<p>I think the Vets would have forgiven the President for missing that rememberance, don’t you? </p>
<p>He could have sent the VP, Rumsfield, Rice</p>
<p>driver, the vets would understand that a natural disaster of this magnitude would preempt the President from fullfilling his calendar. An anniversary, any anniversary, is simply less important than seeing to the needs of people in such circumstances. I don’t think flying over the scene and connecting emotionally with the people who have been directly and indirectly affected is pointless in the least. Good leaders go to the scene of the disaster as soon as it is safe to do so, and sometimes even before. They are there, available, not just for show or politics but for strength and to show their compassion and concern. My comments are not meant as a slam to Bush as a Republican, but as criticism to the President as a leader. Good leaders go soon rather than later because they can’t bear to be away from such things. Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa understands this intimately. Even Arnold was at the scene of the La Conchita landslide the next day.</p>
<p>As for trying times, I’m appalled at the undestatement. I think CNN.com got it right: devastation (or any of its derivatives: devastating, devastated, devastate, etc…).</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom, yes the Corps of Engineers budget request to maintain the NO levees was slashed 80% in the 2004 and 2005 budgets by the Bush administration. The CofE knew that they were inadequate for even a Cat 3 hurricane.</p>
<p>An exerpt form a recent news article</p>
<p>"The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, “The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana’s coast, only to be opposed by the White House. … In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana’s chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need.”</p>
<p>Local officials are now saying, the article reported, that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection, including building up levees and repairing barrier islands, “the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be.” </p>
<p>In addition, most climatologists believe that global and ocean warming are resulting in worsening climate events such as much more potent hurricanes. Yet this administration refuses to cooperate with the rest of the world in addressing the problem.</p>
<p>We reap that which we sow.</p>
<p>And now he is going to be on TV feeling bad…will he even talk about the levees and the money that was slashed…hmmmm</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Once they can figure out how to get into a city”…exactly…the National Guard has very limited training and equipment to deal with situations like this…on the other hand, our highly trained and fulltime military professionals wouldn’t need two days to “figure out how to get into a city”…the Marines and Navy have amphibious units that can deal with situations like a flooded city, the airborne units of the Army have plenty of helicopters (if there weren’t so many off in Iraq) that could easily land on the roof of the hospital and quickly deal with looters trying to break into a hospital…the National Guard units simply don’t have the training, expertise, or equipment to deal with the situation as expeditiously as it deserves.</p>
<p>What is going on in New Orleans is effectively a war with mother nature. The National Guard is adequate for more minor skirmishes with Mother Nature (ice storms in the Adirondacks, e.g.) but this situation is clearly more than the National Guard can deal with.</p>
<p>Driver: I admire your fortitude - don’t you see how hopeless it is to argue with these people. If George Bush walked on water, they would say he was polluting it. No thoughts here about the corruption in Louisiana, the wasted money, the fact that Democrats have controlled the city forever, etc. None of this is important - our discussion should be about how to help our fellow citizens as quickly as possible.</p>
<p>There was a place to stand at La Conchita…there was a way to get there, and there were still people who could see Arnold on TV. I agree that leadership is important, but I think Bush flying around in a helicopter would have been called transparent play for photo ops when he should have been doing something useful. At least at Ground Zero there was a place to stand with the emergency workers…where to do that, in any meaningful way, in the new city of Atlantis? As for the vocabulary of leadership, well…it seems to me that referring to a tragedy as a “trial” to get through is better than telling people they’ve been “devastated,” which they intuititively know… What’s the point of that? That’s what they’re trying to get beyond.</p>
<p>With or without mother nature, manpower in the US military is an enormous issue in 2005. The aftermath of this event will haunt Bush, so says me.</p>
<p>I am no fan of George Bush but he did, in fact, fly over the affected areas. </p>
<p><a href=“http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/31/bush.katrina.ap/index.html[/url]”>http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/31/bush.katrina.ap/index.html</a></p>
<p>oib–
Yes, I know. It has always been thus here. BigGreen said much the same to me the other day. I’m not sure why I keep doing it, but, like banging my head on a wall, it does feel SO good when I stop. But then these nattering nabobs of negativism depress a bunch of other good folks, and that’s not fair either. So, what the heck. To your larger point, yes, I’ve taken SBMom’s advice and sent a targeted donation to Direct Relief International (a new one, for me) and to the Salvation Army. We should all be looking for ways to help restore this section of our country.</p>
<p>"Bush peered through a window from a couch where his security detail usually sits. Both of his fists were clenched and his face grim. White House spokesman Scott McClellan quoted Bush as saying, ``It’s devastating, it’s got to be doubly devastating on the ground.‘’ AP</p>
<p>
Oh, good, Wisteria will be happy now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please explain why I’m supposed to be happy now? I have expressed no opinions on whether President Bush should tour or not tour the affected area, or whether or not he should use the word “devastating.”</p>
<p>I think you must have me confused with another poster.</p>
<p>I simply expressed a concern that if President Bush had not committed so much of our military resources in Iraq, we would have far more trained manpower and equipment to deal with the situation in New Orleans.</p>
<p>I have two brothers who were career military and I’m proud of them. I’m also grateful that they retired after serving their 20 years–one as a sergeant in an airborne division, the other as a colonel–before Iraq. Their character and professionalism deeply impressed me. And the Army seemed to be able to support them with the resources they needed to accomplish their missions.</p>
<p>The mission in Iraq at this point seems ill-defined and ultimately hopeless.</p>
<p>The immediate mission in New Orleans seems very well-defined and quite doable if our professional armed forces and their equipment were not tied up elsewhere: provide for expeditious rescue and orderly evacuation of the remaining people stranded in New Orleans. </p>
<p>What I’d like to have heard President Bush say yesterday is something to the effect of “Send in the marines. Send in the airborne. Let’s do what it takes to get the job done fast and right, to minimize loss of life and human suffering.”</p>
<p>
Sorry, it was Momof2Inca. As to the rest of your point, we have, I think, under 200,000 military personnel, out of several million, in Iraq. There’s no shortage of men or materiel. There is an enormous, unprecedented logistical challenge in “invading” and occupying an underwater city.</p>
<p>Gangs of armed men are now roaming New Orleans. The mayor said it will be two to three months before the city is inhabitable.</p>
<p>Practical question: does tuition insurance cover this case?</p>
<p><a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1758440,00.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml</a></p>
<p>With all due respect driver, the Louisiana governor stated on CNN that there was, in fact, a shortage of military manpower in Louisiana due to the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. The degree of shortage might be worth debating. The preparedness will be worth debating. Blaming isn’t worth much, nor is a presidential fly-over.</p>
<p>The US military has the best logistics/systems engineers in the world. Hopefuly they will be deployed to this task and pdq.</p>
<p>Nothing makes me happy about what has happened, driver. Your flippancy under the circumstances is amazing.</p>
<p>I think it’s flippant, picayune, and trivializing to criticize our president in time of great crisis because he described the situation as “trying” rather than “devastating.”</p>
<p>Okay okay…can CC parents analyze issues and developing facts without descending into personal tit for tat? Whaddya say?</p>
<p>This is a massive development in the history of western civilization. A sophisticated city of one million is flooded, looted and closed for three months. Hundreds to thousands were killed–with advance notice and evacuation plans.</p>
<p>This is the massive story of our age.</p>
<p>Sure. As to your point about the Governor’s comments, the facts, as I’ve seen them prove her wrong. She has more than half of the LANG at her disposal. She can’t use them yet. Forgive me for seeing a little convenient CYA and political blame-shifting going on there.</p>
<p>Forgiven. </p>
<p>Who proved her wrong?</p>