Quote:
Originally posted by smallman@Sep 3 2005, 07:40 PM
Personally I see the entire fiasco not only as a political black eye for Bush, but as a political black eye for Homeland Security. They had a couple days to prepare, which they wouldn't have gotten if, say, a chemical attack happened in New Orleans; and yet, they were still unable to orderly evacuate the city in the aftermath. I think there has been some serious break down in the interaction between federal, state, and local governments. Basically what it boils down to is this, besides efforts to allow rescue and emergency workers the ability to communicate in a disaster, Homeland Security would be fundamentally unable to protect us in times of emergency. Is it just a placebo to make citizens feel more secure than they are, or what? I would appreciate any thoughts on the matter, as I admittedly do not know all that I could on it.
|
I agree its a black eye for Homeland Security. For all the money we've spent supposedly preparing for large magnitude civic disasters, it seems the preparation for and respone to Katrina was inadequate.
Could more have been done? I don't know all the facts but I've worked for 20 years in disaster management and I've seen even the best laid plans go awry. Still, Katrina does seem to have revealed weakness spots in our planning. Perhaps we can learn from it.
Do I hold the Bush administration to be at fault? I'm not as quick to lay all the blame at the feet of GWB, but, the truth remains that he's the one at the helm now so he takes either the credit or the blame for what transpires. But the same result could easily have happened to a Kerry administration, a Gore administration or a Clinton administration. In my opinion, though, GWB does take a black eye for golfing at fundraisers while NOLA drowned. Shades of Daryl Gates at the strart of the Rodney King riots.
I do think Homeland Security is largely a placebo. Its just a another bureaucracy propelled by the same forces that influence bureaucracies nationwide, namely: careerism and cronyism amongst its managers, risk aversion, lack of vision, internal turf battles and politics, adherence to "procedure" and mountains upon mountains of paperwork. Anyone feel safer?
SG