New Orleans in Turmoil
by Derek W. on September 1st, 2005
“Cries for help spread across New Orleans”
This AP article provides a pretty good picture of what is going on in New Orleans right now.
Here are some excerpts:
Conditions inside and around the Superdome, such as this view Thursday morning, were said to be chaotic, with medics pleading for help to curb people with guns in the area.
Thousands of desperate, stranded residents begged for help Thursday as conditions deteriorated here, with heavy rain compounding a tense situation that led to fights, fires and fears for the safety of emergency responders.
Doctors at two desperately crippled hospitals with 360 patients called The Associated Press pleading for rescue, saying they were nearly out of food and power and had been forced to move patients to higher floors to escape looters.
“We were told don’t drink or eat in public as it could lead to a mob situation,” NBC’s Michelle Hofland said. “We were told that by sundown to get out of here.”
The situation really sounds horrible. There have apparently been reports of gunfire, prison inmates revolting, etc. Looting is rampant. The mayor announced yesterday that casualties could be in the thousands.
Michelle Malkin is updating almost by the minute, as she provides the frightening details of what is all going on.
A furious Paul Craig Roberts (one of the most conservative public columnists out there today) condemns the Iraq war as partly responsible for the anarchy following this hurricane:
Chalk up the city of New Orleans as a cost of Bush’s Iraq war.
There were not enough helicopters to repair the breached levees and rescue people trapped by rising water. Nor are there enough Louisiana National Guardsmen available to help with rescue efforts and to patrol against looting.
The situation is the same in Mississippi.
The National Guard and helicopters are off on a fool’s mission in Iraq.
The National Guard is in Iraq because fanatical neoconservatives in the Bush administration were determined to invade the Middle East and because incompetent Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld refused to listen to the generals, who told him there were not enough regular troops available to do the job.
After the invasion, the arrogant Rumsfeld found out that the generals were right. The National Guard was called up to fill in the gaping gaps.
Now the Guardsmen, trapped in the Iraqi quagmire, are watching on TV the families they left behind trapped by rising waters and wondering if the floating bodies are family members. None know where their dislocated families are, but, shades of Fallujah, they do see their destroyed homes.
The mayor of New Orleans was counting on helicopters to put in place massive sandbags to repair the levee. However, someone called the few helicopters away to rescue people from rooftops. The rising water overwhelmed the massive pumping stations, and New Orleans disappeared under deep water.
What a terrible casualty of the Iraqi war – one of our oldest and most beautiful cities, a famous city, a historic city.
Distracted by its phony war on terrorism, the U.S. government had made no preparations in the event Hurricane Katrina brought catastrophe to New Orleans. No contingency plan existed. Only now after the disaster are FEMA and the Corps of Engineers trying to assemble the material and equipment to save New Orleans from the fate of Atlantis.
Even worse, articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune and public statements by emergency management chiefs in New Orleans make it clear that the Bush administration slashed the funding for the Corps of Engineers’ projects to strengthen and raise the New Orleans levees and diverted the money to the Iraq war.
Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune (June 8, 2004): “It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.”
Why can’t the U.S. government focus on America’s needs and leave other countries alone? Why are American troops in Iraq instead of protecting our own borders from a mass invasion by illegal immigrants? Why are American helicopters blowing up Iraqi homes instead of saving American homes in New Orleans?
How can the Bush administration be so incompetent as to expose Americans at home to dire risks by exhausting American resources in foolish foreign adventures? What kind of “homeland security” is this?
More on the subject can be found at the Army Times.
19 Comments
Tim S.
September 1st, 2005 at 3:09 pm
I see the point here…but I don’t agree that a lot of this could be better even with all of the helicopters. We have a lot of support down there, but you have to understand that there is no fuel.
This was a huge storm…one of the worst disasters since the SF Fire in the early 1900s. We can’t stop hurricanes.
“How can the Bush administration be so incompetent as to expose Americans at home to dire risks by exhausting American resources in foolish foreign adventures? What kind of “homeland security” is this?”
What? Expose Americans to dire risks? Is he talking about the hurricane? What’s Bush supposed to do? Create a force field?
“Leave other countries alone”? What?
And fight the terrorists here? And see worse disasters than this?
I would hope not.
Tim S.
September 1st, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Also, from Michelle Malkin:
“An additional 10,000 National Guard troops from across the country were ordered into the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast to shore up security, rescue and relief operations in Katrina’s wake. That brought the number of troops dedicated to the effort to more than 28,000, in what may be the biggest military response to a natural disaster in U.S. history.
“The truth is, a terrible tragedy like this brings out the best in most people, brings out the worst in some people,” said Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour on NBC’s “Today” show. “We’re trying to deal with looters as ruthlessly as we can get our hands on them.”
Derek W.
September 1st, 2005 at 3:18 pm
“What? Expose Americans to dire risks? Is he talking about the hurricane?”
He’s talking about basically the state of anarchy that has taken over in the areas hit by the hurricane.
““Leave other countries alone”? What? And fight the terrorists here? And see worse disasters than this?”
Like Charley Reese said, this is a not very good (he called it stupid) argument and it isn’t going to last long. Sept. 11 originally came because we weren’t leaving other countries alone. I hope you didn’t actually buy into Bush’s nonsense about the terrorists hating us because of our freedom and democracy.
Derek W.
September 1st, 2005 at 3:23 pm
“An additional 10,000 National Guard troops from across the country were ordered into the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast to shore up security, rescue and relief operations in Katrina’s wake. That brought the number of troops dedicated to the effort to more than 28,000, in what may be the biggest military response to a natural disaster in U.S. history.”
Roberts’ point is that when the help was needed before and immediately after the hurricane hit, it was not there. It’s fine and dandy that three days after the hurricane hits you have all those people there, but it’s about two days late. Now everything has deteriated to the point of mass chaos and anarcy.
Tim S.
September 1st, 2005 at 3:35 pm
So you are against the War on Terror?
VirtueBlog » Blog Archive » On Resposibility
September 1st, 2005 at 4:01 pm
[...] New Orleans in Turmoil [...]
SecDef
September 1st, 2005 at 4:14 pm
@ Mr. Roberts:
“Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld refused to listen to the generals, who told him there were not enough regular troops available to do the job.”
Please stop using that argument! SHOW ME WHERE A GENERAL SAID THAT! President Bush asked them if they had enough troops for the job and they said yes. If we invaded with more troops, where on earth would we be getting the troops that are in there now?! You can’t have it both ways! Either we are overstretched and it’s good we didn’t go in with more troops, or we should have invaded with more troops and have our NG/Reserve totally used up by now. :)
“Distracted by its phony war on terrorism”
Yeah, the phoney war that has KILLED/CAPTURED 67% of all Al-Qaeda leaders… (forgive me if I sound incenced, but this kind of talk doens’t sit well with me :) ).
“Why are American troops in Iraq instead of protecting our own borders from a mass invasion by illegal immigrants?”
Because that would be illegal. (Unless the governors called out the NG.)
Sam Ashwood
September 1st, 2005 at 4:20 pm
The governors of Arizona and New Mexico have declared a state of emergency over their borders. People are being murdered all the time by drug runners who transgress our undefended borders with ease. That seems more pertinent to the safety and security of Americans than some non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction… if you ask me. And besides, how can a government sincerely say it’s fighting a war on terror when it’s making hardly the feeblest of attempts to defend our borders? Do you think the terrorists don’t know there’s an open lane into the United States across the Rio Grande?
Derek W.
September 1st, 2005 at 5:51 pm
“So you are against the War on Terror?”
The war in Afghanistan, while perhaps not wise, was at least justified. We were, after all, going after Osama Bin Laden—remember him?
The war in Iraq cannot be justified, and is not part of the “War on Terror.”
“Please stop using that argument! SHOW ME WHERE A GENERAL SAID THAT! President Bush asked them if they had enough troops for the job and they said yes.”
First off, remember I am quoting a syndicated columnist/economist here. Secondly, I don’t have the time to find everything at the moment, but a brief search brought up these reports/news/opinion articles:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/
http://www.usatoday.com/
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.theage.com.au/
http://www.sundayobserver.lk/
SecDef
September 1st, 2005 at 10:30 pm
“The war in Iraq cannot be justified, and is not part of the “War on Terror.””
Yes it is/can! :)
“First off, remember I am quoting a syndicated columnist/economist here.”
I know; I addressed my comments to Mr. Roberts. :)
“Secondly, I don’t have the time to find everything at the moment, but a brief search brought up these reports/news/opinion articles:”
OK, General Shinseki wanted more troops. So there was a general who advocated more troops. But General Franks, who was leading the troops on the ground, was given the final say on troop numbers. So, I would go with his assessment above anyone else’s. :)
anonymous
September 2nd, 2005 at 10:06 pm
Our troops our overstretched? Hmm. Interesting, when there is only a scant 13% deployed, currently. And yes, that includes Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, the National Guard has been called up. Seems to me the Guard didn’t do a whole lot of anything while Clinton was in office (they kept the peace, which is of course important, but as far as action goes). Also, FYI, no more than 50% of the Guard of any state has been deployed, or will be. http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200509020719.asp
I don’t understand your logic on the war in Iraq. Hussein was just as bad as bin Laden, he just hadn’t made his move yet. He had broadcasted his intentions, though. Why wait? If someone you know to be as serial killer is holding a loaded gun, and says “BTW, I’m going to shoot you,” do you just say, “Oh, wait while I put on my makeup!”? No! At least, not if you have a loaded gun too.
S.A. has a point on the borders. However, it is understandably a touchy subject with many people. It is hard to own the Statue of Liberty’s declaration “give me your tired, your poor, your teeming masses” (my paraphrase) when we seem to hate these people…at least, some people do. Yes, the borders should be guarded much closer. No, we’re not handling the immigrant situation right. But just because we’re handling one situation wrong does not mean we are handling the other wrong.
Michael
September 4th, 2005 at 2:15 am
Derek, have you lost it?! MY GOSH
You sound just like a liberal! Are you gunning for a job at the New York Times or something?
“Sept. 11 originally came because we weren’t leaving other countries alone.”
Can you be more specific? (And don’t just give me some cheesy link. I’m not navigating another website.)
“I hope you didn’t actually buy into Bush’s nonsense about the terrorists hating us because of our freedom and democracy.”
Well then, why do they hate us?
“...but a brief search brought up these reports/news/opinion articles…”
It seems a bit shameless to use an anti-war site to prove your point. It would be like using a Third Reich website (if they had one) to justify Nazism.
I also recall you telling me a few months back that you were going to do an article on why the Iraq War wasn’t justified, but you still haven’t delivered. I’ll bet you don’t even have an argument for why the Iraq War isn’t justified (other than the ‘no WMD’ catchphrase). It’s probably just pure emotionalism and selfishness (you’re probably just as worried about the draft as liberals are).
As for Hurricane Katrina (which I believe was the original topic of the article), let me tell you something that you probably would’ve known if you had read anything substantial on Katrina.
The city of New Orleans was built on a levee, below sea level. It was man’s own hubris, not George W. Bush, that got New Orleans destroyed. They thought they could outsmart nature, but nature caught up to them. It was only a matter of time before a bad storm hit, and would overflow the levee, causing the massive flood that wiped out the city. There would’ve been very little the National Guard could’ve done, even if they were there.
Michael
September 4th, 2005 at 2:18 am
Oh yeah, good comments, everyone else.
Derek W.
September 4th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
“I also recall you telling me a few months back that you were going to do an article on why the Iraq War wasn’t justified, but you still haven’t delivered. I’ll bet you don’t even have an argument for why the Iraq War isn’t justified (other than the ‘no WMD’ catchphrase). It’s probably just pure emotionalism and selfishness (you’re probably just as worried about the draft as liberals are).”
As I recall, it was more like a few weeks ago than a few months ago, Michael.
But that’s besides the point. The point is, as hard as it may be to understand or believe, minor unimportant things like my college classes and my job take precedence over Virtue. Maybe if I got paid for articles written it would be different, but as of right now, Virtue is a side project. Which means, I work on Virtue projects when I have time to. I don’t drop everything else to write the articles or do the research, and I certainly am not going to drop everything to satisfy your demands about when I get my articles done.
Derek W.
September 4th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
Actually, it has been three months, longer than I thought. Time is really starting to fly. ;)
Let’s take a look at what’s happened since then. After issue 11 (the one the Ron Paul article is in), I wrote an article in issue 12 about the Minuteman Project. Minuteman Project took precendence over Iraq due to the MP article only being relevant (or “news”) for a certain period of time. Issue 13 I had an article on O’Connor’s retirement, which also took precedence over Iraq due to only being relevant for a certain period of time. In issue 14, The Yellow Kid was not a new article, it was an edited down version of something I had written for a school assignment last year; and the book review of Journalistc Fraud was something I had on my to-do list for several months and finally crossed off.
The Blondie article was something that interested me at the time and so I did that instead of Iraq.
Now, we could go into specifics—for example, how exactly I spent my summer. See, beginning after the middle of July, for two weeks I did corn detasseling, basically a full-time job that is physically exhausting. And the County and State Fairs came up, which I am heavily involved in due to 4-H. I had projects to finish, and art work to do, and a job to not get fired from.
I don’t even know why I am bothering to explain this to you. I have no reason to, nor any obligation to. Like I said, I am not going to base my life around your demands.
The Iraq article will be done on my time frame, not yours.
Michael
September 5th, 2005 at 1:27 am
Alright, maybe I was too harsh, but you’re not getting away that easily.
“Chalk up the city of New Orleans as a cost of Bush’s Iraq War.”
Not your quote, but the beginning of an article you used in connection to Hurricane Katrina. Now considering the context in which you used this article, and your previous comments on the Iraq War, you were obviously implying that if the Louisiana National Guard had been there, this wouldn’t have happened (or there would’ve at least been less damage).
However, this is based on the premise that the Iraq War is not justified, and therefore the National Guard should’ve been at home.
“The War in Iraq is not justified and is not a part of the ‘War on Terror’.”
That is your quote, is it not? The merits of the war can be disputed, but you’re the one who brought up the subject of the Iraq War, and therefore it’s up to you to prove your point, first. In other words, put up or shut up.
On another note, at least two, probably more, of the websites you cite are biased. Liberally biased, to be exact.
In fact, in the article you wrote right before that, [URL=http://blog.virtuemag.org/2005/09/01/lets-talk-money/] Let’s Talk Money[/URL], at the very top, you linked a study called “The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Case for Bringing the Troops Home”. On the [URL=http://www.fpif.org/project-info.html] About Us[/URL] page of the website you linked, it says it “aims to amplify the voice of progressives…” This is liberalspeak for “we’re liberals”. If you are going to link a website study to prove your point, link a nonpartisan site.
Michael
September 6th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
Your articles are usually pretty good. It would be a shame not to see you attempt to justify your views.
Sam Ashwood
September 6th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Trust me, Derek will have plenty of good arguments when he finds time to write an article discussing the Iraq War. But I’m sure it won’t convince anyone who believes that whatever Bush does is right, just because Bush is Bush, or because Bush is Republican. Opposing Bush, surprising as it may seem, does not make one liberal.
Derek W.
September 11th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Michael, you will be pleased to hear that the next issue will contain part one of a series of articles dealing with Iraq and the war on terrorism.