I seldom pose such a bold question given my political centrism. But recent events in this country cause me to wonder who in the hell is in charge. The situation in New Orleans with hundreds and possibly thousands dead from floods, if you accept the as yet unconfirmed information, is a perfect example of where the federal government should have taken a firm hand and did virtually nothing. Regardless of whether the mayor of New Orleans is a Democrat or Republican, he should have been ordered to follow federal emergency management proceses and not let his citizens stay in the city until they were trapped. The situation makes me wonder whether I am living in the third world, this is the type of thing that happens there. There are those here that hate Bill Clinton, but when situations existed where large numbers of people could loose their lives, his administration was on the ground actively taking measures to prevent that from happening. The floods on the upper mississippi during the Clinton Administration are a perfect example, those floods had the capacity to cause massive loss of life, but that did not happen and people were not rioting in city streets. Why? Because someone was awake at the wheel.
The Clinton haters probaly will dredge up the tragedy of 9/11/2001 to "prove" that Clinton failed at a critical task. While I think Clinton missed some key signals on Bin Laden, the jury is fully out on Mr.Bush's tenure. The fact is there are more and more dangerous terrorists now that there were when Mr.Bush took office. There is no doubt in my mind that they will strike us on our soil again, the only question that I have is how large will the damage be. I have an uneasy feeling that the next strike on us will result in loss of life and property damage that will be stunning in it's scope. The loss of life and damage of 9/11/2001 will pale in comparison. Why? Mostly because we took on the wrong challenges at the wrong time and our leadership was absolutely asleep at the wheel at critical times.

Besides, the N.O. Mayor did order an evacuation.  Maybe he should have done so earlier, but I haven't seen stories of people being caught trying to get out.  The people who stayed knew a storm was coming and didn't evacuate.  (I'm NOT saying they should be punished.)  

I'm no Bush fan but I don't know there is authority in the federal gov't. to order an evacuation in that situation.  Others in this forum have expressed the point of feds' failure to spend enough to shore up the levees could be laid at the door of resources going to the Iraq war.

in emergency management and particulrly the role you are currently playing in this crisis. (That is, other than armchair QB)

Then we can assign proper weight to your stated opinion.

Best,

BK

With the situation in New Orleans deteriorating, where did our emergency preparation dollars go?  Definitely not to the NOLA levies.  It looks to me like Homeland Security has been a rat hole so far.   A bit like Iraq, and everything else this administration has touched. So, are you better off than we were five years ago?  Would Kerry have done a better job?  It would be hard to do worse no matter if you think his ideology is flawed.  

For those tax cuts you got just think of those NOLA levies and remember: your tax money was not at work.

In 2105, W will be considered the worst President of all time.

The real question is, considering how bad things are for him, is whether he's going to make it to serve out his term. If I had the right price, and it certainly would be no longshot, I'd certainly would want to be on that.

and you want credentials. Hey, why not just tell 'em all to pull themselves up by their bootstraps while you have another piece of cake?
You guys are amazing.

I've never seen any evidence of that and the New Orleans situation is the just the lastest example.  It's pretty clear now (as if there was any doubt before) that W simply stumbled into a job he wasn't qualified for or capable of and is in way over his head.

To compare the minor flooding in St. Louis and the terrible but very very predictable and dispersed floods in rural Illinois and Missouri to this tragedy is a completely unfair.  

Hurricanes give you 48-72 hours advance notice.  River floods give you weeks or even months.  Cities with people with no transportation are different than rural areas where everyone has a car and road congestion isn't an issue.  To compare the two is completely invalid.

Oh yea, and my best friend's family lost their house in downstate Illinois so I know the situation well.

Shoring up bulwarks against ravaging floods, even during hurricanes is done over years. The Bush Administration simply failed to act to prevent this disaster years ago, just as it ignored Bin Laden until Bin Laden's hinchmen struck us brutally on 9/11/2001. It is good that Mr.Bush cannot stand for re-election for many excellent reasons. But if he could, I am sure that he would have your vote.

What a perfect time for a terrorist attack.  Our resources within the U.S. are already spread thin because of Iraqnam, and will be spread even thinner in the aftermath of the hurricane.  Factoring in the upcoming 4 year anniversary of 9/11, and this period could be the U.S.'s most vulnerable in years.  I can only hope Shrub and his administration have enough sense to realize it, but something tells me they will be asleep at the switch again.

You changed your position already.  You posted above that Clinton's job from the Mississippi flooding was better than Bush's here.  But, now you change your logic.

My points...

1) Both administrations "underfunded" levees.  That's why the floods happened.

2) NO is a bigger tragedy b/c its urban and happened on short notice so evacuations were very difficult and affected population was more concentrated.  Even if we had a perfect FEMA response, NO would be far worse than S. Illinois and Missouri.

And no, Bush wouldn't get my vote.  I just like to use my brain on an issue by issue basis.