"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
FEMA doesn't have near enough people to handle a crisis that reaches the
magnitude of katrina...

So why bother having the agency at all?
You are saying that without taking control of the National Guard,
President Bush does not have enough resources to commit to any rescue and
relief effort.

Correct. He either needs to have control over the guard in times of
disaster...or he needs to be able to use the military for recovery efforts
*and* law enforcement.





FEMA provided such an effort, only they got started a week late.

In other words, your basic premise is shown to be incorrect by your own
statements.



So now answer the question:
Who are these imaginary people you would send?


I guess the whole range of federal agencies and bureaus from the VA to the
FDA are imaginary?


Let me remind you that the U.S. Navy was quite prominent in sending
ships, including a hospital ship, to the relief of disaster victims. But
they didn't get orders until the Friday after Katrina had hit... a full
working week.


The U.S. Navy wasn't providing law enforcement,

Exactly. Thanks for agreeing with my point.

President Bush did *not* need to request control of the Louisiana National
Guard, since he could (and later did) send the U.S. military to provide
rescue & relief services.

You missed the description of how things work:

1) local/state law enforcement
2) National Guard
3) US Military.

In one breath, you oppose executive branch control of first-reponders, and
in the next breath, you're criticizing the President for not sending the
U.S. military in sooner.





.... If you remember, there were two issue preventing assistance from
reaching the area:

1) a destroyed infrastructure (flooded roads, unsafe bridges, etc)


Are you saying that the Feds might as well not send anybody, or are you
saying the state has more & better resources to overcome this problem?


The state has neither more nor better resources...but they have the benefit
of personnel and equipment in close proximity to the disaster.




2) hoodlums rioting and firing at rescue workers


That was a problem, yes. Was Bush's control of the National Guard
necessary to solve it?


Not if the governor was competent and sent the Guard to control it sooner.


Since they were already moving in that direction, and did just as much or
more than any federal agency & did it sooner, I'd suggest the answer to
that is 'no.'




Did they get orders via Homeland Security?


Of course!


THen why did no other Homeland Security agency provide aid & rescue
*during* the storm itself, much less immediately after?



Which other DHS agencies are you speaking about?



If so, why weren't some of the other branches of Homeland Security on the
spot?



Which branches are you speaking of? Homeland Security doesn't have it's
own branch to handle law enforcement issues in times of crisis.

I suggest you take a look at the number of agencies under the umbrella of
Homeland Security.


I've seen the list. So which agency has the people and equipment necessary?



... Perhaps the answer is to assign to DHS the authority over a portion
of each state's National Guard or Reserve troops to handle law
enforcement issues in times of crisis.


Perhaps the answer is NOT have a President and an executive administration
that thinks it's fine & dandy to have large numbers of Democrats drowned &
their homes & cities blasted.

This is where your argument falls apart. By making this a Republican v.
Democrat issue, you've exposed yourself as not a problem-solver, but a
partisan hack.



Maybe the Posse Comitatus act is a good thing, if it occured to Karl Rove
then Bush might have ordered the U.S. military to attack Democrat
controlled areas in the absence of any disaster.

Perhaps. Or he could just blow up the levees and drown all of the
Democrats. Oh wait! He used that one already.