The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have each published articles on Sunday, September 11, that look critically at state, local and federal responses (and lack of response) before during and after Hurricane Katrina hit.
And, just like the state of the people and city of New Orleans on this fourth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it is not a pretty picture.
What follows below the fold is a meta-analysis of these articles, which are Mainstream Print Media's first real attempts to comprehensively document what elected officials and government knew, when they knew it, and what they did, or didn't do about this catastrophic hurricane and its aftermath.
(I may do this as a multi-part diary. because my original draft diary is very long, yet cohesive. I quote and comment a lot - this is really one whole diarly broken up into pieces to manage it correctly.
(I pray the powers that be don't delete.)
More below the fold
Article links:
Los Angeles Times
Confusion at Crunch Time: The Response (LAT)
by Los Angeles Times staff writers
Washington Post
The Steady Buildup to a City's Chaos (WP) by Susan B. Glasser and Michael Grunwald
New York Times
Breakdowns Marked Path From Hurricane to Anarchy (NYT) by Eric Lipton, Christopher Drew, Scott Shane and David Rohde
Who should receive a hero's acclaim in what is shaping up to be both a natural and political disaster? It certainly isn't Bush. In fact, not many leaders are going to come out of this unscathed. I personally think that Bush and Co. deserve the most criticism for the appalling lack of response to this catastrophic storm, but local and state officials will also have to take their share of the rap.
Not too long ago the world was horrified that professionals involved in monitoring natural events did not raise the alarm for December's tsunami. Not so with this hurricane. Never has a storm been so precisely and accurately described.
Max Mayfield went, I think, beyond the call of duty in try to contact and convince as many elected leaders as possible (including the President of the United States) making personal phone calls and explaining to stress people the seriousness of the situation and the need for proactive, extreme emergency response.
How sad that the US had both the warning and mechanisms to mitigate the effects of this hurricane and failed so miserably. If there is failure to be assigned, I truly believe he is about the only individual (along with the National Weather and Hurricane Services) who should be heralded as heroes. Without their willingness to come across as hysterical and not waver from their predictions, the death toll, whatever it ultimately turns out to be, would be higher.
Frankly, if the death toll is much lower than initial estimates (which we still can't know since 50% of the city of New Orleans is still underwater) credit may ultimately have to go to both Mayfield and the alert services for trying their hardest to get the politicians to take this seriously and begin evacuation and preparation and, ironically, to the local people and governments for their initial evacuation, flawed though it may have been.
And the federal response, as described in these articles? It was, In my humble opinion, even worse than we at Dailykos have been saying since the day of Hurricane Katrina hit.
While there are sections and conclusions in each article that I disagree with, together they are, in themselves, a pretty scathing indictment of our elected officials - starting with President Bush.
If these articles are read and re-read by people who are not reading the blogs, they will be getting much of the information that we have had for days and have been trying to get out in MSM.
NEWSPAPERS FOCUS ON DIFFERENT ASPECTS
The LA Times frames its article in terms of the National Response Plan, where primary coordination and response should have been (federal level) and what actually happened. Their take is that primary responsibility lay in the hands of the feds (as clearly laid out in the Department of Homeland Security's own emergency response blueprint) and the feds clearly failed miserably. I think it is the strongest of the bunch, although each article provides important, and sometimes eye opening information.
The NY Times article is organized as a bottom-up analysis of actions and responsibilities (local, state, federall. It has a brief description of the National Response Plan at the very end. (I missed it the first time through!) The NYT does spend a good portion describing how FEMA has been weakened by being rolled into DHS and how cronyism in the upper management has seriously affected its performance. It also analyzes FEMA deterioration with increasing numbers of non-emergency professionals being put in charge (lots of lawyers) and a demoralization that has resulted in a drain of experienced and knowledgeable managers and personnel at all levels.
Even though the NYT article says at times the Bush Administration should have and could have done more, I think the tone of the article comes out as more of a failure in shared responsibility on the state, local and federal levels. And it really pisses me off that the NYT in this article appears to be emphasizing the White House/Chertoff line that on Monday (if not Tuesday) people believed that New Orleans had "dodged the bullet." Of the three, I was least drawn to this article.
The Washington Post takes a chronological approach and weaves the different actions and nonactions throughout. It is in many ways, the most human article, documenting the trials and tribulations of individuals at all levels of government and outside of government as they tried to come to grips with the hurricane, its potential, and state, local and federal limitations. In an attempt to outline a systematic failure, the Washington Post effectively highlights individual moments of herorism, heartlessness, and sheer stupidity.
FINALLY, MAINSTREAM MEDIA TALKS ABOUT THE NATIONAL RESPONSE PLAN
The LA Times comes down hard on the federal government immediately, leading with a description of the Department of Homeland Security's "426-page page master plan...The National Response Plan," saying, "when it was unveiled amid fanfare last January, the Department of Homeland Security's National Response Plan promised `vastly improved coordination among federal, state, local and tribal organizations to help save lives" from storms, floods, earthquakes or terrorist assaults,' but that "the plan broke down soon after the monster winds blew in."
However, it becomes very clear that the plan broke down even BEFORE the monster winds blew in. Each newspaper documents the failure of FEMA to pre-position adequate resources and manpower to be activated and on hand when the storm ended.
Each describes breakdowns in communication coordination due to catastrophic equipment failure due to the severity of the storm), political power jockeying, repeated bungling and incompetence on the part of Bush/Chertoff/ Brown especially, and yes, bad decision-making by Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin and others at the state and local levels as well.
Maybe the problem is that Chertoff and Brown never really read it? We all know that Bush would never read a 426-page master plan. Maybe they did a comic book version?
So, you ask, who was responsible for primary responsibility to coordinate efforts?
For the first time in a newspaper article that I have read, (not a columnist and I don't read the weeklies like Time and Newsweek, so don't pin me to the wall) the LA Times states in very strong and unequivocal terms that:
"President Bush activated the National Response Plan on Saturday, Aug. 27, two days before the hurricane struck, when he declared a federal emergency in Louisiana. It goes on further to say "Ultimately, the National Response Plan says the president is in charge during a national emergency...The president leads the nation in responding effectively and ensuring the necessary resources are applied quickly and efficiently.... but it leaves it up to the White House to decide how to fulfill that duty."
One would suppose Bush directed DHS and FEMA to be proactive a swift in their response. If he did, it wasn't evident.
LAT states that "under the plan, the Department of Homeland Security `responsible for coordinating federal resources utilized in response to major disasters.' In fact, LAT further explains, "Under the National Response Plan, the Homeland Security secretary is deemed the "principal federal official" -- the overall manager -- for all major natural disasters.
The LA Times relies extensively as a source on a former long-time (22 years), FEMA official, and Jane Bullock who states, "The moment the president declared a federal disaster, it became a federal responsibility."
Too bad Bush, Chertoff, and Brown didn't think so.
In fact, "On Saturday, Aug. 27, " the LAT reports, "Bush declared a federal emergency in Louisiana, before the storm hit" at the request of Gov. Blanco. Supposedly still in the loop, "on Sunday, Aug. 28, Bush read a brief statement to reporters noting that Katrina had swollen to become a Category 5 hurricane."
DING, DING, DING. EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY!
Dire warnings of the storm of the century barreling toward the most vulnerable the US city deemed unable to withstand such a force due to well-documented geographic features?
In other words, New Orleans to be hit by "the big one." The New York Times quotes Bush's buddy, Joe M. Allbaugh, then the FEMA director, saying 2002: "Catastrophic disasters are best defined in that they totally outstrip local and state resources, which is why the federal government needs to play a role. There are a half-dozen or so contingencies around the nation that cause me great concern.
Too bad Bush, Chertoff, and Brown didn't think so.
We at the DailyKos are aware of the events that scare the shit out of emergency management people - U.S. catastrophic events that immediately rise to an "incident of national significance":
- a terrorist attack anywhere in the US
- a major California earthquake, and
- drum roll please - a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane hitting the gulf coast at New Orleans
Too bad Bush, Chertoff, and Brown didn't think so.
How do we know?
The Washington Post reports that it was only on "[Tuesday] evening in a belated bow to televised reality, Chertoff declared the unfolding disaster an "incident of national significance," triggering the government's highest level of response for the first time since the new post-9/11 system had been designed. He did not publicly announce the move until the next day. [Wednesday]"
Wait a damn minute. This is a BIG discrepancy. Or maybe I don't understand it correctly. It was not until Tuesday night that Chertoff declared Hurricane Katrina an "incident of National Significance."!!?? . Everyone in this country seemed to understand very clearly that this an "incident of national significance" except BUSH, CHERTOFF, and BROWN.
On the other hand,, the WP also says in its article that "the DHS's "new plan for safeguarding the nation...clearly spelled out the need to take charge in assisting state and local governments sure to be "overwhelmed" by a cataclysmic event."
In fact, the WP describes a videoconference at FEMA on Saturday before the hurricane, where "Mayfield mentioned the possibility of water overwhelming the levees; his center soon forecast a storm surge as high as 25 feet, far above the 17-foot clearance for most of the city's storm protection... Texas's veteran disaster man, Jack Colley, said, `We were very convinced this was going to be a very catastrophic event...Clearly on Saturday, we knew it was going to be the Big One."
LET'S RECAP
FEMA and Bushco were briefed prior to the hurricane to the severity of the storm and its implications (including videoconferences with the president, state, local and federal officials)
The governor had already told the feds that State and local governments were going to be overwhelmed and to send what you've got.
At the very latest Monday morning it was obvious that local communications had been so compromised.
It was reported on Monday that some levees had broken - assuring the flooding of the city of New Orleans - the nightmare scenario.
And, if you really want it officially,
Gov. Blanco requested a federal state of emergency on August 26 - and in doing so requested Federal aid AND clearly stating that she anticipated local and State resources to be overwhelmed - one of the 4 triggers for declaring an "incident of national significance"!
And, the Department of Homeland Security's own master plan says, Under the National Response Plan, the Homeland Security secretary is deemed the "principal federal official" -- the overall manager -- for all major natural disasters.
Other entities as well as people at FEMA already considered itself on the highest alert. Wasn't there any discussion in meeting called at DHS about this issue at all? Wasn't this question raised and clarified on the videoconference with President Bush or other major FEMA meetings?
Maybe now we can understand one of the reasons local and State government were so clearly expecting the cavalry to come (besides the fact that they were assured by FEMA). They understood, were preparing for and were reacting to an "incident of national significance" starting PRIOR to the storm making landfall, as was the rest of the country.
On the other hand, Bush, Chertoff and Brown acted as if this was a typical seasonal hurricane, NOT the big one, until Chertoff belatedly characterized it late Tuesday as a "kind of an ultra-catastrophe." according to the LAT.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that DHS and FEMA really didn't understand their role in disaster relief even though their department and agencies were the ones involved in writing the National Response Plan and should, by any reasonable standards, know when to implement it and how to implement it! (Standards and Accountability)
And it certainly didn't help that there doesn't seem to have been any sense of urgency from President Bush to get things rolling. LAT reports that "when Katrina was heading to the Gulf Coast, most of the top White House staff was on vacation, taking advantage of the president's five-week stay at his ranch near Crawford, Texas." And no one was ordered back Washington to begin coordination and help monitor this developing situation. And of course, Bush goes to two other states, goes to a birthday party and barely mentions the hurricane while out west.
But, maybe I malign him too much. The WP reports that an aide said that Bush mentioned on Sunday, prior to the hurricane landfall "It's possible...that he would have to scrap a planned event the following Thursday to talk about identity theft, and would add a trip to the Gulf Coast instead." Let me get the straight, Bush was planning to go possibly to the Gulf Coast, but not until Thursday, 4 days after the hurricane was expected to hit.
FRUSTRATION WITH FEMA, INSIDE AND OUT
The LA Times reports some of the frustration by FEMA officials who themselves didn't understand the lack of urgency on the part of Bush/Chertoff and Brown and bewildered that the response was so half-baked and make-shift.
"Everything is being done by the seat of the pants," said the official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. "It's like reinventing the wheel. We're starting from scratch as though no planning had even been done before."
The NYT reports: As early as Friday, Aug. 26 officials in the watch center at FEMA headquarters in Washington discussed the need for buses" in order to evacuate people. "Someone said, `We should be getting buses and getting people out of there,' recalled Leo V. Bosner, an emergency management specialist with 26 years at FEMA and president of an employees' union. Others nodded in agreement, he said. "
The words "No one could have expected....", now so much a part of the Bush Administration standard plan when passing the buck, was not heard among this group. "'We could all see it coming, like a guided missile,' Mr. Bosner said of the storm...We, as staff members at the agency, felt helpless. We knew that major steps needed to be taken fast, but, for whatever reasons, they were not taken.'"
And the Washington Post reports that as the "[FEMA] headquarters staff came in, there was a strange sense of inaction, as if `nobody's turning the key to start the engine,' said one team leader, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. For his group, Friday was a day to sit around wondering, `Why aren't we treating this as a bigger emergency? Why aren't we doing anything?'"
In fact, The NYT states that "FEMA appears to have underestimated the storm, despite an extraordinary warning from the National Hurricane Center that it could cause `human suffering incredible by modern standards.'
According to the NYT, FEMA" dispatched only 7 of its 28 urban search and rescue teams to the area before the storm hit and sent no workers at all into New Orleans until after the hurricane passed on Monday, Aug. 29. "
The Washington Post reports that FEMA's pre-positioned supplies "was what they would move for a normal hurricane -- business as usual versus a superstorm," according to "Mark Ghilarducci, a former FEMA official now working as a consultant for Blanco."
The WP calls the National Weather Service Sunday hurricane warning "apocalyptic " "Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks, perhaps longer . . . At least one-half of well-constructed homes will have roof and wall failure. . . . Water shortages will make human suffering incredible by modern standards."
The WP reports that not long after that forecast, Bush joined the daily FEMA videoconference from his Texas ranch, as a series of briefers sketched out scenarios of destruction. "We were expecting something awful," recalled Maj. Gen. Don T. Riley of the Army Corps.
Concerned "state officials on the call feared there simply wouldn't be enough help to go around once the storm cleared, and peppered FEMA with questions about resources. "We were concerned about making sure there were enough commodities to cover all three states, water, ice, MREs," recalled Bruce Baughman, Alabama's top emergency adviser.
The WP reports that "around midnight, at the last of the [Sun]day's many conference calls, local officials ticked off their final requests for FEMA and the state. Maestri specifically asked for medical units, mortuary units, ice, water, power and National Guard troops. `We laid it all out," he recalled. "And then we sat here for five days waiting. Nothing!'
The NYT goes on to say that "FEMA's deference was frustrating. Rather than initiate relief efforts - buses, food, troops, diesel fuel, rescue boats - the agency waited for specific requests from state and local officials. "When you go to war you don't have time to ask for each round of ammunition that you need," one local official.
."The way it's arranged under our Constitution," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld noted at a news briefing last week, "state and local officials are the first responders."
Wait one damn minute! Not if a region is overwhelmed by a disaster! That's when the president and Homeland Security can take "proactive" responsibility and in fact, suspend regular procedures, as the National Response Plan clearly states.
Not only did FEMA not pre-position enough, it actually but roadblocks (sometimes literally) in the way of the aid that municipalities, cities, states and countries around the US and the world were sending."
The NYT reports that " FEMA found itself accused repeatedly of putting bureaucratic niceties ahead of getting aid to those who desperately needed it." New York Times, why say it so politely? Instead of saying that "FEMA found itself accused repeatedly" why not just say the truth, plain and simple. "FEMA put bureaucratic niceties ahead of getting aid to those who desprately needed it."
For example, the NYT describes "firefighters, who responded to a nationwide call for help in the disaster." Of course, FEMA spokesperson said that "there was no urgency for the firefighters to arrive because they were primarily going to do community relations work, not rescue." Why not? Does handing out fliers, which apparently is what some or all of those highly trained firefighters were supposed to do REALLY the most effective use of such resources? Is this really efficient coordination of emergency resources in a city that people were concerned could burn from the petroleum, factories, destroyed infracture and possible cases arson/looting/carelessness that is always possible in crisis situations?
Let us be very clear. Bush had been told of the pending hurricane, signed a federal disaster declaration, personally read a statement warning of a Category 5 storm to hit the coast of the United States, told an aide his schedule the next week might change, and been briefed by Mayfield himself of the implications of the storm.
He heard state officials from all three states express concerns about amount of supplies and them getting their on time. Gov. Blanco had flat out told him in writing and over the phone that this storm would ovewhelm the capabilities of State and local governments.
And the saddest thing is, Bush has been a governor of a state that had experienced disasters! He knew what these people were feeling! And he sure as hell should have had some inkling of what these people were expecting of him, FEMA, the DHS! Does he step up to the leadership role that the U.S. Constititution and common decency demands of him? In one word. NO! No to NO (New Orleans). Instead he flies around the country with little or no change in his schedule and lets chaos, panic lead to death and suicide in New Orleans.
And this is the man who flew back at midnight to sign legislation to save "one person" Terry Schiavo from starvation, dehydration and death?
Impeach him. Force him out. Start a vote of no confidence. This man has got to go.
So ends Catastrophic Failure of the Leadership Kind, Part I
Further diaries may focus on Human Resource failures on the ground. Too little, too late.