The independent UK thinks Americans might have questions. In an article entitled “The questions a shocked America is asking its President”, they ask:
- Why has it taken George Bush five days to get to New Orleans?
- How could the world’s only superpower be so slow in rescuing its own people?
- Why did he cut funding for flood control and emergency management?
- Why did it take so long to send adequate National Guard forces to keep law and order?
- How can the US take Iraq, a country of 25m people, in three weeks but fail to rescue 25,000 of its own citizens from a sports arena in a big American city?
A BBC correspondent has some thoughts on that, starting with:
The only difference between the chaos of New Orleans and a Third World disaster operation, he said, was that a foreign dictator would have responded better.
Meanwhile, CNN has a new article up on “The Big disconnect on New Orleans” which compares official statements of the crisis to CNN reporting over the past couple of days.
UPDATE: Now on CNN, meterologists discussing what they were forcasting for last friday, 2-1/2 days before the Hurricane hit land. They were forcasting a Category 4 hurricane, which was widely predicted to completely flood New Orleans.
Also worth reading: Salon has up several pages of reader contributed stories from people who were in the area.
September 3rd, 2005 at 1:21 pm
> Why has it taken George Bush five days to get to New Orleans?
2005 is not an election year (compare with hurricane Frances et al. in 2004)
The majority in New Orleans does not vote Republican (compare with South Florida in 2004).
September 3rd, 2005 at 2:27 pm
I’m reminded of the heat wave that occured in France in August 2003. A choice quote: Emergency-room doctors criticized the French government for not acting quickly enough to deal with the crisis, which is now in its second week. Many of the ministers, including Raffarin, had been on vacation.
September 3rd, 2005 at 2:28 pm
“The only difference between the chaos of New Orleans and a Third World disaster operation, he said, was that a foreign dictator would have responded better. ”
Yes. He would go into denial. He would not have let any information of the disaster out of the country. Because his dictatorship is usually the cause of the disaster. It would be as if nothing happened. Eg. Famine in North Korea.
If a freak disaster occured the scale of damage would be proportional to the scale of his dictatorship. The more dictatorial the larger the human suffering. The bigger the scale of human suffering due to this “freak” occurance the more he will advertise for foreign aid to make up for the lack of preparation *he* is responsible for. The more dictatorial he is, the more his people are ill-prepared to be up to the task of surviving.
September 3rd, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Comment 2, you are dead right. I was just thinking exactly the same thing: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update29_data.htm
September 3rd, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Risa you quoted:
“How can the US take Iraq, a country of 25m people, in three weeks but fail to rescue 25,000 of its own citizens from a sports arena in a big American city? ”
How many of those 25,000 died?
September 3rd, 2005 at 2:48 pm
No one knows, David, but the Guardian is now quoting more than 10,000.
September 3rd, 2005 at 3:07 pm
“How many of those 25,000 died?”
Some have to die before they get help?
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
September 3rd, 2005 at 3:42 pm
From the BBC article:
September 3rd, 2005 at 6:50 pm
Comment 8
I’m sorry, but what is your point?
September 3rd, 2005 at 6:54 pm
Comment 6,
The article says: “…fail to rescue 25,000 of its own citizens from a sports arena in a big American city?” I’m assuming rescue means: to save their lives from the hurricane. As far as I can make out the vast majority of those particular people survived.
September 4th, 2005 at 3:07 am
“I’m assuming rescue means: to save their lives from the hurricane. As far as I can make out the vast majority of those particular people survived.”
How proud you must be that only a few dozen died of dehydration! On world-wide TV too.
In the richest country in the world, when the largest natural disaster ever strikes, people expect the federal government to provide support and leadership as needed. Clearly, the 25,000 needed “re-rescuing” and ball was dropped. Some blame can be placed on the local and state authorities, but frankly, given the scale of this, only the federal gov’t could handle this.
25,000 survived the storm but then some died needlessly. It’s a national disgrace that old, poor people in wheelchairs where allowed to die in the Louisiana sun when the slightest flexing of federal executive muscle could have saved them.
September 4th, 2005 at 6:02 am
While browsing www about NOLA catastrophe I found this shocking stuff on http://www.zmag.org :
Generally I find articles on this site well balanced and credible, but this accusation is so explosive (that the Governor turned off the drinking water), I’m not sure. Any other source to confirm this?
September 4th, 2005 at 6:05 am
Sorry, link is not functional (at leats in my firefox), so here is URL:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=8652
September 4th, 2005 at 8:27 am
That zmag article has lots of interesting information I would like to see corroborated as well.
Unfortunately, it seems the author took a rhetorical tip from Bush himself. I am pondering the purpose of this paragraph, wedged in between two seemingly unrelated paragraphs:
He seems to want to suggest that someone is deliberately punishing NOLA for opposing the GOP or Big Oil or something, which is a very serious accusation. However, rather than say that (and be taken to task on such crazy speculation), he just provides you with some factual information and leaves you to fill in the blanks.
Guilt by verbal proximity. It worked for Al Queda and Hussein!