Please Tell Me the Bush Administration Is Not This Bad

The Financial Times runs my Katrina column:

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - Katrina reveals the presidential flaws, by Brad Delong: Published: September 6 2005 20:50 | Last updated: September 6 2005 20:50: What is more unbelievable? Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson parish, reporting that the Federal Emergency Management Agency was still blocking relief supplies to this Louisiana district: “We had Wal-Mart deliver three trailer trucks of water. Fema turned them back. They said we didn’t need them. This was a week ago. We had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. The Coast Guard said: ‘Come get the fuel right away.’ When we got there with our trucks, they got a word: ‘Fema says don’t give you the fuel.’ Yesterday, Fema comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines”?

Or Fema’s decision to keep the Red Cross from sending supplies and medical personnel into New Orleans. The Red Cross reports: “We simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders . . . [They say] our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city”?

Or the fact that neither the city of New Orleans, the state of Louisiana or Fema rolled a single busload of refugees out of the city before Hurricane Katrina hit?

Or that when Richard Daley, Chicago’s mayor, offered Fema help before Hurricane Katrina hit, Fema said “no”?

Or the claim by Michael Chertoff, the Department of Homeland Security head, that Katrina “exceeded the foresight of the planners and maybe anybody’s foresight” coupled with the comments of his deputy, Fema head Michael Brown, that Katrina was a Category 4 hurricane that “caused the same kind of damage that we anticipated. So we planned for it two years ago”?

Or George W. Bush’s claim that he was “satisfied with the response” his administration had made to Hurricane Katrina, although he agreed that the results were not acceptable?

Or Mr Brown’s claim that on the Saturday before the hurricane struck “it was my belief . . . any hurricane is bad – but we had the standard hurricane coming in here, that we could move in immediately on Monday and start doing our kind of response-recovery effort” while, at that moment, Ivor van Heerden, deputy director of Louisiana State University’s hurricane centre, was saying that all indications are that “this is absolutely worst-case scenario”, that “we’re talking about . . . a refugee camp of 1m people” and that his computer simulations indicated that New Orleans could be flooded by 30 feet of water?

Or these remarks by James Lee Witt, who was Fema director under President Bill Clinton: “In the 1990s, in planning for a New Orleans nightmare scenario, the federal government figured it would pre-deploy nearby ships with pumps to remove water from the below-sea-level city and have hospital ships nearby. These things need to be planned and prepared for; it just doesn’t look like it was” ?

Which of these is worst? I do not know.

Let us ask another question: should we be surprised at this? After all, this is the administration that staffed our reconstruction effort in Iraq with young conservative activists with résumés on file at rightwing think-tanks, that refused to recognise that what we faced in Iraq was an insurgency rather than “dead-enders”; that found it extraordinarily difficult to get personal and vehicle armour to US soldiers in Iraq, that advanced a Medicare drugs bill that seems destined to generate huge profits for pharmaceutical companies – for Medicare is forbidden to bargain on price – for mediocre improvements in drug coverage, that turned America’s hard-won fiscal surpluses into deficits that threaten the health of the economy. We could go on.

Yes, we should be surprised. Fema is a bureaucracy. A bureaucracy is designed to keep functioning even when it is headed by a man who was suddenly told by his private-sector bosses to find a new job and whose only qualification is that he is the friend of a friend of the president. When faced with a situation, you pull out the plans and you follow the standard operating procedures. When hurricanes threaten the Gulf coast, you pre-position hospital and rescue ships offshore. You have a meeting beforehand and ask: “if this truly goes south – much worse than we are expecting – what things will we wish a month from now that we had done today?” In the case of New Orleans, you know that there will be floods so you prepare to drop support from the air.

But here the plans were not pulled out of the filing cabinets, the standard operating procedures were not followed, and the “what will we wish we had done?” meetings were apparently not held. In any other form of government besides that of the US – where the president has the formal legal powers of the 18th-century British monarch, and where each party’s presidential candidate emerges from an undignified struggle among party activists – Mr Bush would have been eased out by now. The barons of his party would have told him that he had to step aside.

It would be better for the country--and for the Republican party--if some way were found to ensure its future presidential candidates have some skill in public administration.

The writer is professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley

Comments

[Charles]

I don't understand why you are perplexed, Brad.

Bureaucracies, just like soldiers, follow orders.

We know from the Army Times that the soldiers were told that they were engaged in "combat operations" against "the insurgency."

Why would the US government send water, fuel, Red Cross workers, and so on *to an insurgency*?

There is an excellent case to be made for the proposition that George Bush deliberately allowed the destruction of New Orleans. It may or may not be true but, from an evidentiary basis, it's far better supported than the obviously ludicrous conspiracy theory that he cares about America.

[Ronald Rington]

Amen, Charles. Bush does not have the ability to care for anyone but himself; don't forget his past drug and alcohol abuse, for which he received no treatment other than to turn his addictive personality toward fundamentalism. Why else would he fly out to a fundraiser in San Diego while people were dying in New Orleans? It's way past time for the U.S. to get rid of this leech.

[theCoach]

Brad,
The Bush Administration is worse than you think it is, even when you take into account that it is worse than you think it is.
Perhaps in the history of humankind there was a leader of a small band of people's that was less competent than Bush the Deuce, but I am pretty sure history has not recorded him or her.

[Lisa]

If this were a parliamentary system, the Bush Government would have fallen by the Friday after Katrina.

[James Wimberley]

What flood prevention looks like when carried out by a completely serious government: http://www.highdown.reading.sch.uk/highdown/pupil/info/trips/Bolland99/day3/s.htm
(thanks to a pupil of Highdown School, Reading, England). This is one of seventeen storm sluices on the Haringvliet barrier in the Rhine/Meuse delta. Use the railings and street lights to judge the scale.

[sm]

Why are you surprised? Because before now they've only played their tricks on demonized foreigners?

[John Emerson]

I've always though Brad deserved a bigger venue.

Except when I disagreed with him

[nate]

congratulations on getting published in FT

[js]

Aspects of Charles' case are here and there; for instance in some comments today from New Orleans residents basically saying that the hurricane was a 'godsend' (that's the essence) for getting rid of all the crime elements. Urgghh..

As to Brad's article. FEMA was unprepared. No question. All points well taken. But in the case of the Red Cross going in -- the Red Cross does not put it's staff and volunteers in danger. That's one of their first priorities. They wouldn't have ever gone in while there were reports of looting and gunfire in the city. Before that the flooding was so severe that they couldn't have gone in. Now there's e-coli. In fact they had announced ten years earlier that they wouldn't be going in to New Orleans to provide shelter during hurricanes because the danger was too high. The comment that was partially quoted in the FT was offered on the Red Cross website in response to the question: "Why is the Red Cross not in New Orleans"? Here's the whole text from the site at: http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html

Its important to read the comment in context for a couple of reasons. This is the first of many reasons they gave for not being in New Orleans. I think its important to note that this is as much a public relations comment on behalf of their organization, which has recieved extensive criticism in the past, and not an attack on local authorities or the National Guard - or Homeland Security.

Interagency cooperation is essential in these types of situations. Although FEMA obviously doesn't have the resources to organize quickly and that has been fatal, People do need to realize the immense scope of the dangers, death and distruction in any disaster and the inevitability that all people and many agencies will find the delays intolerable. That doesn't mean all FEMA's decisions are bad though. It's an untolerable situation which means that no decision is going to be 100%. It's like triage in a car accident except on a vastly huger scale.

Here is the whole list of reasons that ARC is not in New Orleans. I think if you read from the bottom up, that presents the more realistic prominence of each reason. As well as the ARC assertion that it had no intention of being in New Orleans during the storm it's impt. to note, as below- that the Red Cross mission is limited. Finally, they too have limited resources and they're currently training as fast as possible to meet the HR demand on their agency.
-------
"* Acess to New Orleans is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities and while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders.

* The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city.

* The Red Cross has been meeting the needs of thousands of New Orleans residents in some 90 shelters throughout the state of Louisiana and elsewhere since before landfall. All told, the Red Cross is today operating 149 shelters for almost 93,000 residents.

* The Red Cross shares the nation’s anguish over the worsening situation inside the city. We will continue to work under the direction of the military, state and local authorities and to focus all our efforts on our lifesaving mission of feeding and sheltering.

* The Red Cross does not conduct search and rescue operations. We are an organization of civilian volunteers and cannot get relief aid into any location until the local authorities say it is safe and provide us with security and access.

* The original plan was to evacuate all the residents of New Orleans to safe places outside the city. With the hurricane bearing down, the city government decided to open a shelter of last resort in the Superdome downtown. We applaud this decision and believe it saved a significant number of lives.

* As the remaining people are evacuated from New Orleans, the most appropriate role for the Red Cross is to provide a safe place for people to stay and to see that their emergency needs are met. We are fully staffed and equipped to handle these individuals once they are evacuated."
--------------------

[wcw]

In re the plaint, "please tell me," please see
Mark Schmitt on what people need to believe:
http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2005/09/the_will_2_beli.html

Neatly nails the source of the dichotomy between
those of us who couldn't believe even someone with
an (R) after his name could have voted for Bush
in the primary, and the mass who rallied to him
in 2001. Sorry, Brad, Mark, or anyone else who
wants to believe their politicians mean well in
any universe or that their executive can execute.

[no politician left behind]

On the comment about having a chief executive that is at least competent in administration......

I think we should institute a "no politician left behind" act in which all politicians running for federal offices are *REQUIRED* to take an aptitude exam covering completely objective material such as logic (and logical fallacies), math essential to running an advanced nation (including basic calculus), and reading and interpreting graphs and statistics. All scores are to be publicly available.

Of course, there's no "passing" grade....but at least the voters will have an objective standard in judging the relative mental faculties of their candidates.

[Nicholas Mycroft]

Vell done, BD. Wonderful closing paragraph.

[ken melvin]

Coach, love the allusion to Mussolini. Quite apt.

[Charles]

Excuse me, Nate, but very obviously you are not familiar with the Red Cross.

It takes pride in being the first on the scene.

Yes, when there are security concerns, all humanitarian agencies may shy away.

But the security concerns only emerged as people became desperate. Um. Because they weren't receiving compassionate care. Because they had been abandoned.

In fact, there were National Guard troops in New Orleans from the beginning.

They would have been very glad to guard the Red Cross.

[J Thomas]

In case anybody missed the point of JS's troll, no one has suggested the red cross go into new orleans and set up shelters before or during the hurricane.

The issue was whether they should be allowed into new orleans after the flooding, to do relief work. Not as first responders -- the first response is long over with a week later -- but to set up shelters and aid the people.

Of course they wouldn't send their people into danger, and they are not allowed to find out which areas are dangerous -- FEMA says everything within the city limits is dangerous and they are not allowed to give any aid to people who haven't left, because if they got food or water etc then they might not leave.

For myself, I believe it's urgent to get reporters embedded with the soldiers and NG in new orleans.

[Charles]

From Congressional testimony from the executive vice president of the Red Cross, James Krueger, 10/11/01:

veterans.house.gov/hearings/schedule107/oct01/10-15-01/jkrueger.htm

"With a presence in almost every community, Red Cross employees and volunteers are among the first on the scene of a disaster, and work closely with local and state first responders. Immediately following a disaster, before a presidential declaration is made triggering federal response and resources, the Red Cross is on site sheltering and feeding victims, their families, those fleeing the affected area, and first responders....

The Red Cross has obligations under the Federal Response Plan, codified by the "Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act" (Public Law 93-288, as amended). We have lead responsibility for Emergency Support Function #6 (ESF #6), Mass Care. We meet the needs of disaster victims by providing food, shelter, clothing, and by operating a family linking system to report on the status of those affected and to reunite them with their families.

To assist us in carrying out this role, the Federal Response Plan designates eight federal agencies as “support agencies” including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, and the General Services Administration, U.S. Postal Service and FEMA. ...

The American Red Cross is an important private sector partner with Congress and the Executive Branch agencies in the development of a national strategy to prepare the nation to meet the human needs of those affected by WMD. ...."

So, they can deal with the aftermaths of a nuclear or biological weapon, but according to Administration apologists, they can't deal with standing water.

[save_the_rustbelt]

JS gets it right.

The Red Cross should not be going into N.O. when the stated objective is to get everyone out of N.O.

It makes no sense to set up shelter operations in an area slated for evacuation.

The Red Cross (given the geography)should be setting up operations in a half circle all around N.O. to provide services to victims and to first responders.

Call your local Red Cross and take the next training course in Basic Disaster, then take the Logistics course, the Advanced Disaster, etc. Then maybe you can talk with some authority.

The Red Cross does have some search and rescue capable staff , but it is very limited and usually consists of some of their paid professional staff (most of the Red Cross personnel consists of volunteers). They will pull paid staff from most of their larger offices, leaving behind enough staff to be able to respond to local flood and fire missions. They are rarely dispatched into hot zones.

Back to FEMA, Bush is a dunce and Brown is a clown (I'm a GOP and a real conservative).

[Derelict]

Er, uh, rustbelt? I believe that what the Red Cross wanted to do was distribute food and water, particularly to those trapped at the convention center. I have not heard or read any reports that the Red Cross wanted to set up shelters anywhere within the city.

[Easter Lemming Liberal News]

Almost one-half of FEMA's experienced emergency management administrators had been let go. They were replaced with a much smaller number of political hacks under the terms of the Homeland Security Department Act which reintroduced the patronage system after over 100 years. See Think Progress for the lack of qualifications for Brown's deputies and the Boston Herald for Brown's total lack of qualifications.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/06/fema-deputies/

BostonHerald.com - Brown pushed from last job: Horse group: FEMA chief had to be asked to resign

http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=100857

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." - Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050902-2.html

Liberal News Digest
http://elemming2.blogspot.com

[Kevin Y]

Quite regardless of whether the Red Cross ought to have been in New Orleans, doesn't their statement say that they were disallowed from entering by the National Guard and the state DHS, and not by FEMA?

That's the only flaw I can see in this column, but it does seem to want explanation.

[save_the_rustbelt]

How bad is it?

worldnetdaily.com, a bunch of really strange right wingers (they worship Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh I think, and see black helicopters taking over Peoria), are running articles blasting the Bush administration.

Good site for amusement, generally. Even they are whacking Bush.

Derelict, I don't think the ARC normally does drive by food drops, especially when the government has trouble getting in and out, or perhaps I should say the government doesn't even know who is where. The ARC is largely staffed by middle aged volunteers who are way past their adventuring days (I'm way, way past).

[trotsky]

Commenters with long URLS, think tinyurl.com. Best site ever.

[know a littlel about RC]

I know a little about the American Red Cross and have taken some introductory courses. Don't know that much, but I do know that Red Cross is a diverse volunteer group, and there are many specialized units around the country, with diverse skills. It seems strange to me that all of these ARC units were completely banned from NO. I read that ARC medical teams did not go into hospitals and clinics, even after there were many deaths. Doctors and nurses in NO were wondering why last week. And as situation developed and people were dying, and there were no means to evacuate them anyway, a timely revision of cost/benefit calculation might have prompted better disaster management team to reconsider. So ARC issue bears further examination.

I do think that decision to keep ARC out was made prior to arrival of hurricane. Perhaps this was reasonable if FEMA expected a quick evacuation. Was it still reasonable when people could not be evacuated in middle of week anyway, and were dying of stroke and heat exhaustion and exposure? I suppose we will see.

I also know that ARC statements on why they were kept out have changed over week. I know contributers called them Tuesday and asked where they were. ARC just said that was part of the plan. By end of week, ARC was talking about dangerous conditions, with no mention of a prior agreement. So there is some PR BS here on some one's part, which may be reasonable, given that ARC probably has better things to do right now than straighten all that out.

If save the rustbelt or anyone else has reliable information, I'd be curious to know more.

FEMA does have a very rigid and effective bureaucracy, except it is primnarily designed for public relations and poltical patronage. See previous Florida hurricanes. Look at Talkingpointsmemo and see the post today about FEMA flying firefighters highly trained emergency services from all over the country on Sunday to use as flunkies to hand out 1-800 info numbers, instead of helping with search and rescue.

Look at FEMA answer when questioned regarding whether that is appropriate use of them. Seems like they have a very arrogant, rigid, and senseless bureaucracy that think SOP, PR and patronage first and not much about anything else. They sound like people who would go out and cut communication lines, if it was not part of some prearranged plan from two years ago. Number one, two and three people are estate attorney, PR flack and PR flack. Actually Brown IS most qualified, was some kind of emergency manager for a city government long ago, before the horse show job. Not much but better than nothing. Too bad he seems to have no common sense.

[matt]

Brad:

Let's remember how well the hostilities in Afghanistan and the illegal war in Iraq were planned for by the powers that be. Carrier groups were in place prior to October 2001, hell, prior to 11 September; army divisions and Marine regimental landing teams were in place and ready for the word.

These assholes couldn't prepare for a natural disaster that everyone knew was coming? And then the matriarch of this little chimp has the audacity to infer that the refugees, call them what they are, are actually benefiting from their plight?

If this country ever even thinks of having another Bush serve in any capacity in government there is something seriously wrong. This is what they do, it is who they are, it is how they view the rest of us.

Then to nominate Roberts as Chief Justice, a man with, we've been led to believe, no discernible legal philosophy, just an ideological philosophy that helped to shape the policies of the Reagan/Bush administrations, that helped to advance the legal framework of Curtiss-Wright over that of Youngstown in establishing an executive who does not share power with the other two branches of government. A man who as Chief Justice would bend over backwards to allow someone like Bush, ah hell...who would allow Bush himself to declare martial law, revoke posse comitatus, and then name his own successor.

Don't think we aren't very far from that point right now.

[angryinch]

There was a time when the actions (or inactions) of FEMA's Mr. Brown would have resulted in him being hanged. While I would hope we are more enlightened today, there are times when I think the old ways were the best ways. This may be such a time.

[jml]

Don't know if the link will work -it looks odd to me, but you can search yahoo and find it.

After reading this, I don't think anyone at or near the top knew what they were doing. They were told the storm could be catastrophic since Saturday, but Brown doesn't issue orders until hours after the storm hits, and adds oh, by the way, employees need to get one day of training before you go if you don't have it yet. They knew there was a good chance that the storm could flood New Orleans, but apparently his orders to mutual assistance resources standing by were to not do anything until state and local people asked. Was that all? I hope not. But here is what it said:

...Brown also urged local fire and rescue departments outside Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi not to send trucks or emergency workers into disaster areas without an explicit request for help from state or local governments. Brown said it was vital to coordinate fire and rescue efforts.

What if some local areas couldn't request help? I sure hope there is more to that story. If Brown thought beforehand that FEMA would be the agency coordinating outside volunteer help, how come that is the most visible failure of the whole tragedy? Or were his orders so vague it is impossible to figure out what they really meant.

To be honest, the story is too short to know. But for the conspiracy freaks out there, the impression to me is that FEMA had turned into a bunch of PR flacks who were in way way over their heads. They had done standard ordinary plain hurricanes before with most effort focused on delivering the money afterward, and that stuff went OK. I wonder if they really understood what it meant that they could be dealing with something very much bigger someday.

FEMA Chief Waited Until After Storm Hit By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/katrina_disaster_response;_ylt=Ak_rIryMDAzLga9hk7jGKdms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ

[monkyboy]

In my quest to find other incompetent Bush appointees I didn't even have to leave the Homeland Security web site. Check out:

Chief Privacy Officer: Nuala O'Connor Kelly

"Her responsibilities encompass assuring that the technologies used by the Department to protect the United States sustain, and do not erode, privacy protections relating to the use, collection, and disclosure of personal and Department information. "

"Prior to her beginning her government career, O’Connor Kelly served as Vice President-Data Protection and Chief Privacy Officer for Emerging Technologies for the online media services company, DoubleClick."

Doubleclick. Dear Lord. How many pending lawsuits do they have against them?

Any others?

[jml]

You know, I would love to know whether any of the top three people in FEMA, or the head of Homeland Security understands what it means to expose a person to 90-100 degree heat for three to five days with no food and water, or only contaminated water. It would very risky for a physically fit adult. It would decimate the elderly, young children and the infirm.

That is what I can't believe. Did they know? How could they not have known? Either the people don't drink the flood water and they get seriously ill, or they did drink it and got seriously ill. If this is really bad there will be a sequence of explosive announcements in the near future. The death toll... sooner or later there will an estimate of the causes of death. What if a large fraction or most of the people died from heat, dehydration, exposure, or dysentary? The storm was over and they died just waiting there...

This could be really... I don't know what to say...

This weekend, there were still many many people to be rescued, who were either getting deadly ill from dehydration (and probably had already been irreversibly harmed) or were getting seriously ill from dysentery and related stuff. Yet FEMA thought it would be a good idea for firemen trained in EM to had out 1-800 flyers. The firemen were very upset because they didn't understand why some one else couldn't do it, and because they have some self respect as professionals. One of them said he didn't feel right handing out info numbers about FEMA disaster assistance programs when he didn't know squat about insurance, or compensation policies, or anything at all about that.

I think FEMA just turned into a slush fund staffed by poeple that didn't know much about what they were doing. Extreme incompetence can sometimes produce results that no malevalence could dare or imagine. Or only a remarkably creative and improvisational genius could think up such evil stunts in such a short time.

[dryfly]

:::::
...(they worship Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh I think, and see black helicopters taking over Peoria)...
:::::

Ya what a bunch of morons... everybody knows the helicopters taking over Peoria are YELLOW and black...

[Otter Bill]

Brad,

You say a bureaucracy is designed to keep on running no matter if an idiot is appointed to run it. You evidently assume that the current FEMA is the same FEMA organized by James Lee Witt..it's not. Several reports have said that many of Witt's people left in disgust over the Bush years. Pretty certain that the replacements shared the competence level of the new boss.

There is an old baseball term that perfectly describes all major attempts by the Bush administration: Bush League.

Otter Bill

[Robert Waldmann]

excellent article. You don't answer the question of how idiots at the top can keep a bureacracy from functioning. I will try a bit.

First given downgrading, budget cuts and general contempt many FEMA people have left. A bureacracy can be destroyed. The incompetence reaches down past the President and the FEMA director. The FEMA chief of staff and deputy chief of staff are also unqualified. Someone needs to call the meetings and it is possible that this someone is a polical appointee.

The Lousiana national guard was understaffed and (especially) lacking equipment given the war in Iraq. Again an organisation which can do the job but one which was gutted.

Louisiana and New Orleans governance has been awful at least since the Louisiana purchase (je ne parles pas francais so I can't say more). They definitely didn't have plans on the shelf (and knew it see your post search for 64).

The real fast disaster relief organisation is and must be the US military. FEMA is there to prepare (they had a good grasp on the issues long long before Katrina but no funding for solutions) coordinate (might require political appointees who are mega incompetent because career FEMA don't have rank high enough to coordinate with state gov, city gov and DOD.

The military sure has standard operating procedures and managed to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan in spite of civilian interference and incompetence. However they are very strictly subject to civilian control. If they have the plan off the shelf they need permission from a civilian political employee to implement it. Consider the Bataan waiting there with nothing to do.

I'd say that legal democratic principles mean that we don't want a bureacracy which can implement a forced evacuation on its own. We want democratic control and, in this case that means plans which aren't implemented because the guitar strummer in chief can't be bothered to say the word.

[robert waldmann]

Also
I think as time passed some of your claims of fact need updates.

1) "Or Fema’s decision to keep the Red Cross from sending supplies and medical personnel into New Orleans. " This needs at least a check that it is a FEMA call not a State gov decision. See Mark Kleiman, who seems to know it was done by the State. There is plenty of blame to go around "spread it thin" (Huey Long). It's published in the FT (congratulations that is a newspaper with positive creedibility best in the world maybe) but maybe you want to check and possibly update here.

2) No buses ? Paul Krugman claimed otherwise in the NYTimes Sept 2 op ed. Also uhm Brad DeLong quotes the Times Picayune on "An RTA emergency plan dedicates 64 buses and 10 lift vans to move people somewhere;" I think they rolled. Your article if updated should state the number. I don't want to link to Free Republic but there is a photo of 600 school buses in a flooded parking lot.

Plenty of blame spread it thin.

3) Witt didn't know quite how bad his successors were when he wrote "have hospital ships nearby. These things need to be planned and prepared for; it just doesn’t look like it was” The Bataan was nearby. They were waiting for orders.

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/katrina_/2005/09/good_question.php

[kharris]

Charles,

Yes, bureaucracies follow orders, but they also execute plans. This may be the most important lesson highlighted in Brad's piece.

Most of a bureaucrat's time is spent on the creation of and execution of plans. Orders just set the plans rolling. In a healthy bureaucracy, staff is ready to do what Brad described. They reach into the file drawer, pull out the plan, and turn to the section they must execute. That section will contain triggers for their own activity, and indicate the other links in the chain, and how they are to interact with those links. In a healthy bureaucracy, staff anticipates the need for the execution of the plan. There is evidence that some bureaucrats did anticipate the need to execute the plan. The Navy, for instance, had a vessel trailing Katrina, ready to put its resources to work as soon as the wind speed was low enough to allow helicopter traffic.

Bureaucrats by and large don't spend a lot of time "following orders" in the sense that there are new orders. They spend their time preparing to execute plans. We have boosted federal spending vastly over the past 5 years, with what result? The result is that private sectors enterprises doing routine business have thrived on public money – on the dole - while public sector institutions have withered. In the end, we need healthy bureaucracies. When we get the laying of blame underway in earnest, I hope that is not forgotten.

I don't think we need to accuse Bush of bad will toward New Orleans. His bad will was toward bureaucracies, and toward the good functioning of government. He lacked the imagination, and perhaps the concern, to understand the implication of that bad will. In his position, that is enough to insure failure.

[me]

"I think as time passed some of your claims of fact need updates.

1) "Or Fema’s decision to keep the Red Cross from sending supplies and medical personnel into New Orleans. " This needs at least a check that it is a FEMA call not a State gov decision. See Mark Kleiman, who seems to know it was done by the State."

It is FEMA

"Lott said he has been trying to get FEMA to send 20,000 trailers "sitting in Atlanta" to the Mississippi coast, and he urged President Bush during a meeting Monday to intervene. He said FEMA has refused to ship the trailers until contracts are secured."

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/09/05/katrina.lott/

[Charles]

It's absolutely amazing to see the continuing disinformation and misinformation.

1. The Red Cross's FAQ stated that they were asked not to enter NOLA by Homeland Security. Yes, it also says they were stopped by National Guard and local authorities. But Homeland Security is the lead agency, the one that tells the National Guard and local authorities what to do.

2. There was no physical difficulty getting into NOLA. See the Times-Picayune's Open Letter to the President.
www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09.html#076771

And, by the way, The Times-Picayune does not stint on criticism for local officials, nor have I. But the authority and the responsibility reside in the same hands. Both of those hands are attached to George W. Bush.

_____________________________________

kharris, I am a seasoned analyst. I take facts, weight them according to the reliability of the source, assume that some are probably false despite being from a reputable source, and try to fit them *not* into a pattern that fits my prejudices but into the pattern that best fits what is known.

If I am wrong, I generally pay a price. So, facing reality head on -- including my own errors-- is pretty easy.

The case that this was ethnic cleansing is far better supported than the case that this was incompetence.

Perhaps, despite this evidence, the NOLA catastropge was simply blundering. If so, the president need only appoint a genuinely independent Blue Ribbon Commission, properly fund them, and endow them with the necessary subpoena power to get at the facts.

As a side benefit, the minute he does that, H--l will freeze over.

[Kathryn Cramer]

I'm feeling especially cynical this morning, so the scenario that plays itself out in my head is this: The plan for disasters like this was that the FEMA response would be significantly scaled back in order to open the market to the private sector. But that would be mass murder or mass involunatry manslaughter or some such thing, so that can't be what happend. Can it?

But I suppose the question does need to be asked: Was it deliberate policy at FEMA to scale back the asistance offered by FEMA in future disasters and to privatize the response once needs were assessed? This would be consistent with the US practice in Iraq.

A further question: Was there FEMA policy in place bfore the hurricane discouraging FEMA employees from approving assistance of types that would diminish opportunities for private enterprise? That would go a long way toward explaing why FEMA did not make use of much of the domestic and international assistance offered during times when the New Orleans situation was rapidly deteriorating. Perhaps the Powers that Be in Homeland Security and FEMA are merely criminally stupid and there was no attempt to protect commercial opportunities of an unprecedented nature and scope. But the question needs to be asked.

[Doug K]

To my mind, what has been done to FEMA since 2000 is sabotage. But who is the enemy ?

[Bliffle]

Seems to me that the admin never intended to intervene in NO, and only did so when GWBs popularity was threatened. I think the big no-no with these neocons is "Income Redistribution", and what's a bigger IR than storm and flood control? They want to incentivize people to not live in such dangerous places, and it worked: many NO refugees say they will never go back.

Furthermore, I think the neocons view domestic spending as improper use of federal funds, which should be reserved for asserting US interests abroad, like with war.

It's all about the money, as usual.

B

[Drtaxsacto]

Brad-

Bureaucracies function like bureaucracies - be they city, federal or state. What the poor citizens of NO really experienced is the utter consistency of bureaucratic behavior. Hayek was right. I believe that all of the things you suggest happened. Indeed, Mayor Nagin, the Governor and the head of FEMA made significant mistakes and that coupled with an intense hurricane and decades of rent seeking on things like levee repairs conspired to make a terrible situation more terrible.

This isn't about the war. This isn't about the endorsements that Nagin did of the Governor's opponent in the last election. It isn't even about the seeming conflicts of one agency to another. But it is about school busses and municipal busses being ignored as resources. It is about rejections of real offers of aid at inopportune times. It is fundamentally about how bureaucracies function.

[Larry Y.]

Yes, they do.

And the job of "wartime president" who seeks to protect Americans from dangers, expected and unexpected, is to cut through the bureacracy. Pure and simple.

Bush failed at that.

The question is not whether Bush bears 100% or 50% of the responsiblity; it's whether he (and his administration) bear 50% or 0%.

I go with the upper figure. The White House and the spin machine goes with the lower figure. Are you willing to join me in 50%? Are you with the 0%

My outrage, however, isn't split 50-50 for one simple reason: The folks in NO aren't my employees. Bush is. For $400k/year, I expect a semblance of management, followthrough and accountability, none of which I've seen.

[P.M.Lawrence]

I said that the Red Cross wasn't the right channel for helping hurricane victims. See http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3335937 (found via http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/rossi7.html).

And the Red Cross isn't a diverse organisation of volunteers any more. It is in its senescent stage, a bureaucracy in its own right, no more a collection of volunteers acting together than a representative democracy is really the people governing themselves.