Observations on Katrina's aftermath

While some are insisting that the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina was unforseable, many are begging to differ.

The New York Times' Paul Krugman noted that back in early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) listed the three most likely catastrophic disasters that might hit the United States: a terrorist attack on New York, a massive hurricane strike on New Orleans and a major earthquake in San Francisco. This report was issued before 9/11; if I lived in the Bay Area, I'd be nervous right about now.

A few years ago, The New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper ran a front page series of articles over several days detailing what would happen if a major hurricane hit the city. Looking back on it, the series reads more like an after-the-fact report than a before-the-event prediction. The paper's editor shared his frustration with NPR.

Back in October 2004, National Geographic also ran a feature on what would likely happen if a major hurricane hit the Big Easy. It makes for chilling reading when you consider it was written last year, not last week.

Unforseable?

Dennis over at Moderate Republican blog writes:

Okay, I will join the chorus and say that Bush should (he won't) fire FEMA head, Mike Brown (AKA, "Brownie"). I'm sorry, but having man whose prior experience was looking after horses and giving lots of money to the President's campaign lead the agency that is charged with dealing with natural and man-made disasters has to be the worst HR decision ever made. If this guy can't get it together for a hurricane, how could he handle another 9/11 style attack?

And I don't know about you, but all those voters who trusted Bush because he was better suited to handle security issues have to be scratching their heads.

Now, reports are circulating that military recruiters are inside the Houston Astrodome recruiting amongst the refugees. There is no indication that any other employers have been allowed to recruit. If this is all true, doesn't anyone feel the slightest ethical pang about such shameless exploitation of people who have lost everything including choices?

Military recruitment horror stories like this one involving those even less vulnerable than the refugees don't inspire confidence.

Defenders of the president angrily deny that the amount of resources devoted to the aggression and occupation of Iraq has anything to do with problems in the Katrina response. It's just some fantasy invented by the Bush-hating far left because it meshes with their irrational hatred of the president.

So I was surprised to read that NATO is going to send military equipment to help the Katrina cleanup.

Possibilities notably include the use of NATO planes to transport aid, while NATO could also deploy for the first time ships from its rapid Response Force (NRF), which can provide heavy lifting for bulky equipment and supplies. This received NATO approval after a formal request from Washington on Thursday.

If Iraq is not draining resources that could have otherwise been used to clean up New Orleans and other hit areas, then why is the world's richest country with the world's most powerful and well-funded military asking for military assistance from anyone else?

Then you have the Democratic Congressional leadership denouncing plans for a Congressional inquiry into Katrina response problems. Dems whine that such a commission would only serve as a partisan whitewash of the president and that they won't participate. Doesn't the absence of Democratic participation INCREASE the risk of a partisan whitewash of the president? It's distressing to see that the same sad lack of leadership and mindless partisanship that embarasses the Republican Party also afflicts the Democrats.

And can anyone explain to me why some are calling for UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's resignation in regard to problems with the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program but are not calling for President Bush's resignation in regard to problems with the Katrina response? If Annan is personally responsible for everything bad that happens in the UN bureaucracy, then why isn't Bush personally responsible for everything bad that happens in the US government bureaucracy? Republicans are trying to deflect attention by calling for the resignation/firing of the head of FEMA; that would satisfy them. Yet they are not satisfied by the fact that Annan not only forced out the head of the Oil-for-Food program but even lifted his diplomatic immunity so he could face potential prosecution by the US justice system. Why is Annan culpable for everything that happens in the UN but Bush is always able to pass the buck?