A great leader in the face of fear would look not to heigthen the fear but to assure his people. Bush should have helped defeat the terrorists by rallying Americans and people of the globe to not be afraid.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

But until the U.S. faces another terrorist attack he can, as president, take credit for improving the situation.

On the one hand it is not simply coincidence that there has not been a terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11/01.

Granted, the situation elsewhere has deteriorated greatly but the American mantra has always been "better there than here."

I suppose the possibility exists that Al Qaeda has planned a terrorist attack for the U.S. but is simply waiting for the new administration to take control in 2009 before implementing it.

That way they could prove, once and for all, that it doesn't matter who the president is.

But since 9/11 the number of significant terrorist attacks have gone up exponentially gettysburg.  Bali, Istanbul (2), Madrid, London, etc., etc., etc... 

It is only a matter of time until they figure out how to hit the US again.  But terrorism is more of a threat now then it was on 9/12/01...and that can be pinned on Bush and his misguided "Bring it on" GWOT.

Most media accounts have overlooked the hawkish language that the new report uses to describe Iran. It's hauntingly similar to the language Bush used four years ago in describing Iraq.

From the report:

We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community. Yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime's true intentions are clearly revealed by the regime's refusal to negotiate in good faith; its refusal to come into compliance with its international obligations by providing the IAEA access to nuclear sites and resolving troubling questions; and the aggressive statements of its President calling for Israel to "be wiped off the face of the earth." The United States has joined with our EU partners and Russia to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations and provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided.

As important as are these nuclear issues, the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom. The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ultimately be resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decision to change these policies, open up its political system, and afford freedom to its people. This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy. In the interim, we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct. The problems lie with the illicit behavior and dangerous ambition of the Iranian regime, not the legitimate aspirations and interests of the Iranian people. Our strategy is to block the threats posed by the regime while expanding our engagement and outreach to the people the regime is oppressing.

"Better there than here," surprise, surprise does not give solace to the Iraqi people who ask why America's war on terror is being fought on their land, in their villages, killing their children.

Would we be surprised to learn that more and more of them are beginning to say, "better there than here."

I heard Chuck Schumer this morning (I think on CNN) use the same line, that we're safer, but not yet safe.

I'm not sure how he's figuring we're even "safer" at this point? Locks on the pilots' doors, air marshalls, maybe some improved comm between the intel agencies.

But all that doesn't make us safer necessarily, especially when the threat has broadened so much, and all our energies and resources are spent not fighting terrorism, but caught in the civil war in Iraq.

Hopefully reiterating the Bush line that we're "safer" is just a Schumer problem, and not (elected Washington) Democratic conventional wisdom.

Oh, and I like this from the WaPo article:

Listed among the administration's "successes" are the 2003 capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 plot, and the killing of "other key al-Qaeda members, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," the commander of an affiliated organization in Iraq who died in June in a U.S. airstrike north of Baghdad. The report does not mention that al-Qaeda's overall leader, Osama bin Laden, and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, remain at large. (bold added)

I'm sure it was just an oversight. Heh. The report also "does not mention" that guys like Mohammed were tortured, which means we cannot ever bring them to trial.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I've always figured that another attack soon in the United States is unlikely because Al Qaeda is relatively attuned to the PR implications of their efforts.  After killing 3,000 people in a coordinated attack on one day, the stakes for any future attacks are raised - would a car bomb that kills 30 or 40 be perceived as anything but Al Qaeda weakness, a sign that its capabilities have been degraded to the point that they cannot contemplate violence in the U.S. on a 9/11 scale?  Failure to sustain a similar or greater level of indiscriminate killing might backfire, leaving us less terrified, rather than more.

If that's correct, arguably, things seeming safer isn't much of an indication of anything - it might mean that there is some real deterrent, actual or merely apparent, but it might also mean that they are biding their time until they have something more destructive to attempt.

Yet, I wonder what happened to the argument posed by many anti-Bush folks that terrorism in general is nothing but a fabricated talking point.

I dunno; this strikes me as a straw man.  But then again (apologies to my fellow travelers), the left does a good job of taking ahold of the straw men of the right and actually believing them, making them into real arguments.  

It's a straw man, I think, because it collapses a lot of positions that probably have been expressed into the least plausible. 

At the far end, there are those who think it's fabricated in the sense that there actually is no objective threat, but it's all cooked up by the government (in press conferences and terror alerts, or by bombing things, at the far end of far).  Further in are those who believe that there are actual terrorists (who aren't government agents), but that they really pose no great threat to us, that they got lucky once and everything since has been hype.  Then there are those who believe that there is a genuine threat, but that the level of individual risk is - until they get a bunch of bombs in suitcases or shipping containers - pretty minimal.  In this sense, that argument goes, the level of fear is seriously out of proprtion.

The last is, I think, fairly compelling.  As a friend of mine who was working across the street from the WTC that day said, there are around a million people who were working in the vicinity that day, and less than 0.03% of them died.  I live across the river and work in Lower Manhattan, so I'm not far from a genuine target (if you think there are such).  But at this point, I'm pretty comfortable taking my chances.

That's right, and one thing that the administration should be held to account for, to the extent that it can be held responsible in part for inciting further terrorism (which I guess is very much debatable) is the degree to which our actions have provoked responses that kill non-Americans. The 'fight them there so you don't have to fight them here' doctrine, arguably, has killed a lot of innocent Turks, Spaniards, Indonesians and others 'there.'

But the specific issue G and I are on is the domestic front. It's true that there have been very successful encores, but it matters, in this context, that they aren't here. Given the scope of the 9/11 attacks, the argument goes (it's mine), Al Qaeda may have refrained from further terrorism within the U.S. because a smaller attack would fail to meet expectations (that's a fucked up way to put it, but there you go), and be a PR loss.

Yeah...and you made some very good points about the domestic threats.  How likely is it that any of us individually will be physically harmed by a terrorist attack?  We have a better chance of winning Powerball. 

But our points do dovetail Devon.  At some point a strengthened global jihadist movement might again come to our shores.  And while the threat that me, you or any other individual will die are very slight others will.  And the reason for those increased chances is George Bush.  I guess I think there is some level of certainty that there will be another attack because the recent past has shown that terrorist attacks are on the upswing not declining.  But I can't stress this point enough...that doesn't vindicate what Bush says about terrorism still being a threat in the slightest.  He is a large part of the problem for a strengthened jihadist movement and deserves no credit in the fight against it.

There's another possibility. Remember the movie Serpico? At one point Serpico was left without back up and ended up getting shot. He had been not taking the payola the rest of his squad was taking and they were worried that he would turn them in. They didn't have to pull the trigger, they didn't even have to contact the shooters, they just had to allow the situation to develop that would put Serpico into extreme danger with out back up.

This could also be what Bushco has done and may do again, that is, put this country into a position of extreme danger with the aim of taking advantage of any situation that develops. When you reflect on the events immediately after the 1st 9/11 strike it sure seemed like Georgie wasn't all that surprised about what was happening. Almost as if he had actually read the briefing about Osama.

It took many years to plan 9/11 and other "major" terrorist actions. I won't say one way or another if Bush is responsible for not having terrorist attacks in the mainland, but terrorist attacks have steadily increased over the last several years. The U.S. is pretty isolated so that makes other "big" attacks less likely in itself. It was many years between the time of the first WTC bombing and 9/11.

The question should not be whether there have been attacks in the U.S. mainland, but whether Bush policies have made the U.S. mainland as safe as it could be.

I remember several articles that quote intelligence or FBI agens claiming they are wasting their time. The NSA forced them to chase threatless people and the FBI was ticked that they had to spend time looking at adult porn transactions (both from the WaPo). This suggests that, even if Bush had to overstep his constitutional authority, it's not necessarily the best way. Also, there has been little progress on important recommendations of the 9/11 Commision.

I don't feel safer at all and I have no reason to trust the Administration when they say "trust me, we've made you safer". They have lied about way too many things.

I'm just a simple ad man with a tendency toward reductive thinking, but five years after 9/11 the FBI still DOESN'T HAVE A COMPUTER SYSTEM.

That would be the kind of system that would have enabled FBI agents to discover that colleagues in other offices were also finding some strange people in airliner flight schools who didn't have much interest in learning how to land a 747.

Not that the Bush administration didn't try. They've thrown $600 million at the problem and have nothing to show for it. Now the FBI is starting over from scratch with new contractors.

Easy to understand and remember all by itself. Fits on a billboard, as well as more complex forms such as 30-second TV spots.

Let all the GOP incumbents explain why there wasn't any oversight.

Have to tune in to Katie now. Just saw her tease "one of the special stories" coming up on the broadcast. I wonder what kind of bar bill Cronkite and Rather will run up tonight.

On the one hand it is not simply coincidence that there has not been a terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11/01.

The Anthrax terrorist emerged after 9/11, killed 5 people, compromised the integrity of the entire postal system, attacked both the Congress and the Media, was never caught and remains free to attack again at will.

The freeway sniper killed X number of people, and terrorized several states.

Meanwhile, hundreds of family planning centres and abortion clinics received 'faux' anthrax scares. Abortion doctors and family planning counsellors were assaulted or murdered.

That's just the obvious, high profile stuff. No telling what we'd find if we went looking carefully.

Jesus H. Christ man, where have you been? What country have you been living in? Seriously.

But probably what you mean is that Osama hasn't kicked your ass lately. Okay, I'll grant you that. For some reason, Osama has not dug his fist into the lube and inserted it up your collective butts.

So, why is this?

Well, if we take a look at the sterling performance of American police and intelligence work at home... we find that the big intercepts have been guys like Jose Padilla, that flake who tried to burn the brooklyn bridge down with a blowtorch, and similar non-entities. Basically, wannabes, posers, talkers and incompetents.

And yet, these are the big scores that John Ashcroft used to brag about, and that the media and the administration trumpets.

Which tells me, pretty clearly, if these are their big scores... they aren't laying a finger on the really dangerous guys. Either those guys aren't around, or they're biding their time.

Well, perhaps they're just deterred by the way the Federal government is so on top of crisis stuff. Hmmm.... Well, lets see, during that big power blackout a few years back, the administration leaped into action and (a) Masturbated; (b) Blamed Canada; and (c) did sweet f*ck all. Then, last year, the administration faced Hurricane Katrina, and with several days to prepare and set up (and terrorists generally don't give you that kind of specific advance warning) the Bush administration leaped into action and (a) Masturbated; (b) Played guitar for photo ops; and (c) did sweet f*ck all. Luckily, there was no blaming Canada this time, instead, it was blame poor black people.

So, let's just say, objectively, that as far as the homeland security goes, you guys are all greased up and bent over, practicing your sooee sounds.

Which brings us back to the question of why hasn't Osama been taking advantage of the endless and ample opportunities to slip the high hard one between your cherry cheeks?

Perhaps your international strength protects you? Yeah, this is the same international intelligence that has no clue as to what Iran may or may not be doing. This is the same international strength which is bleeding steadily away in Iraq, and has made Afghanistan responsible for 92% of *THE ENTIRE WORLD'S HEROIN PRODUCTION.*

You know what? I don't think that's it either.

I think that the reason that Osama hasn't hit you guys lately, is he doesn't need to.

You guys are doing exactly what he wants. You are eliminating his enemies for him. You've taken out Saddam Hussein, turned Iraq into his playground. You may knock off another secular regime in Syria, and open it up to him. You may even go after Iran and all those Shiites he hates so much for him.

Meanwhile, sitting there in Muslim countries, you provide an irresistable target. Why travel to New York, when you can just shoot an American down the street. The buffoonish hamhanded foreign policy has made him an international hero to Muslims. As your credibility dwindles, his rises ever higher.

Take this Lebanon crap. Didn't you guys go out and prove every single thing he ever said about you? How you were dishonest? Warmongers? Hated Muslims? Don't you remember his lovely speech about the office towers of Lebanon being destroyed, and how this inspired him to hit the WTC? Jesus Christ, Israel was blowing up buildings full of children, and you were cheerleading them on. What do you think that did to your credibility, to your reputation, in the Islamic world? And what do you think it did for Osama's reputation, for his standing, for the persuasiveness of his arguments? Hell, the only downside for Osama was that Hezbollah got too much glory.

But here's the point. Osama is a guy who has a message, who is trying to persuade the Muslim World. And guess what, you guys are acting like bad guy wrestlers, spitting and swearing, taking big dumps on your allies, blowing things up left and right, lying, cheating, stealing, perpetually partisan, totally dishonest, carrying illegal foreign objects in your tights.

Christ, its a wonder your whole country doesn't grow mustaches to twirl as you cackle maniacally.

Every time your President opens his mouth, Osama wins a thousand new converts. What the hell does he have to dislike about that?

There was a close moment for him, back in 2004, when it looked like someone else might get in. But hey, Osama intervened on behalf of old faithful. He wanted Bush back in office, because Bush does exactly what he wants.

And by the way, Bush is very good for Osama's family and pals. Or have you looked at the price of a barrel of oil lately? What's it done? Doubled? Tripled since Bush came into office? People are now talking $200 a barrel prices.

So let's recap:

1) George W. Bush is completely ineffective at providing security in the US.

2) George W. Bush is completely ineffective internationally.

3) George W. Bush, all by himself, is steadily destroying the American economy, American military, American prestige and select American cities.

4) George W. Bush is successfully eliminating or undermining many of Osama's worst enemies in the Muslim world.

5) George W. Bush has not laid a finger on Osama or his key people, nor on their ability to hit any country... Turkey, Spain, England, Indonesia, etc., at wil.

6) George W. Bush proves that everything Osama has ever said about America is dead on, both with his words and with his armies of occupation. He is Al Quaeda's biggest recruiting poster.

7) George W. Bush is making all of Osama's friends and allies incredibly rich.

So, after all of that, you wonder why Osama hasn't bothered to bend you over and have his way? Brother me lad, you've not been paying attention. He's doing it to you, and your President is enjoying it. That little audio tape during the election? That was Osama's reacharound.

I have confidence in our intelligence community, as well as our homeland security personell.

Katrina?

the ignorance of the Bush administration yet none of those faults or shortcomings necessarily apply to the men and women who work keep our country safe.

Katrina!

They do their jobs and do them well.

Katrinaaaaaaaaaaa......

Y'see, I can't say Katrina often enough. Think about it. Katrina was visible on satellite, it was tracked for weeks, they had its pathways mapped out, they knew where it was at every point.

Al Quaeda will not give you intelligence like that. Al Quaeda is considerably more discrete than Katrina. Al Quaeda, unlike Katrina, betrays evidence of considerable planning and organization, it has intelligence, direction, purpose.

Katrina caught America with its pants down. Having seen weeks worth of warning signs and high precision satellite photos, engineering assessments, and decades worth of engineering studies and predictions... Katrina reamed you.

And what did the Bush administration do with all those warnings? The possibility, the imminent likelihood of a major crisis with advance warning on a well calculated and throroughly studied scenario....

They went on vacation! Bush was on vacation and doing photo ops, cutting cakes, cutting up, playing guitar. Dick Cheney was on vacation at undisclosed locations. Condie Rice was shopping for thousand dollar shoes and attending broadway plays. Karl Rove? Vacation. Half the administration was for a wedding in Greece.

In short, with a potential crisis forseeable and imminent, its timing known literally down to days and hours... no one could be bothered to pay attention. Katrina. Think about that.

And how did they handle it when the shit hit the fan? Bush stayed on vacation for days, while his flunkies drew straws and made DVD's to tell him how bad it was. Condie Rice shopped for more shoes. Dick Cheney's undisclosed location became top secret.

And how did the department of Homeland Security perform in the aftermath? Not so hot, eh?

And this, all this from a pile of wind and rain.

So the question for you, me boyo, is what do you think is going to happen when someone smart and focused and dangerous comes along? Someone that is bent on not being seen coming? Someone that is intent on hitting you where you are not expecting it?

You figure your band of dickless wonders, the losers, the incompetents, the dunderheads, the cronies and castrati that now populate homeland security and the cia and places north, south, east and west are going to protect you? They're going to leap in at the nick of time and stop it? That they're even going to be able to pick up the pieces?

Let's get real here.

Katrina, baby. Katrina all night and Katrina all day.

Your country couldn't handle Katrina, it can't handle Al Quaeda.

LOL...not that I am into anal rape imagery but if it bothered me stylistically I wouldn't have rated it a "4". ;-)

Condolences, Josh.

Avoiding the long string of replies may I point out that if the administration wants credit for preventing attacks it has to accept responsibility for allowing one? This because they make a big point out of "No one could have expected", "pre-9/11 thinking", and that now they have the tools they needed--unmonitored surveillance, permanent detentions, and preventive wars.

Apropos this thread let's remember that Clinton tried to get and was refused improved NSA protocols in 1996, in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Several provisions requested were, perhaps appropriately, refused by conservative senators.

I am trying to understand why MSM is reporting the news that Pakistan is making peace with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I mean, why is this coming out now? Is the news division being allowed to report this to "balance out" their fictional 9/11 TV movie? Or are there other players behind this?

I would argue the average American isn't stupid, but he/she is certainly woefully ignorant about politics in general. It took forever for the American public to come around on the Cheney administration's incompetance. Cynically, I think Rove and Bush know this and figure the only items most of the American public will be exposed to is the sound bites that come from these three speeches. Hence, all the repetition of the same trite rhetoric.

After the president was re-elected, it's clear that the American public is nothing more than a mirror of George W. Bush.

Time will tell if ignorance and fear will win Bush and Rove another election.

As for the sweet spot, it struck me the same way; Republicans are the ones that can protect you, but always remain ever fearful of your future.

They sure have brought us low.

Katrina isn't necessarily comparable.

Sure. It'll be worse with a real terrorist attack. There'll be no warning, and the targeting will be a lot more focused.

You don't give any creedence whatsoever to one of the most important aspects of the Katrina disaster: There were no first responders to any aspect of the situation.

Bingo! Give the man a prize. And you are figuring that in the event of a major terrorist attack or crisis, the first responders are going to do better?

What you figure that the New Orleans Police, firefighters, hospitals, ambulances, etc. all just went on holiday? Hmmm. The truth is that firefighters kept on the job. Many cops fled when their command structure disintegrated, many stayed on. Ambulance workers, electricians, hospital techs, nurses, all stayed on the job working their hearts out. I remember there were stories of nurses doing CPR in shifts, keeping patients hearts pumping after the life support went off, doing that for days.

There was heroism going on in New Orleans. All sorts of people desperately looking out for each other, trying to hold it all together.

But the lights went off, the radios went out, the command and control structures disintegrated. And suddenly your network of first responders was reduced to a collection of individuals struggling to hold their own little pieces together, in the face of a disaster that overwhelmed everything.

All of which was anticipated or predicted well in advance.

The reality of the matter is that first responders by definition, are not normally suited to handle overwhelming disasters like terrorist attacks.

The truth is that any situation that required Federal intervention is, by definition, a situation that will overwhelm and destroy the first responder networks.

You go to a hospital emergency room and ask them if they could handle a sudden influx of a few hundred wounded from a terrorist attack. Go to the fire department and ask how many fires they could fight simultaneously. Go to the cops and ask them how they'd handle a major disaster or a major outbreak.

The truth is that first responder networks are not designed to take that level of stress, and they'll begin to disintegrate almost immediately.

That's why you've got to have a concerted and effective outside disaster/emergency relief effort.

Federal relief organizations typically mobilize quickly and deploy as soon as possible, relieving first response units. initial trauma which follows a disaster.

Well, that's the theory, 'ennit now. And did we see this happen? Fraid not. And in fact, ifn' we take a few moments out to consider your great blackout of just a few years ago... you know, the one where the first impulse was to blame the Canadians rather than do anything substantive... we see once again, a situation of Federal relief organizations sitting on their hands.

Y'see, that whole regional power failure thing was what we might consider a non-violent, non-fatal test. Your government failed utterly. And, being Bushland, they couldn't be bothered to learn anything from that.

It is unfortunate that FEMA took as long as it did to mobilize, but it is highly This latter group typically deals with the unusual for there to be no semblence of law and order upon Federal intervention.

Oooh I like that word. *unfortunate* FEMA dropped the ball. 1500 people died. You lost an entire city. How *unfortunate.*

Well, my own view is that you're always going to get that breakdown of law and order, if you wait long enough. It's dependent upon the scale of the crisis, doncha know.

In the case of New Orleans, big emergency, immediate action required... FEMA masturbates for a few days. Inappropriate.

It is too far of a stretch to compare a hurricane to a terrorist attack. The latter requires planning, funding, orchestration. Additionally, any attack, even large scale ones like 9/11, only impact a very small and specific target. Natural disasters like Katrina, on the other hand, have the ability to wipe out entire cities. That's pretty overwhelming.

Ooh, like the world trade centre, you mean? Hmmm? Let's see, that pretty much wiped out the New York fire department, shut down the entire cities communication and transportation grids, disrupted air traffic all over the continent, and poisoned half the downtown with toxic dust. I see no sign that the 'first responders' were able to cope or even function. The evidence is that the command and control networks were paralysed or disintegrating. Rudy Giuliani did good television, but the city was paralyzed. If there had been any significant number of survivors or wounded, the hospital networks would have been unable to cope.

Or like a nuclear plant? Or like a chemical plant capable of releasing a major cloud of toxic gases? Or perhaps like a dirty bomb? Or god forbid, they get their hands on a nuke? Isn't that the big ass worst case scenario?

Or perhaps like bombing a bridge or major communications or transportation nexus like the Brooklyn tunnel or the subway system? As Al Quaeda was apparently planning to do.

Or perhaps a major large scale anthrax attack? Even a small localized anthrax attack pretty much shut down congress.

Or perhaps a series of simultaneous precision bombings calculated to produce maximum disruption? Hmmm, that's sort of their MO, isn't it?

Ah what the heck, I admire your faith in Al Quaeda's committment to 'small is beautiful.' You're probably right, they probably won't do much more than blow up a few mailboxes.

But yeah, you're right. There are substantial differences between a hurricane, a volcano, a forest fire, a flood, etc. etc., and a major terrorist attack. In the case of a natural disaster, there's usually clear warnings and well established contingency plans, and there's a definite lack of selectivity.

Terrorist attacks, in contrast, are unknown unknowns. Where a flood is predictable, a major attack is ultimately not predictable. Being not predictable, the contingency plans are inherently unreliable, and a premium is to be put on rapid and flexible response. Where a flood is indiscriminate, an attack is very specific and often timed and structured to maximize damage.

I will grant you that perhaps the Federal government is more focused on stopping terrorism than preparing for natural disasters.

Are they? I see no evidence of that. Seriously. What actual successes, what actual accomplishments, what substantive measurable achievements can you point to?

The endless capture of 3600 #3 Al Quaeda operatives? The Jose Padilla dog and pony show? Obviously, we can't know everything that they do.

But frankly, don't you think that if the Federal Government had scored a better success than Jose Padilla, that we wouldn't all be hearing about it 24/7?

Haven't you stopped to think about that aborted Al Quaeda subway/tunnel plot? Don't you realize that it was Al Quaeda that pulled the plug on that one, itself? Not police work. Not the CIA. Not the army or the NSA. It was Al Quaeda that saved us when they went "uh, not tonight."

Think about this: Al Quaeda was mounting a major operation, and no intelligence or law enforcement detachment had half a clue about any of it. Al Quaeda was mounting a major operation and proceeding without obstacles. Al Quaeda discontinued a major operation, for its own reasons. The American government didn't even learn of the operation until long after the fact.

Which means, boyo, that if they had gone ahead, it is more than likely that they would have succeeded. Or at the very least, it means that they were well ahead in the game when they decided to quit... which improves their chances of succeeding in it immensely.

We didn't even know about it until it was long abandoned. That's how effective your Konservative Keystone Kops were.

Maybe, if things had turned out differently

Even if that is the case, all the more reason for me to have confidence in the men and women working to stop terrorist attacks.

Based on their spectacular performance so far? Good luck with that. And luck is what you'll need.

Katrina was a test. They failed. Your defense, such as it is, is merely buck passing and excuses. The results speak for themselves.

It is unfortunate that FEMA took as long as it did to mobilize, but it is highly unusual for there to be no semblence of law and order upon Federal intervention.

If we take as a given that the lack of first responders was unusual, it is not a given that the reason for FEMA's non-mobilization was because of the lack of law and order. In the first place, that is just blaming the victim and in the 2nd place it does not explain Mississippi's problems.

Most of the difficulties in the beginning were a result of downed communications and the lack of standardization for what there was. None of the local or state responders had satellite phones, which were pretty much all that worked in NO and Mississippi. It was the same situation that caused so many lost police and firefighter lives in the Twin Towers.

Without an adequate radio spectrum for first responders (at any level), it's not going to matter what causes the catastrophe, the results are going to be uncoordinated and inefficient.

The 9/11 commission gave the government an "F" for their communication efforts (except for wiretapping them, of course) as of 12/2005, unless the proposed return of the analog spectrum with reserves for public safety passed Congress this year. The handover date was 2009, though.

The other problems seemed to stem from the federal government's inability to follow the National Response Plan (NRP), which had been finalized 8 months prior to Katrina. Oddly, there are no mentions of the plan on the DHS/FEMA website anymore. The only way you can locate the NRP is if you already know the URL.

The point about the NRP is how many times it mentions the different types of situations where the capabilities of the State and Local first responders may be overwhelmed. For instance, on page ESF #9-5, under the Urban Search and Rescue Annex:

In the event State and local emergency medical services resources are overwhelmed, the ERT ESF #9 leader, in conjunction with the JMT leader and JMT Medical Unit Leader, coordinate with field representatives of ESF #8...

Not all disasters are alike, but the responses to them bear more resemblances than differences.

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."Rumsfeld-Feb.2003

I'm of the persuasion that even Federal emergency responders can be overwhelmed.

You do not see a major metropolitan area under 20 feet or more of water very often.

I'm not excusing the Federal response, but I am saying that the delayed response was unavoidable due to break downs at both the state and Federal level. Governor Blanco must share as much of the blame as anyone with her criminally late evacuation orders.

I find it a bit odd that you criticize American intelligence and Homeland Security despite the fact that there have been no foreign terrorist attacks here in five years.

Based on your post I take it that you attribute this to be a product of good luck only or internal logistical problems for Al Qaeda?

Hardly.

Now, I'm not apologizing for anyone or anything, let alone members of the Bush administration. And I agree wholeheartedly that there has been an abundance of errors with regard to foreign policy and homeland security.

But I am of the opinion that the people of New Orleans were f*cked no matter what. The breeched levees "swamped" not only the city, but the relief efforts as well.

And I'm fairly certain that the outcome would not have been any different ten years ago. And I'm not convinced it would be any different ten years from now.

Actually, Bush has given the terorists EAXCTLY what they wanted. All those people killed weren't the goal. The goal was to get us all paranoid and jittery, to put the USA in a constant state of anxiety, and to trick the USA into an antagonistic stance with the Muslim World (or at least the Arab world).

Terrorism works by manipulating the Authority into becoming repressive. It tries to drive a wedge between a government and its populace, and all too often the governments are willing to overreact.

If you look around, you notice that there's a lot of "look busy" measures going on, but real disaster prevention has been gutted, port security is still nonexistant, etc. We still don't know who did the anthrax letters that appeared shortly afterwards.

No, I think there have been no more terrorist attacks because Bush has been stupid enough to do their work for them, to make Americans scared of their own shadows. Another attack would only run the risk of revealing just how little Bush has done and cost the terrorists their biggest ally.

I'm of the persuasion that even Federal emergency responders can be overwhelmed.

Well, here's the point bucky. They didn't even try. FEMA's response was a big pile of inaction. They were not overwhelmed, they simply failed to act. They failed to operate to even minimal standards of due diligence.

You do not see a major metropolitan area under 20 feet or more of water very often.

You don't see vans filled with fertilizer taking out major office buildings very often. You don't see aircraft crashing into the world trade centre very often.

So your point is?

I'm not excusing the Federal response, but I am saying that the delayed response was unavoidable due to break downs at both the state and Federal level. Governor Blanco must share as much of the blame as anyone with her criminally late evacuation orders.

You aren't excusing the Federal response, but Governor Blanco is really to blame? Hmmm. Somehow I'm skeptical. So when exactly did Governor Blanco give the evacuation order? Was it Blanco or Nagin? When did Blanco declare the state of Emergency? When did Blanco request Federal help?

I find it a bit odd that you criticize American intelligence and Homeland Security

Ooooh!!! Is someone playing the 'patriotism' card? Am I too Un-American? Are you questioning my bona fides as a true blue supporter of the red white and blue? Maybe I don't support the troops either?

Sadly, there's nothing odd about criticizing American intelligence and homeland security, when they've got it coming. Katrina.

despite the fact that there have been no foreign terrorist attacks here in five years.

Hmmm. Nice little save there, the inclusion of the word 'foreign' being your tacit admission that there have been terrorist attacks inside the US since 9/11.

I guess domestic terrorism is okay? Getting blown up, anthraxed, or snipered by real Americans isn't so bad?

Based on your post I take it that you attribute this to be a product of good luck only or internal logistical problems for Al Qaeda? Hardly.

Well, actually, if you were able to read my posts, I would attribute this to (1) Bush doing exactly what the terrorists want and meeting all their needs, such that they feel no particular urge; and (2) The conscious decision on the part of Al Quaeda not to strike within the US as seen in their own aborting of major strikes.

To support this position, I offer up both facts and arguments.

In support of your position, you offer up...
repetition? Faith? Wishful thinking? LOL

But I am of the opinion that the people of New Orleans were f*cked no matter what. The breeched levees "swamped" not only the city, but the relief efforts as well.

And I'm fairly certain that the outcome would not have been any different ten years ago. And I'm not convinced it would be any different ten years from now.

Well, I don't know about ten years from now, but ten years ago, the outcome in terms of disaster response would have been very different.

The consensus is that ten years ago, FEMA was a gem of an organization, manned and maintained by top notch professionals who knew their job and acted diligently.

FEMA under Bush became just another patronage plum, first for Albaugh then for Brown. It was emasculated and folded into homeland security. It became notoriously corrupt and ineffective, an electoral tool in Florida. Personnel left FEMA in droves, particularly those most competent.

In short, the management of FEMA became a textbook case of cronyism and incompetence under George W. Bush. This is particularly appalling when FEMA had to be the critical Federal response to any attack or disaster.

New Orleans could have flooded at any time. But FEMA's and the Federal response would have been very different with competent people at the helm.

Seriously, can you imagine Bill Clinton staying on vacation for four days while New Orleans drowned? Do you seriously believe Al Gore would have hid out at an undisclosed location? Let's get real here.

Ultimately, my argument is very simple. My thesis is that performance in one crisis can be generalized to assess likely performance in other crisis, and a major failure of performance in a critical area suggests that there is a likelihood of performance failures in other areas.

But of course, your argument is that its all a special instance. So we can't generalize or assess performance based on the response to the Anthrax terrorist, or to the freeway sniper, or the great power failure, or New Orleans.

It was a special case that Al Quaeda aborted its own plans to take out New York's subway and tunnels and we didn't know about it until months after the fact. You are sure that if Al Quaeda had another major attack in the works, your boys could find it and stop it.

Unfortunately, you can't point to any evidence or make coherent argument.

Wishful thinking.

...why MSM is reporting the news that Pakistan is making peace with Al Qaeda and the Taliban[?]

See, it's really Clinton's fault,yeah that's it, and Pakistan's too, yeah, that's it, yeah.

Joking aside, the other, more frighthening possibility, is that there is likely to be another major attack on American soil that OBL will be taking credit for and the stage is being set to deflect criticism about the administration not stopping his freedom to act.

I disagree with this: 

It is too far of a stretch to compare a hurricane to a terrorist attack. The latter requires planning, funding, orchestration.

Yes, so it is even lamer to excuse the poor response to an approaching weather system, which gave US the opportunity for planning, funding, and orchestration to deal with it in advance.

 Additionally, any attack, even large scale ones like 9/11, only impact a very small and specific target. Natural disasters like Katrina, on the other hand, have the ability to wipe out entire cities.

 First of all, as previously mentioned this was predicted to be the mother of all hurricanes, and was also exactly where a simulation had been worked on a year prior to it.  There was no justification for sitting back and waiting to be asked for help.  Each crisis is different from the last, and saying that a hurricane is bigger than a given attack might excuse some lapses in another otherwise adequate response, but not the ENTIRE FREAKING LACKING OF A RESPONSE.

Secondly, what if Katrina had been an organized group of dirty bombs?  What if thousands of people had to be quarantined, and treated over time for radiation sickness?   I promise you the Texans would not have wanted them in their Astrodome, and who could blame them? 

There was NOTHING in place.  The communications problems noted in the 911 report, and now a year after Katrina still have not been addressed or remedied.  Whoever got rich by selling thousands of unusable motorhomes to Homeland Security, and whoever is cleaning up on renting out the land where they are parked until they disintegrate in ARkansas are still unaccountable for their crimes.  Do you think cruise ships would have welcomed people radiating deadly rays, even if they got to charge 10 times what it cost them?

I think Katrina is a very good example of the shortcomings of our government's planning.  I guess if you want a more perfect example you could go back to 911 and all the warnings that were ignored, but that is so pre-911.

Jan Knaus

NO, sorry, I'm watching Georgie right now, and he just said we don't torture. Hope that makes you feel better. I'm sure Mohammed does.

Funny thing, though, he is asking Congress to pass a low indemnifying our guys from lawsuits when they go against the Geneva Conventions. Why is he asking for that? I mean, he just SAID we don't torture! Gee, I'm really confused.

Jan Knaus

Actually the clans did not just "threaten open warfare". Fierce battles over the last few months in North Waziristan left thousands dead. The fighting wasn't over camels, sheep or poppy, it was over the presence of Taliban/Al Qaida in the province.

Reading Asian news sites paints a troublesome picture. The pro-Taliban Pashtun tribes get:

1. Withdrawl of the Pakistani army
2. Pakistan drops it's insisence that foreign fighters register (the original source of the conflict)
3. Hundreds of Taliban/Al Qaida members get released from Pakistani jails.
4. War reparations to the tribes rumoured to be over 50M for damages to tribal families who lost members in the fighting.

Pakistan gets:

1. A promise that the Taliban will quit crossing the border into Afghanistan
2. A promise from the Taliban that they'll "quit hurting us".

Maybe we should have pursued Al Qaida when they fled Tora Bora into this region instead of "finishing daddy's war".

Facts?

Naw.

I'm disappointed by your rebuttal.

Harris issued the mandatory evacuation order THE DAY OF THE HURRICANE.

Too late bucko, especially for all of the underpriviledged who did not have transportation.

You can blame the Feds for not getting them out of the flood, but you have to blame Blanco for them getting stuck in the first place.

FEMA was a gem? Not another Clinton lover...

August 25, Hurricane makes landfall in Florida.

August 26, 1:00 am, Katrina downgraded to a tropical storm.

August 26, 5:00 am, Katrina upgraded to a category 1 hurricane.

August 26, 3:00 pm, Meteorology predicts Katrina will hit Louisiana. Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco declared a state of emergency for the state of Louisiana. The declaration included activation of the state of Louisiana's emergency response and recovery program under the command of the director of the state office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness to supply emergency support services. Following the declaration of a state of emergency, federal troops were deployed to Louisiana to coordinate the planning of operations with FEMA.

August 27, 5:00 am, Katrina reaches category 3 intensity.

August 27, 10:00 am, MANDATORY EVACUATION ORDERS officials in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, St. Tammany Parish, and Plaquemines Parish ordered a mandatory evacuation of all of their residents. Jefferson Parish and St. Bernard Parish ordered voluntary evacuations, recommending that all residents evacuate, particularly those living in lower areas. Jefferson Parish officials did declare a mandatory evacuation for the coastal areas of Grand isle, Crown Point, Lafitte, and Barataria.

August 27, 5:00 pm, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin announced a state of emergency and a called for a voluntary evacuation. He added that he would stick with the state's evacuation plan and not order a mandatory evacuation until 30 hours before the expected landfall. This would allow those residents in low-lying surrounding parishes to leave first and avoid gridlocked escape routes. However, he did recommend that residents of low-lying areas of the city, such as Algiers and the 9th Ward, get a head start. Nagin said the city would open the Superdome as a shelter of last resort for evacuees with special needs

Also on August 27, Governor Blanco sends a letter to President George W. Bush asking him to declare a major disaster for the State of Louisiana, in order to release federal assistance. In response to Governor Blanco's request, President Bush declared a federal state of emergency in Louisiana under the authority of the Stafford Act, which provided a, "means of assistance by the Federal Government to State and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which result from such disasters,..." The emergency declaration provided for federal assistance and funding, as well as assigned, by law, the responsibility for coordinating relief efforts with those government bodies and relief agencies which agree to operate under his advice or direction, to the FEMA federal coordinating officer (FCO).

August 28, Just after midnight, at 12:40 AM CDT (0540 UTC), Hurricane Katrina reached Category 4 intensity with 145 mph winds. By 7:00 AM CDT (1200 UTC), it was a Category 5 storm, with maximum sustained winds of 175 mph (280 km/h), gusts up to 215 mph (344 km/h) and a central pressure of 902 mbar.

August 28, 10:00 am, Nagin declared that "a mandatory evacuation order is hereby called for all of the parish of Orleans." "We're facing the storm most of us have feared," he told the early-morning news conference, with the governor at his side.

August 29, At 6:10 AM CDT (1110 UTC), Hurricane Katrina made its second landfall as a Category 3 hurricane near Buras-Triumph, Louisiana, with sustained winds of more than 125 mph (201 km/h). Katrina also made landfall in St. Bernard parish and St. Tammany parish for a total of three landfalls in Louisiana.

Sorrier than you know. It wasn't Blanco's jurisdiction to issue voluntary or mandatory evacuation orders. It was the Parishes and the City.

And if you look at the timeline I filched from Wikipedia, Blanco declared a state of emergency three days before landfall, as soon as possible after it became clear that the Hurricane was heading for Louisiana. The declaration of emergency was intended to trigger FEMA's action.

Too bad. So sad. 1800 dead.

Like I said, it is the responsibility of local and state officials that people could not exit the city, and it is the responsibility of the Federal government for not getting them out once the levees broke.

If you want to put 100% of the blame on Fema and Washington, so be it. It doesn't change anything.

According to the NRP, all 3 levels of government share evacuation responsibilities.

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."Rumsfeld-Feb.2003

Valdron, I'm on your side, but if you insist...on page ESF#1-4 of the National Response Plan, the duties of the Federal Agency, Dept. of Transportation (DOT) includes this paragraph:

Provides technical assistance to Federal, State, local, and tribal governmental entities in evacuation or movement restriction planning, and determining the most viable transportation networks to, from, and within the incident area, as well as alternate means to move people and goods within the area affected by the incident.

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."Rumsfeld-Feb.2003