So it must be asked: was this conveniently timed to "coincide" with Bush's arrival?
Friday, September 02, 2005
Was New Orleans aid held back for a Bush photo op?
I'm getting several reports (including this one and this, Interdictor's blog which has been an invaluable source of firsthand information) that supplies of food and fresh water had been brought to New Orleans already. But the National Guard was under orders not to begin distributing them. They only started going in with the supplies today when President Bush arrived. They could have started rolling into the Superdome and Convention Center areas yesterday if not earlier (or they could have just airdropped them in from helicopter) but they were held back.
7 comments:
"I'm getting several reports (including this one and this, Interdictor's blog which has been an invaluable source of firsthand information) that supplies of food and fresh water had been brought to New Orleans already. But the National Guard was under orders not to begin distributing them."
This is true. They didnt want the food and water to be on the ground before the hurricane hit because the suppplies would have been destroyed along with everything else.
"They only started going in with the supplies today when President Bush arrived. They could have started rolling into the Superdome and Convention Center areas yesterday if not earlier (or they could have just airdropped them in from helicopter) but they were held back.
So it must be asked: was this conveniently timed to "coincide" with Bush's arrival?"
This is a total falsehood. Even the blog you cite mentions National Guyard bringing food and water BEFORE Bush's arrival.
Then how come we didn't see any supplies being dropped into the convention center area? That would have been easy enough to do. Instead we got a very impressive amphibious convoy on television this morning going through the streets of New Orleans carrying the supplies.
The first priority would have been to get as much aid to these people as possible. That was not done. It is increasingly looking like supplies were withheld until today. Have seen that cited by at least three other bloggers writting from the area. Have also heard that what we've seen on TV isn't showing us how bad it really is.
"This is true. They didnt want the food and water to be on the ground before the hurricane hit because the suppplies would have been destroyed along with everything else."
This stuff was sitting on the ground 2 and 3 days AFTER Katrina had come through. Hurricane's don't usually backtrack over where they've previously been, I don't think.
"Then how come we didn't see any supplies being dropped into the convention center area?"
Because the media wasnt there to cover it at the time? There WERE supplies at the convention center for a time. I recall seeing video there before Bush came, of bottled water and food being handed out, but I didnt see video of the water and food being brought in the first place. Well, even without the media shopwing it, I'm sure the supplies got there somehow. It didn't walk in on it's own
"The first priority would have been to get as much aid to these people as possible. That was not done. It is increasingly looking like supplies were withheld until today."
It looks like nothing of the sort. If food and supplies was held back unreasonably, I'm sure it was due to some sort of miscommunication or maybe they did have a good reason, like not wanting the supplies to fall victim to looters, armed or not (they couldnt get the supplies in untill some sort of order was restored). Or maybe it's due to total incompetence by the local politicians (after all, this is THEIR duty. The President isnt supposed to be micromanaging these things), and the blame is being shifted onto Bush. Or trying to find out how, where and when to be able to distribute the aid, etc. Maybe its a combination of ALL of the above. Considering the circumstances, it's not so easy to distribute supplies into a disaster area so soon after the disaster (especially when order has not been restored).
"Have seen that cited by at least three other bloggers writting from the area."
By who? By bloggers with an anti-Bush agenda? And "from the area"? So what? That "area" contains little to no communications between people. So, its natual that rumors of this sort would float around. Especially in a place that is basically 95 percent Democrat. Whats your excuse for buying into this sort of tripe? You call yourself a Christian? What kind of Christian are you that would so willingly buy into such cynical lies about someone he hardly knows? Because he wants to? Because he hates the President so much that he wants it to be true? If a rumor, reported by a few bloggers, began to float around that Bush ate babies for breakfast, would you buy that too? I know you don't think of President Bush that much, but don't you think this is a little over the top? I just cannot bring myself to believe that Bush would hold back such needed supplies just to "coincide" with his visit (what was he supposed to do to avoid such an ugly accusation? Order that the supplies not be sent in during his visit?). Such an accusation is absolutely ridiculous on the face of it. Bring me better evidence than "I heard three bloggers say it". Give me a few eyewitnesses inside the White House who will testify under oath about this.
"Have also heard that what we've seen on TV isn't showing us how bad it really is."
That I'd believe.
"This is true. They didnt want the food and water to be on the ground before the hurricane hit because the suppplies would have been destroyed along with everything else."
"This stuff was sitting on the ground 2 and 3 days AFTER Katrina had come through"
And whose responsibility was it to see that those supplies were distributed? The local politicians. And they had trouble communicating with each other, much less co-ordinating when and where to put supplies.
"Because the media wasnt there to cover it at the time? There WERE supplies at the convention center for a time. I recall seeing video there before Bush came, of bottled water and food being handed out, but I didnt see video of the water and food being brought in the first place. Well, even without the media shopwing it, I'm sure the supplies got there somehow. It didn't walk in on it's own."
IIRC there was one helicopter that dropped supplies in, and then there were no more. I think perhaps 200 people got fresh water on Thursday.
And so far as there being no media there... what channel have you been watching? CNN, Fox and MSNBC all had reporters on site at the convention center.
"By who? By bloggers with an anti-Bush agenda?"
I think you're a Bush apologist. You are now blaming the people who happened to have been in the way of this thing for sending out news that you don't want to hear. At this point I would trust them and their testimony more than I would trust you, because you're not there. There's been lots of harsh news coming out of New Orleans by people who have managed to get on the 'net (via their cell phones in many instances) who are reporting stuff the mainstream news isn't touching. Like what may be dozens of dead at the prison. The fires that are being started to hide evidence of murder and looting. The rapes. And the lack of aid - either material or security - that's been incoming.
"Especially in a place that is basically 95 percent Democrat."
This is where you self-destruct so far as your seriousness goes. Now you definitely prove that you're a Bush apologist. Not worth taking seriously at all.
I'm non-partisan. I'm neither a conservative or liberal so far as current definitions go. And I don't hate Bush... I simply do not trust him at all. He's just about the WORST excuse for a Christian there is: he lies constantly, shows no desire to repent from lying. He uses people: Hell he used those children yesterday at the photo-op, making damn sure that they were facing the TV cameras!! He's never apologized for anything in his life because he feels he's above that kind of thing. Why should we believe he's ever apologized to God then? He actively tries to destroy those that disagree with him. He got us into a war - that's now cost almost 2,000 American lives and God knows how many more innocents - based on falsehoods and he keeps changing the reasons why we went to war in the first place... didn't you get the memo that now we're fighting to secure Iraqi oil fields?
The man is low. He's not even really President so far as I'm concerned: he's just filling the position, but he's not really President. He got the job because of family connections and a political party, not by really presenting himself as someone worthy of the job. He's an opportunist who's failed at EVERYTHING he's ever attempted professionally in his life and he only gets by because he puts the blame on someone else.
So yeah, I wouldn't put it past him to have supplies delayed until he could be shown "riding in on a white horse" to save the day. This is exactly the kind of thing he's been known for. Defintely out of Karl Rove's playbook...
...speaking of which, what kind of Christian would associate with such an evil man as Karl Rove anyway? What's your excuse for that?
"Give me a few eyewitnesses inside the White House who will testify under oath about this."
Yup, some real impartiality you want to present there, ain't it? /sarcasm
"And whose responsibility was it to see that those supplies were distributed? The local politicians. And they had trouble communicating with each other, much less co-ordinating when and where to put supplies."
It's now being reported - BY THE RED CROSS ITSELF - that they were prevented from going in with supplies by the National Guard. I can only assume that in a crisis like this that the Guard falls under the command of FEMA, or something else at the federal level. The Red Cross wanted to go in with supplies but they were told they wouldn't be allowed in. It's happened with some others that wanted to go in: they were stopped before they could. Hell there was a contingent of medical supplies that was leaving Virginia and they were stopped there before they could begin driving south.
For whatever reason, supplies and aid has been actively withheld for most of this past week. You have to ask yourself in light of all this: why?
"And so far as there being no media there... what channel have you been watching? CNN, Fox and MSNBC all had reporters on site at the convention center."
I did NOT say there was NO media there. I just said that I didnt see them air video of supplies being dropped off first time out. That means that I didnt see it. Which means that I either missed it, or the media missed it. (I'm not exactly keeping my nose glued to the tv 24/7)
"I think you're a Bush apologist"
Even if I was, so what? I think you're an anti-Bush partisan who buys into every single lie about the President. Guilty untill proven innocent, and then still guilty.
"You are now blaming the people who happened to have been in the way of this thing for sending out news that you don't want to hear."
False. I am doing no such thing. I am not blaming them for anything. Granted there is news I do not like hearing or do not want to hear. One of them are baseless accusations aka lies.
"At this point I would trust them and their testimony more than I would trust you, because you're not there."
Granted. But those people that ARE there, are also not exactly standing over the Presidents shoulder either, only inches away from him, day in and out. They are THERE in NO, but they Are NOT in another place......right by the Presidents side. If they have accusations about the President witholding supplies up untill to coincide with his visit, then they should provide proof. Let them name their sources. Yeah, yeah. I know they'll have story after story about this load of supplies being held up for one reason or another. But I bet they have no evidence proving that Bush witheld such supplies for such a sleazy reason.
"There's been lots of harsh news coming out of New Orleans by people who have managed to get on the 'net (via their cell phones in many instances) who are reporting stuff the mainstream news isn't touching. Like what may be dozens of dead at the prison."
"What may be" isnt news. Its speculation. I heard that the jails were opened and the prisoners were let go. I have NO idea if thats at all true. Which goes to show that one needs to take the stories coming out of new orleans with a grain of salt.
"The fires that are being started to hide evidence of murder and looting. The rapes. And the lack of aid - either material or security - that's been incoming."
I dont know what you are talking about. The mainstream press has indeed been reporting that stuff.
"I'm non-partisan. I'm neither a conservative or liberal so far as current definitions go. And I don't hate Bush... I simply do not trust him at all. He's just about the WORST excuse for a Christian there is: he lies constantly, shows no desire to repent from lying."
He does not lie or constantly, and if he did need to repent from soemthing, I'm sure he does that privately with his family priest rather than tell us constantly. Gow often do you repent publically?
"He uses people: Hell he used those children yesterday at the photo-op, making damn sure that they were facing the TV cameras!!"
That's a total falsehood. He did not turn the girls around for that purpose. He turned the girls so that he could walk down the street with them. What were they supposed to do, crabwalk sideways? At the end of the clip he turns slightly to the side to look up the street. I felt like I was intruding, watching this video.
And another example of how Bush can't win with you no matter what he does. When he wasn't there, people were complaining that he wasn't there. Now that he is, they're accusing him of photo ops. Well, lets see. He is the President. Hes meeting with victims of the disaster area. As every President should. News media is all over the place. Can he help it if his photo is taken with the victims?
"He's never apologized for anything in his life because he feels he's above that kind of thing."
And you know this how? You dont. You just hear other people, who also dont know him, make this accusation and you repeat it because it fits your bias.
"He got us into a war - that's now cost almost 2,000 American lives and God knows how many more innocents - based on falsehoods and he keeps changing the reasons why we went to war in the first place..."
Another falsehood. He spelled out the reasons why we went to war, and now that many of those objectives have been achieved, naturally the objectives and focus is going to change.
For example: You want to invade Germany with the purpose of getting them to unconditionally surrender. Part of that objective is to bomb and destroy twons and villages that have alot of military factories and factory workers. So, you bomb Dresden, among other places. You invadem,, get that saurrender. Your objective has been achieved. But now is the time to change objectives and focus. You certainly dont bomb Dresden anymore.
"didn't you get the memo that now we're fighting to secure Iraqi oil fields?"
Didnt you get the memo that's not a new objective? Thats an old one that existed long before we invaded Iraq?
US Military Prepared to Secure Iraqi Oil Fields
PDO -- The US military said on January 24 it planned to take control quickly of
Iraq's oil fields in the event of war, accusing President Saddam Hussein of ...
http://english.people.com.cn/200301/25/eng20030125_110744.shtml
Where did you get your "memo" from? CBS? Dan Rather? Man, do your homework before you shoot off your mouth!
"He got the job because of family connections and a political party, not by really presenting himself as someone worthy of the job."
He got the job because he was elected to the position because the majority of voters in this country believe that he was the best man for the job.
"He's an opportunist who's failed at EVERYTHING he's ever attempted professionally in his life"
He's succeeded at being elected President. He's succeeded graduating from the finest schools in the country. Let see you do just as good or better.
There's nothing wrong with being an opportunist who TRIES to accomplish something in life. Even if one fails. I'm sure you're so damn perfect that you can and have succeeded at everything you've ever tried. Which means that you must be the richest man, or at least the most successful man on the face of the earth. What? You're not? Why not?
"and he only gets by because he puts the blame on someone else."
Bull. Dont recall him placing blame of his business failures on others.
"So yeah, I wouldn't put it past him to have supplies delayed until he could be shown "riding in on a white horse" to save the day."
And that goes to show what a
sad, pathetic person you really are. You REALLY NEED to be getting your nose into that bible a little more often than usual.
"This is exactly the kind of thing he's been known for."
No. Only in the tin foil hat crowd is he known for such things. In the real world, he is not known for such things. Because he does not do such things.
"Defintely out of Karl Rove's playbook..."
And, no this is not a page out of Karl Rove's playbook.
"...speaking of which, what kind of Christian would associate with such an evil man as Karl Rove anyway? What's your excuse for that?"
My excuse is that the man is not evil (Actually, I don't associate with the man as I have never met him in my life), and you calling him that is a very un-Christian thing to do.
""Give me a few eyewitnesses inside the White House who will testify under oath about this."
"Yup, some real impartiality you want to present there, ain't it? /sarcasm"
As if you and your blog friends ever been non-partisan up to now.
I want people who are in the position to know because they are THERE in the White House. Yes, they might not be impartial (who is?), but they would be in a better position to know if your accusaations are true or not. Not your blog sources.
Sooo...what are the names of the three blogs you cite, what are their sources?
"It's now being reported - BY THE RED CROSS ITSELF - that they were prevented from going in with supplies by the National Guard. I can only assume that in a crisis like this that the Guard falls under the command of FEMA, or something else at the federal level."
Try the local governor.
The National Guard, under the command of their respective state governors, has also been designed to be called up under federal command in case of conflict.
I know that the Guard is holding up supplies. I do not doubt that at all. But you are trying to pin the blame on Bush with your ASSumptions, and nothing else.
Dont you think Bush, or at least Karl Rove, would realize that holding up supplies would make him look bad politically? So it doesnt make sense that they would do it for such a sleazy reason.
An email from an online friend:
"We just got back from eating with my in-laws and my mother-in-law told us she frantically started calling everyone she could to get us some help in there. She told us something very scary, on Wed when she was calling at about 10:30am, she actually (you have to know her to know that only she could do this) got to talk to a man with the Red Cross with trucks, supplies, etc in their trucks only awaiting the Governor to allow them to get in."
An article:
Homeland Security won't let Red Cross deliver food
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
September 03, 2005
As the National Guard delivered food to the New Orleans convention center yesterday, American Red Cross officials said that federal emergency management authorities would not allow them to do the same.
Other relief agencies say the area is so damaged and dangerous that they doubted they could conduct mass feeding there now.
"The Homeland Security Department has requested and continues to request that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans," said Renita Hosler, spokeswoman for the Red Cross.
"Right now access is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities. We have been at the table every single day [asking for access]. We cannot get into New Orleans against their orders."
[snip]
Though frustrated, Hosler understood the reasons. The goal is to move people out of an uninhabitable city, and relief operations might keep them there. Security is so bad that she fears feeding stations might get ransacked.
"For whatever reason, supplies and aid has been actively withheld for most of this past week. You have to ask yourself in light of all this: why?"
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of more logical reasons why. MAYBE it's just incompetence by the local authorities. Maybe it's not incompetence and they know what they're doing. Whatever the reasons, your "Bush witheld supplies only to coincide with his visit" nonsense falls flat on it's face.
We're all so used to seeing news media's instant assessments, we don't realize what it takes to provide a proper response for the most seriously in need of help. All the news media have to take in are their camera equipment, operators, batteries, and personal water and food supplies. They don't bring in any kind of help for those needing it. Conversely, the aid workers need to know what to bring in for the masses rather than merely for themselves.
MARTY EVANS, RED CROSS PRESIDENT AND CEO: Well, Larry, when the storm came our goal was prior to landfall to support the evacuation. It was unsafe to be in the city. We were asked by the city not to be there and the Superdome was made a shelter of last resorts and, quite frankly in retrospect, it was a good idea because otherwise those people would have had no shelter at all.
We have our shelters north of the city. We're prepared as soon as they can be evacuated, we're prepared to receive them in Texas, in other states, but it was not safe to be in the city and it's not been safe to go back into the city.(snip)
(snip)
EVANS: Well, Larry, we were asked, directed by the National Guard and the city and the state emergency management not to go into New Orleans because it was not safe. We are not a search and rescue organization. We provide shelter and basic support and so we were depending, we are depending on the state and the agencies to get people to our shelters in safe places.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0509/02/lkl.01.html
Of course. Let's see. Let a bunch of unarmed people go into an area where you cannot ensure their safety. Then when the thugs mob them, you have to pull your troops off their mission to go rescue the "helpers". How about this you MORONS at the Red Cross. You can help best by setting up camps on dry ground OUT SIDE NO and have the people brought TO you.
The "leaders" want everybody OUT of NOLA.
The engineers know that other levees could give way at any time. Also, any heavy rain in the area will NOT be pumped off (because the pumps are down), adding to the current flood level.
The goal now is to totally evac the city.
The NG's bringing massive quantities of food and water in now. There's probably plenty for everyone now, or will be very shortly. If they let Red Cross and other releif groups in, they have to stretch themselves thinner to protect them from the mutants still roaming the city looking to loot and rape and kill. Leave it to the MSM to only report half the story, to make it look like the federal government (Bush) is trying to slow the flow of relief.
"Even if I was, so what? I think you're an anti-Bush partisan who buys into every single lie about the President. Guilty untill proven innocent, and then still guilty."
No, I'm not a partisan. I don't even hate the guy. I'm just someone who knows he's completely untrustworthy and has happened to see the ugly, vulgar side of this little man firsthand.
"He does not lie or constantly, and if he did need to repent from soemthing, I'm sure he does that privately with his family priest rather than tell us constantly. Gow often do you repent publically?"
Why yes, actually I have. In fact it's something that Christians are instructed to do. In the Bible. Might wanna read it sometime.
I've apologized for things in print that I could show you.
I'm man enough to admit that I've made mistakes. Is *your* man that man enough?
"And you know this how? You dont. You just hear other people, who also dont know him, make this accusation and you repeat it because it fits your bias."
Bush himself has said that "I don't need to apologize." That because he is President this gives him a "blank check" somehow.
"That's a total falsehood. He did not turn the girls around for that purpose."
At least five people have told me it was pretty obvious to them that Bush turned them around for sake of the cameras. At least three of them, I don't think they've ever been particularly partisan on anything.
"Another falsehood. He spelled out the reasons why we went to war, and now that many of those objectives have been achieved, naturally the objectives and focus is going to change."
How much are YOU paying for your gas? *rolls eyes* Yeah, some "successful mission".
This past week he said we have to secure the Iraqi oil fields. As if that was THE chief reason for us being there now. As if that's the primary reason why our people are dying over there.. But he's given so many reasons for going to war now, he could say it was liberate the Oompa-Loompas and the Bush-bots would still cheer him on.
"He got the job because he was elected to the position because the majority of voters in this country believe that he was the best man for the job."
No, he was "picked" to win by the party bosses who presented their "choice" to the American people who didn't have any real choices at all. Be a realist here: the "best man" is not allowed to be in a position like President anymore.
"He's succeeded at being elected President. He's succeeded graduating from the finest schools in the country. Let see you do just as good or better."
Okay, you will.
And I'll do it on my own. Not handed to me like a spoiled rich kid.
"There's nothing wrong with being an opportunist who TRIES to accomplish something in life. Even if one fails. I'm sure you're so damn perfect that you can and have succeeded at everything you've ever tried. Which means that you must be the richest man, or at least the most successful man on the face of the earth. What? You're not? Why not?"
I'll never walk all over someone, to reach my goals. I'll never try to destroy someone's reputation for sake of my own. If that's what it takes to be "successful", then I don't want it at all.
"And that goes to show what a
sad, pathetic person you really are. You REALLY NEED to be getting your nose into that bible a little more often than usual."
Think I know Bible more than you do, friend. You are the one who's losing your cool here. And given the multiple reports I'm still reading about how aid and assistance WAS held back until Bush's little "photo opportunity", I'm more inclined to believe this than ever.
Say, how about the air rescue that couldn't be done yesterday because Bush was in New Orleans? He should have stayed out: who knows what kind of damage was done by Dear Leader's insistence on having an aircraft-free space around him.
"My excuse is that the man is not evil (Actually, I don't associate with the man as I have never met him in my life), and you calling him that is a very un-Christian thing to do."
Rove has destroyed and smeared so many people's lives over the years, it's downright criminal.
"I know that the Guard is holding up supplies. I do not doubt that at all. But you are trying to pin the blame on Bush with your ASSumptions, and nothing else."
Ummmm... he's the freak' PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES. And you're saying he doesn't have it within his power to get supplies and assistance in there?
Just how powerful is Bush supposed to be, anyway?
"There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of more logical reasons why. MAYBE it's just incompetence by the local authorities. Maybe it's not incompetence and they know what they're doing. Whatever the reasons, your "Bush witheld supplies only to coincide with his visit" nonsense falls flat on it's face."
Whatever. The supplies were there. The supplies *didn't* go in there until Bush was in place. They didn't go in a second earlier.
It doesn't take a genius to wonder about the timing of that.
"Leave it to the MSM to only report half the story, to make it look like the federal government (Bush) is trying to slow the flow of relief."
Bush can't even keep illegals from flowing over our border with Mexico. I guess this naturally would be too big a challenge for him then, wouldn't it?
Say, why don't you post with something other than "anonymous"? Are you man enough to show who you are? My e-mail is posted on the page. I suspect you're the same person who's posted comments before with this sort of tone. Come on, show yourself. I put myself out here without fear... why don't you do the same?
Post a Comment