

And they re-interviewed her this afternoon.
She was calling from BWI.
She related that shortly after the conversation ended yesterday,
helicopters began to buzz around the hotel.
Shortly thereafter, the hotel manager called everyone to the ballroom.
The manager then told them arrangements had been made to evacuate them.
Because of the high water, they had to walk four blocks to the Marrriot
to get to the busses.
The 300 people at the Ritz Carlton were infectious disease specialists
attending a convention. They liberated antibiotics from the CVS across
the street and gave everyone a dose to protect them from the waters they
would have to wade through.
When they got to the Marriot, instead of the eight buses they were told
to expect, there were 18. These buses were being protected by security
with automatic weapons. Additionally, they had military helicopters for
aircover to watch for snipers.

Someone with influence heard that broadcast.

Ya think?

Darrel Toepfer wrote:

Buildings are on fire, orders to shoot to kill... hmmmm... What was your
point again? Oh wait its the weekend warriors, they aren't army...

I responded to the question "What's the point of Louisiana being a state of the
United States?' I said absolutely nothing about "weekend warriors."

The last time Louisiana attempted to stop being a State, the Federal government
used it as an excuse for war.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Philip S. wrote:
Nobody expects the President to prevent a natural disaster. What reasonable
people should expect from the President (especially one who ran on a
platform of "homeland security") is a competent, timely response to perhaps
the worst natural disaster to ever strike this country. They should expect
that he not wait until two days after the scope of the disaster became
apparent to end his vacation. They should expect that the Secretary of State
(who happens to be in charge of coordinating relief efforts from other
countries) not spend Wednesday evening taking in a Broadway show and
Thursday shoe-shopping. They have a right to expect that the head of FEMA
know more about the situation than a CNN reporter.

Wow!
What are the odds of two national disasters occurring during one
President's watch?