After last year’s Katrina and Supreme Court fiascos provoked catcalls of “cronyism” from all sides, the Bush administration learned something about making appointments. The lesson: Be more subtle. On January 4, Bush used the congressional recess to bypass the Senate confirmation process and appoint 17 officials to posts in the State Department, Federal Election Commission, National Labor Relations Board and other… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (38)Page 1 of 1 pagesIt’s especially good to be a king who spreads democracy—-that pretty much covers all the bases. The breadth of this man—-whoo.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 25, 2006 at 12:12 AM Hmmm….. So Bush is the first President to put in his “cronies”.
Amazing how you liberals always seem to forget certain things. AMAZING !!!
This should refresh your memory ......
1) On March 23, 1993 ...only 11 days after becoming attorney general, Janet Reno called her first press conference to announce that she was firing all 93 U.S. attorneys and replacing them with Clinton loyalists.
2) The Clinton’s purge of the White House Travel Office provides a case in point. Her goal was to free up jobs for political cronies. Instead of dismissing the old employees quietly, Hillary orchestrated a massive smear campaign against them. The FBI, Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department were assigned to dig up dirt on Travel Office director Billy Dale and his team. Dale was prosecuted for embezzlement, his taxes audited, his FBI background file turned over to dirty-tricks specialists in the White House. Only after two and a half years of harassment was this innocent man finally cleared of criminal charges.3) The Clintons proceeded to defang the federal judiciary. Between 1994 and 1998, they appointed seven new judges to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. – all Clinton cronies. The new appointees nicknamed themselves the “Magnificent Seven” – a name that stuck until the Clintons appointed an eighth member to the team in 1998.
The Magnificent Seven scandalized their colleagues by holding closed meetings every month, from which other federal judges were excluded. “I cannot imagine any legitimate reason for them to meet together once a month, even socially,” one courthouse official told the Washington Times. Another court official charged that the meetings “reek with impropriety.”
Indeed they did.Throughout the Clinton years, these hand-picked judges issued ruling after ruling shielding the Clintons and their alleged accomplices from federal prosecutors.
It later came to light that the obstructive activities of the Magnificent Seven had been carefully coordinated.
The Associated Press reported on July 31, 1999, that Carter-appointed judge Norma Holloway Johnson – chief U.S. district judge for Washington, D.C. – had flouted standard procedure by personally and secretly assigning Clinton-related cases to Clinton-appointed judges. Federal cases are ordinarily assigned at random, by a computer. But the Clinton judges followed their own rules. Whatever crimes the Clintons or their operatives may have committed, they now had little to fear from the law.
PS - OH YA… THAT’S RIGHT ... NOW I REMEMBER.
lol ....
Posted by tina1 on Jan 25, 2006 at 3:20 AM tina1 - what if both parties are wrong for engaging in cronyism? What does that mean?
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2006 at 6:07 AM Of course both parties put in their cronies. Reagan, Carter, Bush41, Nixon, Ford, JFK, Clinton ... they all do it.
And that is what is funny about this article, the writer acts like Bush is the only one who has put in their “cronies”.
Another example is this ... Bush pardoned a lady for distribution of cocaine last month. Some on the left made a big deal about it.
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4331378,00.htm ml
Now lets look at how many drug dealers Clinton pardoned. Clinton pardoned “21 drug dealers” on his last day in the White House ... 21. And that is just on his last day. If you looked up who he pardoned for the previous 7 years ... I think we will find more.
My point is this: they made a big deal about Bush who pardoned (1) drug dealer, and Clinton pardoned (21) drug dealers on his last day.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm
lol .... unreal ....
Once again, we see that “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”
Posted by tina1 on Jan 25, 2006 at 7:21 AM tina1 - The writer isn’t saying that Bush is the only one who puts in cronies. He’s saying Bush puts in cronies. People unqualified to take on the work at hand. That’s relevant news, and all concerned citizens should take notice.
It’s not so either-or, you know. I know this may sound strange, but the majority of people who come here see little difference between Bush and Clinton (other than Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, and Bush is a fool). I can only speak for myself, but I’d like to see a ‘Lincoln’: that is, intellectually radical (read Lincoln’s writings on slavery before his election) yet pragmatically moderate. It’s all our divided country could handle.
tina1, help us find a way to unite the middle and poor classes, to battle the power held by the elites! You’re our only hope!
Posted by rocco on Jan 25, 2006 at 8:06 AM Thank you for bringing up the present, rocco, it’s so refreshingly germane and…you know—-present, now, happening, in progress, and so on. There really is not much that is more relevant than the people who are currently holding positions of power in our government.
Like you said, the majority here don’t care for Clinton. I think most presidents suck, you almost have to suck to be president.
I’ll stay independent for now, but if we’re ever going to be a democracy, we’re going to need a lot more parties.
I’d like to see Americans looking at all the different government posts and the duties associated with them, and the qualifications of those people filling the posts. In fact, I like much about the Hart-Rudman report. The whole structure of our government is old-school and maladapted. The structure itself is a system that would fail if it were staffed with angels.
I’d like to see presidential candidates run with their cabinet. I want to hear what their choice for vice president plans to do, and the head of the State Department, etc. The kin—-uh, the president is not supposed to be in charge of everything. He sure as hell isn’t supposed to manage the military as if he were the Generals’ general.
ANYWAY, Congress took an extra long recess, knowing full well that this was going to happen, I want almost everyone in Congress to lose their seats. We need some hungry young senators and a lot more representatives, but I’ll save that for later.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 25, 2006 at 9:24 AM Also, the article does not point out that Bush has made FAR more recess appointments than Clinton ever did and Bush has been in office only five years. Furthermore, Bush’s cronies have demonstrated their utter inability to deal with national crises- see Michael “Brownie” Brown. The Clinton administration appointees may have been lucky that no serious disaster exposed their lack of ability, but perhaps the appointees were better qualified than Bush’s. Furthermore, in addition to blatant nepotism and favoritsm, the Bush administration has appointed corporate moguls into key oversight positions within the federal government, who then proceed to gut regulations that result in disasters such as the one in West Virginia.
Get off the Clinton’s tina1. They were exonerated completely in the Whitewater investigation by a Republican indepent counsel. And personally, I believe that lying to Congress to start a war is a far more impeachable offense than lying about a blowjob.
Clinton was a conservative democrat bred from the corporate backed Democratic Leadership Council, which espouses an economic policy no different than the GOP’s. Clinton was no liberal. The last truly liberal president this country has had in domestic affairs was Lyndon Johnson.
Posted by Liberal on Jan 25, 2006 at 6:33 PM tina1,
I’m very concerned about mindsets such as yours. When confronted with legitimate, relevant concerns regarding your current Commander-in-Chief, your immediate response is to say, in effect, “but so-and-so did it, too!” To me, this sounds like an excuse my five-year-old child makes when he is singled out for doing something wrong. Rather than addressing the issue at hand (i.e. my son writing on the furniture), he tries to deflect the issue, much like you have, by saying “But Tommy broke your vase, and he didn’t get in trouble at all,” to which all parents end up having to say, “I’m not talking about Tommy, I’m talking about YOU.”
So, I guess I must say the same to you, tina1: “The writer isn’t talking about Clinton, he’s talking about BUSH!” Don’t excuse Bush’s actions by bringing up similar disgressions of previous administrations. It isn’t helpful, it really isn’t. Was Clinton wrong for his apparent cronyism and questionable, last-minute pardons? Of course! But that doesn’t mean Bush is any LESS wrong for things that he does, and it seems to me we should worry more about what our current president is doing, rather than any previous presidents. If anything, we should learn from the mistakes of people like Clinton, and hold our current and future leaders to much higher standards.
Unfortunately, however, this is rather difficult, considering the preposterous amount of partisanship, corruption, and narrow-mindedness going on in our country today. How can we address ANY issue properly if it is immediately drawn within party lines? How can we hold any leader accountable if we are going to blindly support them just because they are so-called “Republicans” or “Democrats?” It all just seems so silly and childish to me, if you want to know the truth. So black-and-white, in this gray world. Just because you identify yourself with a certain party doesn’t mean you have to go along with everything they say, or immediately jump to their defense when their actions are questioned. It doesn’t mean, tina1, that you have to cut the other side down in order to bring your own side up.
Mindsets such as yours, tina1, are part of what’s wrong with this country, on both the left AND the right. Blame the other party. Support your idiot in office. Deflect attention from the issues. Push personal agendas over national ones. Attack, attack, attack. Nothing gets solved, and the few who move themselves up the ladder are bound to be knocked back down before too long. Just because “they all do it” doesn’t mean it’s right, doesn’t mean it’s excusable, and doesn’t mean that we, the voters, have to accept it. Sure, this may seem a little naive and idealistic, but so the hell what? Some things are just plain wrong, and I don’t care who the President thinks he is, there should be measures (and courageous leaders) in place to help keep the President in check. Even if it’s true that “Absolute power corrupts, absolutely,” then we at least need strong and objective third parties to try to keep this to a minimum. We also need a less partisan and blindly forgiving public, to help keep our leaders honest.
tina1, I hope you will someday learn to look at all the facts objectively and independently. I hope you will someday stop continually trying to prove your divisive, non-constructive point that “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,” because that really isn’t a helpful mindset. Bumper sticker slogans like this—and like other ones that are constantly used by liberals—only perpetuate this flawed system of ours, and I’d appreciate it if you could somehow find a way to bring people together, rather than tear them apart.
And I know what you’re gonna say: “But the liberals do it, too!” To which I must say, “Grow up!”
Posted by hydro on Jan 25, 2006 at 9:33 PM Hi, hydro. Tina1 is our resident kooky troll. Stroll around the threads (until you feel at home)—-note how many people do not care for Clinton or Bush. Note how many people do not claim to be Democrats. Note how tina1 has this liberal strawman she sets on fire and then lols over, regardless of what anyone else posts. You cannot reason with her. You can’t even speak with her in any meaningful way.
You will see that she is a victim of Kooky Troll Poo Spew Syndrome, or KTPSS. Again, please check out the threads.
Rocco insists on talking to her because she is “hopeless”, I have adopted her for an experiment in remote reparenting. When you see her lol, know that I am tickling her telepathically to appropriate some of her anti-social liberal bashing speech.
And I have asked people not to communicate with her. Note the word :asked”.
I suspect that she has more than one personality as well.
While we’re on the topic of executive privilege I would like to point out this:
<a >click this link</a>. Patriot police. Let’s hope that tina1 isn’t soon to be a goon(s).
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 26, 2006 at 12:06 AM Like most incompetents, Bush sees no reason for the people he appoints to be any more capable than he is. People of this sort feel entitled to populate their world with like-minded dimwits who are, for the most part, incapable of even discerning that they are doing a bad job. Inevitably in this scenario, everyone else is to blame.
Among the casualties of this devolution is honest observation and debate. If your opponent in a debate is incapable of collecting relevant data, assessing that information, and then drawing a valid conclusion from the evidence, there is no debate.
A significant part of this failure is the conditional rejection of evidence and the absolute rejection of Reason as a means for making decisions. They have given in to Authority, provided that Authority creates convenient scapegoats that can accept the responsibility for the disasters they themselves have created.
Posted by BMiller on Jan 26, 2006 at 3:18 AM Hi, BMiller. The Cult of Bush is as removed from reality as any other cult. Tis sad that so many are so lost that they will blame the people of New Orleans for drowning, while expecting absolutely nothing from a government official assigned the responsibility of dealing with disaster.
If these cronies think that government is unnecessary, then why do they accept these posts and public money? They are at best, hypocrites and sandbagging thieves.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 26, 2006 at 4:53 AM Hey broomstick,
I see you are still blaming Bush for Katrina.
Can you read? I think you can ... well why don’t you read the State of Louisiana’s plan. Remember ... this is their own plan. See if the State and City did what they were suppose to according to their own plan.
——————————— ;————————-
Louisiana Hurricane Evacuation and Sheltering Plan
http://www.dtra.mil/press_resources/publications/deskbook/full_text/State_Aut thorities/La. EOP_Supplement1b.pdf
The best part to read is from (pg 11 to pg 14). The state says that if a CAT 3 Hurricane hits New Orleans that water surge would go over the levees and there would be levee failures.
They also say that due to levee failure ... that we can’t use shelters in the New Orleans area, we need to move the people out of New Orleans before the hurricane hits. So, we will use school and city buses to evacuate the people out before the hurricane hits.
This is based on a CAT 3 ... and we knew Katrina was a CAT 5 and neither the City or State followed their own plan.
“DON’T BE STUCK ON STUPID”
Posted by tina1 on Jan 26, 2006 at 5:35 AM http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/national/nationalspecial/26documents.html?_ _r=1
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-01-26-voa52.cfm
Posted by brian28 on Jan 26, 2006 at 8:52 PM http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11042133/
Gen. George Casey’s remarks contrasted sharply with statements made on Wednesday by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who disputed findings of an unreleased study conducted for the Pentagon that said the Army is overextended because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush shrugged off the report Thursday.bush listening to his generals on the ground in iraq?
tina1 is cheap entertainment like fox news
Posted by brian28 on Jan 26, 2006 at 9:12 PM wiley just can’t accept that I am madly in love with tina1. Her inane ramblings are the sweet incantations of the siren. O, to be cruelly tied to the masthead of the Phaeaco that is virtual space!
Posted by rocco on Jan 28, 2006 at 9:29 PM Perhaps you both should seek out an admittedly dictatorial society, since that’s what you both apparently want rocco and tina1.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 29, 2006 at 5:10 AM wiley - I think one can find in all of my posts an strong advocation for democracy. See esp. the tookie thread, which has been quite stimulating.
As a student of history and a realist, however, I’m placing my money on absolute consolidation of power. While by no means inevitable, t’s a pretty safe bet. My rhetorical approach is admittedly caustic, and prone to ‘fire and brimstone’, but we all have our stylistic preferences, don’t we? Can I help it if I’m a big Jonathan Edwards fan?
Therefore, your petulance is confusing, and regrettable. This is why the term ‘liberal’ is often linked with the phrase ‘knee-jerk’, a reflexive and often emotional response. While I’m of the opinion that right-wingers are less rational, they often mask it with tough-guy bravado, and are able to appear more stable.
If democracy has any hope in the modern era, it will necessitate serious acceptance of the facts, rational analysis, compassionate teaching, and courageous action. And angrily painting people with large brushes is the tool of the fascist, not the democrat.
Posted by rocco on Jan 29, 2006 at 11:13 PM Why, rocco, are you projecting? Or what? Why do you ascribe anger to my post? Did I say that I was angry? Tina1 says that a lot too. <i>Liberals are so angry</a>.
Yes, well, whatever. You post something to the effect that we should all be open to dictatorship and then you classify a negative response to that as “knee-jerk”?
Uh-huh.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 30, 2006 at 12:00 AM wiley - I interpreted your statement - “Perhaps you both should seek out an admittedly dictatorial society, since that’s what you both apparently want rocco and tina1” as one not born from a desire to convince me of another path, but arising out of a level of contempt. Contempt is an incarnation of anger, so I categorized your lumping me with fascists as “angrily painting with large brushes”. Please correct me if my assumption was inaccurate.
Your response “whatever” also reflects a level of disdain for my opinion. It does not address any of my points, nor does it seem to care what my point of view is in the first place. This leads one to assume that you only prefer to discuss points of view with which you agree. This is a position comparable to fascism.
A bone I have to pick with you is your apparent lack of irony, let alone humor, in matters political. Some feel that these topics, which deal with life-or-death issues, are too serious to poke fun at. I completely disagree. The ironist can always point out contradictions more fully than the true believer, and the humorist can do the same to the ironist. The ideological fundamentalist - whether Islamic, Christian, or “liberal” - cannot afford contradiction, lest it destroy their chosen belief system, and start them at square one. The ironist is always at square one. The humorist doesn’t even believe in squares.
You often make good points, and I agree with much that you write. But you’re far too inflexible to make any sort of impression on people. Treasure dissent. It keeps you on your toes…
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 1:15 AM wiley - By the way…when did I say we should be open to a dictatorship? Please tell me the thread. I can’t seem to find that anywhere.
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 1:27 AM I really don’t see what’s so difficult about accepting a dictatorship. Many people have done so during the history of civilization. But if Brutus is more your historical idol than Octavian, be my guest in fighting it. It might be fun.
Posted by rocco on Jan 28, 2006 at 2:00 PM
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 30, 2006 at 1:53 AM Wiley - thanks. Couldn’t find that.
So…no comment on the whole irony thing?
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 2:03 AM FBI, DoD, NSA: All Spying on You thread, rocco.
Very true. What, pray tell, are you doing to counteract this? It better be good. Because bitching about imminent dictatorship without action is tantamount to acceptance, without the intellectual consistency. In other words, irony writ large.
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 2:18 AM wiley - With respect, I misread your last post as an affront, instead of the title of the thread which you generously gave me. But still - are you active? It really adds to one’s street cred.
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 2:58 AM I haven’t been involved with a group since campaigning for Kucinich in the primaries.
I think a lot of activism for the sake of being “active” is a waste of time and a middle class conceit. I’ve been active and have known a lot of people active in other organizations and have found that they have a tendency toward group think, excessive fashion consciousness, and contempt for the working class they deign to speak for. Many groups also use a top-down organizational heirarchy.
I’m not saying that I don’t look for groups or appreciate a lot of their work—- I do keep an eye out. There is not a chapter of Veteran’s for Peace in this town, though that reminds me—-I promised an Uncle that I would join the American Legion. Thrills.
I’m not saying that these groups are never effective, but that the fact of being active is not a guarantee of being effective and that it is even possible for group action to be counter productive.
I went to D.C. to protest the war last September—-that was an outwardly apparent action. Though I didn’t go to the protest, because my experience with protestors on the train trip there was so overwhelmingly negative that I didn’t feel like joining them. I know that not everyone there was a belligerant jack-ass, but those three days with the anti-war crowd was really unimpressive and discouraging for me. They didn’t seem to be particularly well informed.
In a sense, I think we are at a place in which developing rapport, gathering knowledge, making connections, learning a new language, learning to make the most of the internet, and learning to process information is a necessary part of our adaptation. I think one of the biggest barriers to adaptation and change is not being able to see alternatives. Many alternatives are explored and made available on the web.
I honestly don’t understand why so many people treat the web as if it isn’t “real” or “legitimate”. If we can’t utilize the web for our betterment, what else is going to work? Really. The world’s biggest library. The world’s biggest forum.
Being educated is an act. Educating is an act. Reading is an act. Writing is an act. Changing one’s mind is an act. Changing someone else’s mind is an act.
So is that check I send to the ACLU—-they get results. I write my congress people. I write encouragement and thank you notes to activists and writers. I sign petititions, and send messages to Congress.
Meanwhile, I am doing my best to keep myself informed about what my government is up to, and I consider that to be a responsibile act. I communicate to people in the live world too. I vote. I do something every single day to make myself a better citizen.
I could care less about “street cred”.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 30, 2006 at 5:58 AM wiley - brava. So far the realest thing I’ve read from you. No presumptions. An honest statement of personal position.
I will now try to rip that apart, though you made it more difficult through coherent and detached rhetoric.
“Street cred” is another way of saying ‘ethos.’ How are you going to convince the middle-class of your opinion? Would you listen to a doctor who’d never personally examined a body? Why listen to a liberal who could very well be talking out of their ass? Conservatives are very skeptical of other beliefs, even if they’re in their own benefit. A logical warrior should want to cover all bases.
Of course the internet precludes all this. Anyone can say anything here. So the strength of the idea is paramount, and is the only variable in changing another’s mind, since ethos is out the window. I could be a GOP plant for all you know.
The internet is powerful in both its ability to spread information and its democratic nature. It is very real, but it has its limitations. We can say a lot more, but it has less impact. Go feed someone in the ghetto, and you’ll know what I’m talking about. Maybe you already have; and if so, you probably agree.
Most protesters are indeed bourgeois twats, don’t get me wrong. And while I often criticize their apparent detachment from the subject of their protests, they’re only human. The reptilian brain wants to get laid, after all. Besides, they could be trying to get laid at a stockholders’ meeting. Cut the undergrads a little slack…their hearts are in the right place. Why don’t you attend one, and instead of leaving in disgust, try to organize action; or at least try to sway opinion, as you try to do here?
Being educated is an act. Educating is an act. Reading is an act. Writing is an act. Changing one’s mind is an act. Changing someone else’s mind is an act.
Well…yes and no. I do agree, but those are actions which should be honing skills. Every good kung-fu flick has a badass training sequence. But imagine if that was the denouement? How depressing.
Insomma, if the acts of our owners are getting too much for even the privileged to handle, what are you going to do about it? Send a check to others to handle the situation? Criticize others via broadband? These don’t seem like solutions, but palliatives. Rationalizations help maintain any flawed ideology.
I couldn’t care less about “street cred” either.
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 6:43 AM Instead of telling me how to live my life, and telling me what I should be doing with my life, why don’t you mind your own business.
I am here to discuss issues. I am not here for validation or advice about how to manage my life, or how to be a citizen.
Regardless of what you think is valid, or legitimate, I have my own life and my own pursuits. I’m happy with those and I don’t give a flying fuck what you think of it.
So let’s cut out the sophomic little pretention that you can guide me. If you don’t think this forum is “legitimate”, then butt out.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 30, 2006 at 8:51 AM I’ve never told you how to live your life. I only have proffered options that would be more consistent with your chosen ideology.
If you recall, this little banter started with “Perhaps you both should seek out an admittedly dictatorial society, since that’s what you both apparently want rocco and tina1. ”
I don’t consider that discussing issues. I consider that poor etiquette.
I’m guessing you won’t see my point of view on this either, nor will you address it. A pity. But I keep trying. Jude Rocco of Hopeless Causes, remember?
Posted by rocco on Jan 30, 2006 at 5:40 PM Hey broomstick,
Q: Is it Bush’s fault that Mayor Ray Nagin didn’t order a Mandatory Evacuation until 24 hours before Katrina hit?
YES ... THAT’S CORRECT !!
Nagin didn’t order a mandatory evacuation until the morning of the 28th .. and Katrina hit at 6am on the 29th.
This is from WWLTV in New Orleans the day he ordered the evacuation.
—————————
http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWL082705nagin.b7724856.html
Posted by tina1 on Feb 1, 2006 at 9:27 AM Nagin didn’t order the MANDATORY EVACUATION until the morning of August 28th. Katrina hit Louisiana at 6am on the 29th.
——————————— ;—
Also ... read this:
Nagin said that the predicted tidal surges and heavy rains could mean widespread flooding and power outages that could last for some time.
The order extends to everyone in the city of New Orleans with the following exceptions: Essential military and law enforcement personnel from the city and state, regulated utilities employees, essential members of the media, hospital employees and their patients, medical personnel, Criminal Sheriff’s personnel and inmates and hotels and their patrons.
Nagin said the city could and would commandeer any property or vehicle it deemed necessary to provide safe shelter or transport for those in need. (EXCEPT FOR THOSE 300 SCHOOL BUSES NEXT TO THE SUPERDOME)
——————————— ;————————
Here is the link
http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWL082705nagin.b7724856.html
Posted by tina1 on Feb 1, 2006 at 9:46 AM ....and there is more.
City had evacuation plan but strayed from strategy
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3344347.html
The mayor’s mandatory evacuation order was issued 20 hours before the storm struck the Louisiana coast, less than half the time researchers determined would be needed to get everyone out.
City officials had 550 municipal buses and hundreds of additional school buses at their disposal but made no plans to use them to get people out of New Orleans before the storm, said Chester Wilmot, a civil engineering professor at Louisiana State University and an expert in transportation planning, who helped the city put together its evacuation plan.
Instead, local buses were used to ferry people from 12 pickup points to poorly supplied “shelters of last resort” in the city. An estimated 50,000 New Orleans households have no access to cars, Wilmot said.
State and local plans both called for extra help to be provided in advance to residents with “special needs,” though no specific timetable was prepared. But phone lines for people who needed specialized shelters opened at noon Saturday — barely 30 hours before Katrina came ashore in Louisiana.
Many people from New Orleans ended up staying home or using a “last resort” special needs shelter state authorities and the city health department set up at the Superdome. Those who made it out of town initially found limited space. The state of Louisiana provided shelter in Baton Rouge and five other cities for a total of about 1,000.
In the city of New Orleans alone, more than 100,000 of the city’s residents described themselves as disabled in a recent U.S. census.
Posted by tina1 on Feb 1, 2006 at 9:49 AM Early mistakes
Hospitals were exempted from the mayor’s mandatory evacuation order. But at least two public hospitals, loaded with more than 1,000 caregivers and patients, had their generators in their basements, which made them vulnerable in a flood. That violated the state’s hurricane plan but had gone uncorrected for years because the hospitals did not have the money to fix the situation, a state university hospital official told the Chronicle.
The consequences came to bear in the images hours and days later: Elderly people dying outside shelters and hospitals that were losing power and, finally, their patients. Now, hurricane evacuation experts around the country are asking why New Orleans failed to prepare for the flood scenario from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane.
“Everybody knew about it. There’s no excuse for not having a plan,” said Jay Baker, a Florida State University associate professor who is an expert in hurricane evacuations and is familiar with New Orleans hurricane studies.
Tami Frazier, a spokeswoman for Mayor C. Ray Nagin, currently working out of Houston, refused to comment on direct questions this week or to answer several written questions sent via e-mail. She cited the need to focus on rescuing citizens and recovering bodies.
Robicheaux, the cancer patient who was trapped in a downtown New Orleans hospital, said he thought the city “decided basically to let it ride.”
“When you’re in a city like New York and there’s a big snowstorm, you expect them to have plows. That’s not the way it is here. There are no resources to stockpile supplies.”
Saturday evening, Hurricane Katrina had intensified to Category 4, with the possibility that it could strike land as a killer Category 5 storm.
About 8 p.m., Mayor Nagin fielded an unusual personal call at home from Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center, who wanted to be sure Nagin knew what was coming.
Still, Nagin waited to issue a mandatory evacuation, apparently because of legal complications, said Frazier. She said the city attorney was unavailable for an interview to explain.
The mandatory evacuation order came at 10 a.m Sunday.
Former Kemah Mayor Bill King, who has spent years trying to boost funding and organization for hurricanes planning in the Houston-Galveston area, said Nagin’s decision to wait to order people out compounded the tragedy.
“To call an evacuation on Sunday morning when the storm was going to hit on Monday morning at 6 a.m. is just ... negligence,” King said. “If he’d called it better than that he would have saved lives.”
Special-needs evacuation
The Chronicle reviewed Louisiana’s Emergency Operations Plan, adopted in 2000. It calls for the establishment of specialized shelters for people with special medical needs. It also recommends that cities use public transportation to evacuate residents if necessary.The city of New Orleans Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan suggested people develop their own way to get out. “The potential exists that New Orleans could be without sufficient supplies to meet the needs of persons with special considerations, and there is significant risk being taken by those individuals who decide to remain in these refuges of last resort,” it says.
People who called for information on special needs shelters Saturday were directed to sites in Alexandria and in Monroe, La. — cities 218 and 326 miles away. The state scrambled to find 20 ambulances and some specialized vans to pick up fragile residents who needed rides.
“There were transportation systems in place to take people out of New Orleans, which was the preferred solution,” said Kristen Meyer, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Hospitals. But she’s not sure how many got out.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3344347.html
Posted by tina1 on Feb 1, 2006 at 9:51 AM Florida, by contrast, for two decades has required counties to establish and maintain permanent databases of “special needs citizens,” and arrange rides for people with no transportation. The state also has shelters established for myriad medical conditions.
Florida emergency officials agree that last-minute planning simply doesn’t work.
“Unless you planned in advance, it would be a catastrophe,” said Guy Daines, a retired Florida emergency manager who is considered an expert in specialized evacuations.
In New Orleans, many people with special medical needs ended up at the last resort shelter in the Superdome.
New Orleans’ own special needs evacuation plan, however, says that shelter is “NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS A GUARANTEE OF SAFETY, and the City of New Orleans is not assuring anyone protection from harm within the facilities that are being offered or opened for this purpose.”
“When I saw them loading special needs people into the Superdome the day before the storm, my heart was breaking,” said Patti Moss, a Texas nursing professor who has developed a tracking system for such vulnerable citizens here. “They were in the path of the storm.”
Two of the city’s hospitals dedicated to serving the city’s poor, University and Charity hospitals, quickly lost power, according to Leslie Capo, a spokesman for the Louisiana State University health sciences department.
Posted by tina1 on Feb 1, 2006 at 9:52 AM is it bush’s fault that fema did’nt show up a week late? Bush said he takes full responsibility for the mistake and brownie aploligizes in public too.
Pakistan had an earth quake and u.s. had 4 h-60 helos with 40 u.s. military dropping off food and water the next day but can’t find new orleans for a week?
Posted by brian28 on Feb 2, 2006 at 5:32 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Nick Burt
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
