Bush Administration Is Horribly Mismanaging Relief Efforts

In article , "Petal and Leif"
wrote:

It took George Bush 5-6 days before he decided to come to New Orleans
himself. Another disaster. He said "no thanks" to countries that were
willing to come to support. Our government has offered medical staff and
marine divers. No answer has been given yet.... It is a tragedy, not only a
natural disaster. A disaster from how the US government has handled this.

He did not come because he was asked to stay away. The resources
that HAVE to be used to accompany a presidential visit only take
away from what is available for use in the actual efforts.


A second thought, is that global heating create stronger hurricanes world
wide. That is a fact that most scientists agree about. George Bush and his
crew did not want to sign the Cyoto Protocol, because cutting down on
climate gases would hurt the american economy.
How terrible!

Actually it isn't. No one has suggested that global warning has
anything to do with increasing hurricane activity or severity. It is
a cycle that has been in place for as long as these things have been
recorded.



--
I didn't - in spite of ample warnings by sociologists
from large Eastern Universities - foresee the need to have
27" flat-screen television sets available to every family in the
New Orleans city limits as soon as the electricity went out.
That one WAS my bad.
--Richard Galen at www.mullings.com

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
nk.net...
In article , "Petal and Leif"
wrote:

It took George Bush 5-6 days before he decided to come to New Orleans
himself. Another disaster. He said "no thanks" to countries that were
willing to come to support. Our government has offered medical staff and
marine divers. No answer has been given yet.... It is a tragedy, not only
a
natural disaster. A disaster from how the US government has handled this.

He did not come because he was asked to stay away. The resources
that HAVE to be used to accompany a presidential visit only take
away from what is available for use in the actual efforts.

So you think it was right of him not to come? That his militart helicopter
was used to rescue people, or that it would be in somebodys way if it was
flying around?
It is wired how other leaders have managed to be at the spot fast after
natural disasters.
He took pretty long to come down to groud zero after the terror attacks too.
While Bill clinton was walking around the ruins helping, and giving people
moral support.



A second thought, is that global heating create stronger hurricanes world
wide. That is a fact that most scientists agree about. George Bush and his
crew did not want to sign the Cyoto Protocol, because cutting down on
climate gases would hurt the american economy.
How terrible!

Actually it isn't. No one has suggested that global warning has
anything to do with increasing hurricane activity or severity. It is
a cycle that has been in place for as long as these things have been
recorded.


Yes, so keep on pumping gases out in the air then, and we will see what
happens. Do you think it is good for us, or not?

Leif

Where did you read this?


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
nk.net...

He did not come because he was asked to stay away. The resources
that HAVE to be used to accompany a presidential visit only take
away from what is available for use in the actual efforts.


Actually it isn't. No one has suggested that global warning has
anything to do with increasing hurricane activity or severity. It is
a cycle that has been in place for as long as these things have been
recorded.

In article , "Petal and Leif"
wrote:

So you think it was right of him not to come? That his militart helicopter
was used to rescue people, or that it would be in somebodys way if it was
flying around?
Yep. Marine 1 would in no way shape or form be allowed to
pickup the random hitchhiker. It would be in many people's way.

It is wired how other leaders have managed to be at the spot fast after
natural disasters.
You mean the ones that don't come equipt with Secret Service and a
couple hundred press corp? Two or three plane flotillas for the
security, signals, his limo etc. Those people?

He took pretty long to come down to groud zero after the terror attacks too
The next day.
..
While Bill clinton was walking around the ruins helping, and giving people
moral support.

Bill Clinton showed up in Homestead about four days afterwards.
Few go directly to the scene, especially the bigger ones. It is VERY
disruptive and actually puts people in jeopardy by pulling cops,
troops and others off other duties to protect, move and serve the
pres and entourage.

--
I didn't - in spite of ample warnings by sociologists
from large Eastern Universities - foresee the need to have
27" flat-screen television sets available to every family in the
New Orleans city limits as soon as the electricity went out.
That one WAS my bad.
--Richard Galen at www.mullings.com

Kurt Ullman wrote:


A second thought, is that global heating create stronger hurricanes world
wide. That is a fact that most scientists agree about.

Actually it isn't. No one has suggested that global warning has
anything to do with increasing hurricane activity or severity. It is
a cycle that has been in place for as long as these things have been
recorded.


Wrong, but thanks for playing. Plenty of scientists are confident that
Global Warming is the cause for increased hurricane activity or
severity. (To save you the effort, I've googled and copied some excerpts
with this point of view below my signature.)

I'm in no position to say which camp of scientists is right and which is
wrong. I am most emphatically trying to say that Global Warming remains
on the table as an explanation contrary to your claim otherwise.

Karen Selwyn


Pew Center on Global Climate Change:
"Just about everyone is now aware of climate change, so people are much
more likely to make a connection between weather events and the climate.
When an extreme weather event occurs, it is not unusual for people to
ask if it is the result of global warming. Because of the link between
higher ocean temperatures and hurricanes, there is speculation that
hurricanes will increase in frequency or intensity in a warmer world,
with higher wind speeds and greater precipitation. We have more
confidence in the link between global warming and increased intensity
and precipitation than in increased frequency. However, higher ocean
temperatures also appear to influence the track of hurricanes,
increasing the likelihood of hurricanes tracking through the Caribbean
or making landfall on the U.S. east coast."

National Center for Atmospheric Research:
"Kevin Trenberth from the National Center for Atmospheric Research
claims that warmer oceans and increased moisture could intensify the
showers and thunderstorms that fuel hurricanes.

"Trends in human-influenced environmental changes are now evident in
hurricane regions," Trenberth said. "These changes are expected to
affect hurricane intensity and rainfall, but the effect on hurricane
numbers remains unclear. The key scientific question is how hurricanes
are changing."

NewScientist.com:
"Global warming is pumping up the destructive power of hurricanes and
typhoons, a new study suggests.

An analysis of data on storm winds and duration shows that potential
wind-caused damage has roughly doubled over the past 30 years, although
tropical sea-surface temperatures have increased by only half a degree
over that time, says Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, US.

The frequency of hurricanes seems unaffected by global warming. Regional
totals vary periodically, but the number of tropical cyclones around the
world averages a steady 90 per year. But Emanuel's study is the second
in weeks to link storm intensity with climate.

Feeding peak sustained-wind data into his model, he calculated the total
potential destructive power over the life of all storms each year since
about 1950 in the world’s two best-monitored areas – the North Atlantic
and the north-west Pacific. He found a striking correlation between
their destructive potential and sea-surface temperatures.

Smoking gun
Hurricanes are powered by the temperature difference between the top of
the sea and the air above the storm, so warmer water was expected to
pump the storms harder. But previous computer models had predicted that
the half-degree increase in sea-surface temperatures from global warming
over the past 30 years should have increased wind speed by only about
3%, corresponding to a 10% increase in Emanuel's estimate of destructive
power.

Instead, Emanuel found that the destructive power of North Atlantic
storms more than doubled over the past 30 years. For north-west Pacific
storms, the increase was about 75%. He attributes the sharp jump to
increases in storm duration as well as much larger than expected
increases in wind power.

The results surprised Chris Landsea at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s Hurricane Research Division in Miami, US.
"This is the first article that has a smoking gun between global warming
and hurricane activity," he told New Scientist."

So Kurt, are you happy with the way they have handled the situation?
Both when it come to pre-protecting (maintaining the dikes), and the
evacuation during the hurricane and flooding? If you are thinking it has
been handled well, I think you should say so to those that is affected.
Because they must be wrong then. At least that is my impression both
personal, and from what I see people (among them the Major of New Orleans)
are saying.

La

"jcz" wrote in message
...
Where did you read this?



Oh I think Kurt will come up with anything in defense of Bush. Can't you
tell that from his posts?

"E.k.R." wrote in message
...

"jcz" wrote in message
...
Where did you read this?



Oh I think Kurt will come up with anything in defense of Bush. Can't you
tell that from his posts?


I was starting to get a feeling about that myself. For some people, it is
really hard to admit that Bush has done a lousy job. No matter how clear and
obvious it may be.

LA

Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Petal and Leif" wrote in message
...
In article , "Petal and Leif"
wrote:

It took George Bush 5-6 days before he decided to come to New Orleans
himself. Another disaster. He said "no thanks" to countries that were
willing to come to support. Our government has offered medical staff and
marine divers. No answer has been given yet.... It is a tragedy, not only
a natural disaster. A disaster from how the US government has handled
this.


As explained to you, no president goes immediately to a disaster area
because of all the security involved and press corps that would follow...It
impedes the progress of emergency situations underway because of the
attention that it attracts.
Just this past July, while in Anchorage, Alaska, we saw former President
Jimmy Carter and Rosalyn walking down the street followed by an entourage of
secret service agents....and that caused quite a stir and there wasn't even
a group from the press following .

Please post the proof that President Bush said *no* to anyone who has
offered support...And not from some sensational source that you apparently
believe. Are you actually privey to the communications between our two
governments? If what your government has offered is actually needed, I doubt
very much that it will be refused.

Kurt Ullman said:
He did not come because he was asked to stay away. The resources
that HAVE to be used to accompany a presidential visit only take
away from what is available for use in the actual efforts.

And you responded:
So you think it was right of him not to come? That his militart helicopter
was used to rescue people, or that it would be in somebodys way if it was
flying around?

Of course it was right for him to wait and assess the situation without
getting in the way. There were people with whom he had to meet and discuss
strategies..With all his aides and press corps covering his visit , they
would have added to the confusion. It was on the ground, that his presence
would have been disturbing and impeded progress, not while in the air. How
conveniently you ignore how the situation improved rapidly after he came...


It is wired how other leaders have managed to be at the spot fast after
natural disasters.
He took pretty long to come down to groud zero after the terror attacks
too. While Bill clinton was walking around the ruins helping, and giving
people moral support.

You are from another country, do you believe everything that is *wired?*
Don't you think that there is enough finger pointing at who should have done
what and when without you adding more discord? You were not there...how can
you be judge and jury about how the US government handled anything?

Where were you on 9-11? Where you there? Did you actually see who was there
and when? Perhaps you should do some research that provides you more
accurate data as the sequence of events and not be so critical...Or did you
choose to ignore when the President was standing amongst the rubble with
the fire fighters and police, comforting and encouraging everyone? Also
learn something about the protocol of what government officials do and for
what reasons, before you judge anyone and why they do not do the things you
think that they should...

Sorry to come down on you so hard, but at a time when our country is
experiencing such a tragedy, we need no criticism such as you have doled
out. I have been to an evacuation center filled with desperate human
beings who have been through a horribly tramatic time and I see all the good
things being done for them.. Hopefully, we will all come through this wiser
and more compassionate...So how about posting encouraging words not
criticism..
Thank you,

--Jean

In article , "Petal and Leif"
wrote:
So Kurt, are you happy with the way they have handled the situation?
We have gotten many tons of supplies, over 9500 people have been
taken off roofs by the Coast Guard alone, within a day there were
6,000 Guardsmen in place over an area of 90,000 square miles and 5
million people. In less than a week we have over 100 field hospitals
up and functioning (according to the Surgeon General today), we have
10 or more Urban Search and Rescue teams. There were 1700 trucks of
equipment staged and a more than that currently enroute. There are
over 20 choppers of various sizes in place.
Could it have been better, sure. Will we do better the next
time, possibly unless Mother Natures throws something at us.

Both when it come to pre-protecting (maintaining the dikes), and the
evacuation during the hurricane and flooding? If you are thinking it has
been handled well, I think you should say so to those that is affected.
Because they must be wrong then. At least that is my impression both
personal, and from what I see people (among them the Major of New Orleans)
are saying.

The work that everyone has been touting as being preventative has
been touted at intervals since at least the mid-50s. Cat 4+
hurricanes are a rare occurance (this is the 5th in 106 years and
the first since '69) adn many different people and many different
administrations have decided that the cost benefits wasn't enough.
Also most of the talk has been about lessening overflow and would
have had virtually no impact on breaks such as what happened here.
I know of a number of flood control projects in my home town
that were put forth, put on hold and then brought back out following
a 100-year flood. It is human to decide we can tame nature and
nature's to remind us how little we know.


--
I didn't - in spite of ample warnings by sociologists
from large Eastern Universities - foresee the need to have
27" flat-screen television sets available to every family in the
New Orleans city limits as soon as the electricity went out.
That one WAS my bad.
--Richard Galen at www.mullings.com