NPR: Bush held New Orleans hostage

If you didn't hear the report this evening on National Public Radio by Laura Sullivan and Daniel Zwerdling, go to npr.org and listen to it. The revelations they report suggest there could be a scandal of unprecedented proportions in the New Orleans response. According to the report, state, local and federal officials from FEMA had worked out detailed hurricane response plans more than 24 hours before Katrina hit.

National Guard forces were on alert and ready to respond as of Monday, but orders were never issued. The report doesn't indicate who should have issued those orders, but the implication was clearly that it should have come from Washington.

But the real kicker was this: The report stated that Bush met with Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin on Friday aboard Air Force One and told them he would release the National Guard only if Blanco, Nagin, and the Guard took their orders from Washington.

While the report doesn't state so directly, it clearly implies that Bush intentionally kept the Guard out of New Orleans for four days. If so, he directly contributed to the deaths of a still uncounted number of New Orleans residents.

This is a stunning degree of arrogance even for this administration. This story has to hit the blogs and hit them hard. We also need more details. Has anyone heard whether Blanco or Nagin has confirmed their conversation with Bush?

•  I heard this too ....

  (and read it in a previous diary re a CNN report of the same exchange between Blanco & bush).  Sadly, freepers will no doubt blame Blanco for hesitating rather than bush for trying to negotiate a power grab for himself during a crisis of epic proportions.  What a total scumbag.  Hey, that felt good: What a total scumbag.

  by Bob Love on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 09:19:06 PM PDT

  •  tick...tick...tick...tick...tick...

    This diary (and comments) gives my sig stamp a whole new dimension:

    by STOP George on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 10:48:52 PM PDT

    •  I just clicked your image and Wow!

      That is powerful! I hope you don't mind I just printed the large image to an iron-on and I'm going to put it on a t-shirt for tommorrow's 9/11 commemoration ritual: a private commemoration that my family does yearly with another family.

      You should think about putting this on CafePress.

      by Glinda on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 08:15:02 AM PDT

      •  Please do!!

        Put it on a shirt.
        Put it on a cup.
        Put it on a sign.
        Bring it to the "freedom" march
        Bring it to the REAL freedom rally Sept. 24.

        Use it! Use it! USE IT!!!

        CafePress, huh?  I check it out.  Thanks!

        by STOP George on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:45:45 AM PDT

        •  Hey Stop George

          Your new sig graphic and my new sig line from a few days back could be the front and back sides of a T shirt. Although I think we need to talk not just about Bush but conservatism broadly, now.

          Katrina changed everything, y'know.

          by NewDirection on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 10:06:15 AM PDT

      •  The Graphic

        I took your advice.  This graphic is now available on 60+ items HERE.

        Perfect for the September 24th rally in Washington, D.C.!!!

        Here is one item:

        

        by STOP George on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 12:41:18 PM PDT

        •  Terrific!

          You might also think about offering a version with the design a little larger. I opted to increase the size to 168% percent (making it 11" across). It looks nice and it isn't distorted one bit.

          by Glinda on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 12:49:53 PM PDT

          •  Done!

            by STOP George on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 01:27:21 PM PDT

        •  Spanish translation...

          ...and adaptation available in Los Blogueros if anybody needs one.

          Cheers

          by chechecule on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 02:40:49 PM PDT

    •  Cinemabee should checkout DarkSyde's

      ... diary for newbies. I'm sure someone has posted something there about the lack of "etiquette" in troll rating people without posting an explanation, let alone without having posted a single comment or diary ever!

      by Glinda on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 08:17:08 AM PDT

      •  Could Be User Error

        Sometimes the pulldown for ratings stays highlighted an extra moment and toggles down unintentionally, before clicking rate. I remember doing that once or twice before learning to double check.... But who knows. I think newcomers sometimes have some funny baggage.

        by NewDirection on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:59:53 AM PDT

        •  You are absolutely right ...

          I normally think of that when a known Kossack rates a fine comment with a 1. It was undue cynicism on my part to infer that the 1 could only be intentional.

          by Glinda on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 04:12:12 PM PDT

  •  Let Me Be The Hero

    Or I let your people die and make you take the blame. It certainly put a whole, even worse, spin on the administrations trying to turn the blame onto the local leaders.

    by DJ Adequate on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 12:29:44 AM PDT

    •  Exactly - that's what this looks like to me

      let the locals appear to be screwing up by withholding aid while people die, then demand they release all control before giving aid and blame them for what happened.  

      If there is an impeachable offfense in all that has happened in the Bush administration (and there's a lot) this is it in my mind.

      by calebfaux on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 08:18:46 AM PDT

      •  I read somewhere that

        if the Governor gave up control to Bush then Bush would have control over all the rebuilding contracts. He pulled the same shit in Iraq when he wouldn't give up authority to the U.N. Bush's best interests are always with his campaign donors. He could give a shit about people. This is criminal and I want to see him on trial alongside Saddam Hussein. There are two of a kind.

        by Central Scrutinizer on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 08:50:58 AM PDT

        •  Nagin has now admitted

          he thinks it was about money...who can give out contracts...and of course in the end buy votes and influence.

          by mattes on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:42:50 AM PDT

          •  Link??

            This sounds important. Where did you see it?

            by Noisy Democrat on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 10:05:06 AM PDT

            •  Interview today...

              cnn or msnbc...

              by mattes on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 10:26:01 AM PDT

        •  This is really important to find out

          -- the reasons why the President would want to have this power.  Though I think that its as you are suggesting, we need much more certainty that this is indeed the case.  If so, his hostage taking could almost be considered CRIMINAL in light of the impact on lives - he was sworn to protect and defend the constitution - which defends the separation of powers and checks and balances.  If he has breached that - we can impeach him for sure and more than that - perhaps criminally charge him too.

          by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 12:44:54 PM PDT

    •  Stronger:

      You must step completely aside because I must rule.

      It's part of the opposition lockout that see increasingly in congress.

      Republicans allow nothing to get done with the assistance of Democrats. If a job needs Democrats--no matter how many must die--it won't get done till they can find a way to do it with Republicans alone.

      Government's not small enough to drown yet but they're doing a creditable job of fitting the Democratic party into their bathtub.

      by Gooserock on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:06:38 AM PDT

      •  More like...

        'Step aside little lady and let the men handle this'!
        Always friggen playing cowboy-SHEZ

        by Lipstick Liberal on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 10:47:29 AM PDT

      •  Except of course

        for the bipartisan investigation of Katrina that happens not to have any Democrats named to it.  

        by Bob Love on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 12:21:06 AM PDT

  •  Links to NPR coverage

    To be more specific, these were stories on NPR's show All Things Considered, Friday 9 Sept. Here are links to the stories that the diary above (I believe) refers to:

    Katrina Timeline: Unexecuted Plans

    Katrina Timeline: Misdirected Aid

    More specifically, the diary's report of Bush conditioning aid on local officials' capitulation of authority is in the second of these two reports.

    P.s. I heard these reports originally while half-asleep, so I had to go back and listen to them again to verify that this was what the diarist was talking about. I really want to register a complaint about comments that say that they heard such-and-such on NPR. There are a lot of fucking shows on NPR! It just so happens I had a bit of a clue what show they were talking about, so I was able to track this down & listen to it again.

    If you mention that you heard something on NPR, it's actually pretty easy to track down a link to the particular story on their web site & provide that if you can. (Thank God for public broadcasting!) At the very least mention what show you heard it on!

    Please.

    Thank you.

    by patop on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 01:17:00 AM PDT

    •  Thank you for the links.

      I had no idea what shows to look for.  

      by Boston Boomer on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 05:26:20 AM PDT

    •  I heard the report

      on my drive home from work.  It was very damning.  It sounds like the largest failures were at the federal level.  Yes, I understand the local response was disorganized.  How could it not be?  The failures of FEMA were just criminal, IMO.

      by Unstable Isotope on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 06:35:09 AM PDT

    •  It's unfortunate

      NPR doesn't make transcripts.

      by East Bay Molly Girl on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:51:45 AM PDT

      •  Transcripts are available for a fee

        They're a little pricey however--$4.95 for individual stories, $18--20 for an hour's worth of programming. You can also pay for 25 individual transcripts in advance (good for up to a year) for  $29.95. More info here.

        by patop on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 10:01:08 AM PDT

    •  Funny...

      ...he didn't demand control in Florida last year...

      by Lipstick Liberal on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 10:50:47 AM PDT

      •  Exactly.

        Does anyone think bush demanded control when aid was sent to Florida?  

        by Bob Love on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 12:18:18 AM PDT

    •  ditto

      i was going to go to the NPR site to listen but the diary didn't mention which show this segment was on.  sheesh.

      thank for the links.

      by blue drop on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 12:25:18 PM PDT

  •  Impeachable Offense

    Violates his oath of office and amounts to manslaughter at the very least.

    by Steven D on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 04:53:05 AM PDT

    •  No, it's not impeachable

      There was no sex in the White House.

      by Ed in Montana on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 05:31:06 AM PDT

      •  Remember...

        rape is a crime of violence, not sex.  

        by bearcat on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 06:10:26 AM PDT

      •  Well, let's examine this Ed in Montana....

        If the NPR report is true, it sounds to me like Bush, while aboard Air Force One, requested a hand job in exchange for goods and services.

        Soliciting prostitution perhaps?

        by beagleandtabby on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 07:59:48 AM PDT

    •  it's funny.... i thought republicans were state's

      rights....  not big government.  bush's actions would lead me to believe otherwise.

      by ejpoeta on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 05:49:32 AM PDT

      •  sure, when the state

        is going to do what Bush wants.  Gay rights were a question of state law, as long as states were willing to protect the sanctity of marriage.  But for those that weren't, we needed a Constitutional amendment.

        I realize you were being ironic, I'm just following up on that.  True libertarians and federalists that I know aren't fans of Bush (but aren't sure a Democratic president would be better, BTW).

        by atomic on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 07:07:49 AM PDT

        •  i don't think bush represents all republicans.

          i believe that republican used to mean small federal government and state's have control.  and there are plenty of people who believe that, i am certain.  but if you notice bush wants his hands in all kinds of things that one would think republicans would not want to control.... such as gay marriage.  if he could ge t away with it, he would force us all to adhere to his 'religion'...  and you can see his 'christian' beliefs showing loud and clear through this whole disaster!  it's too bad that bush's  republican congress won't step away from him... i am certain that plenty of them don't like what he's doing.  but they probably fear retribution.  and that is a scary thing too.  

          by ejpoeta on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 07:21:57 AM PDT

          •  Until both prominent and average

            Republicans start standing up and denouncing Bush and his entire Administration publicly while calling for their resignations and/or impeachment, I believe Bush does represent each and every motherfucking republican piece of shit in this world and they should all be punished!
            

            by beagleandtabby on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 08:03:37 AM PDT

            •  It WILL happen

              They are going to have to distance themselves from this disaster of an administration.

              I don't think they get a pass for that.  They are guilty for supporting this cabal for far longer than human decency can allow.

              by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 08:55:53 AM PDT

              •  Operative word...

                "Cabal"  Boy is that the perfect word for this admin.  God/Goddess/whomever - HELP US!!!
                Elspeth

                by Elspeth R on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:23:48 AM PDT

          •  Yes, look at the polls

            Clearly, many Republicans are horrified. Blaming every last Bush voter, binding them all into one group, won't help to split their base and win elections.

            And of course, Bush&Co. are not conservatives. We must stop giving them credit for conserving anything.

            by technopolitical on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 12:18:39 PM PDT

          •  There may be old school Republicans left...

            ...but the fact is there probably aren't more than maybe dozen or so in Congress, and I'd be hard pressed to name a lot of them, because their party does it's best to make sure they don't get much traction nationally, lest the contrast make the rest of them look bad.  The big money/fundamentalist hybrid type pretty much are the Republican party now, whether or not the people who vote for them look at them that way or not.  There has been a disconnect between what the Republican party supposedly stands for and what they actually do in office for decades now.  Even putting philosophical differences aside, there are getting to be fewer and fewer decent human beings on the GOP side of the government.

            When I was an undergrad in NY, my Congressman was Amo Houghton, a Republican, who I had the pleasure of meeting a couple of times.  We were pretty near polar opposite when it came to our political leanings, but in all my interactions (he got his share of letters from me) and his public statements, I got the impression that this was a smart, reasonable guy, who really wanted what was best for his country.  There aren't many Republicans left in either house anymore that I can say that about (He's since retired and been replaced by a wife-abusing DeLay-ite GOP hack, from what I've heard).

            Fact is, if given a choice between a Republican who was a reasonable, intelligent human being and actually stood for what the Republican party claims to stand for and probably a third of the Democrats I've voted for, I'd have voted for the Republican...we've got our share of pretty lame Dems, too.  It's rarely been an issue though...even when the race is merely a lesser-of-two-evils type of deal, the GOP manages to find some mighty big evils.

            by elakazal on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 12:29:56 PM PDT

            •  i have to agree regarding the dems....

              these days they seem like two sides of the same coin!  how many of them are there to take care of us!  I haven't seen any.  They need money, and they get it from people who have money-- and that sure as hell aint us!

              people aren't gonna turn on bush because they believe his lies.  even after they see from his actions that they are lies!  and then the rest are probably scared... because anyone who goes against this administration seems to suffer from retribution!  that scares me more than anything.  the power that these jerks seem to have!

              by ejpoeta on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 06:26:00 AM PDT

        •  That is why

          Libertarians should stick with thier own party and not use other parties to help ruin America.

          by Tux on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 08:47:56 AM PDT

        •  The Bush administration has no principles

          one day they can be for states rights then next federal. One day they can be for small government the next day they are creating another trillion dollar branch of the government. Bush is basically for whatever he wants and will use whatever device possible to convince Idiot America to conform to his agenda.

          by Central Scrutinizer on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:00:07 AM PDT

          •  Take the money and run

            I am beginning to think this is the true modus of the present government.  I used to think it was ideologically driven.  I now believe it simply a gang rape of our nation's human and physical wealth.

            by Knut Wicksell on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 12:49:34 PM PDT

            •  Yep

              It's the Enron administration. Starve the beast and take all the food for yourselves. When the shit hits the fan retreat to your gated community and laugh at the starving peasants from behind the electric fence.

              by Central Scrutinizer on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 01:38:55 PM PDT

    •  Worse:

      MASS MURDER.

      by Little Red Hen on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 05:59:16 AM PDT

      •  Mass Murder is Not Impeachable

        under the Constitution. Nothing is, unless the congress is controlled by an opposition party.
        

        by Gooserock on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:08:08 AM PDT

        •  Yeah, I know, I know.

          Just thinkin' how it is a POTUS can get away with Mass Murder...

          by Little Red Hen on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:50:22 AM PDT

        •  No

          But, it is a criminal offence.

          by fishhead on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 12:48:15 PM PDT

  •  You're Absolutely Right Bob...

    My wing-nut friends are all up in a lather, foaming at the mouth, that Bush begged the mayor and the governor to sign this paperwork because otherwise his hands were tied and he couldn't order the Guard in by the posse comitatus or some other constitutional bullshit. They argue that this shows that Bush was engaged from day one, that Blanco and Nagin refused to sign the paperwork and thereby kept the troops out of NOLA because it would otherwise show they were inept, and that it is evidence that they were playing politics with people's lives.
    

    by chuco35 on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 07:28:38 AM PDT

    •  Don't make me laugh

      He's the president.  He can order torture, an illegal war, violation of our constitution but he can't order the National Guard into New Orleans because he's following the law?  
      Give me a break.
      

      by pacifica on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 08:11:12 AM PDT

      •  Not Only That--

        the storm zone was full of brown people. The government can do anything when brown people are in the way.

        by Gooserock on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:09:39 AM PDT

        •  not only that but the rivers and levees ...

          FEDERAL PROERTY. . .

          by trippinsf on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:33:46 AM PDT

      •  Nope

        That carefully crafted law is why our country has never suffered a military coup d'etat.  If she would have signed over power to the Feds it would have set a very dangerous legal precedent.
        Good for her!

        by Lipstick Liberal on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 10:55:57 AM PDT

    •  Right-wing arguments don't hold up

      What still needs to be explained is how it is that federal active duty troops are now at work in NO if Bush was unable to deploy them without the handover he wanted from Blanco. As has been established, she rejected Bush's demands, yet the fed troops still went in, no doubt because the firestorm of criticism was reaching fever pitch. If he had authority to deploy them after his meeting with Blanco, he would have had authority to deploy them the day of the hurricane. The most logical explanation is a Bush administration power play gone bad.

       Blanco was asking for everything the feds had as of two days after the hurricane, yet her requests went unfulfilled. What is the wing nut explanation for this?

      Also, has anyone seen any published reports about the contents of the Justice Dept. memorandum that Bush wanted Blanco to sign. I'll bet there's some amazing fine print in that thing.

      by northwoods1 on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:53:37 AM PDT

      •  a wingnut would say:

        that that city was lawless and the Army/Marines needed to go in there and kill off a few looters.  
        Bushco wanted her to sign a paper which would have turned over police power to the feds!
        (National Guard is under the state)
        Good thing Blanco had the guts to object.

        by Lipstick Liberal on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 11:00:58 AM PDT

    •  Posse Comitatus arguement is a sham!

      Posse Comitatus only prevents Federal Troops from assuming law enforcement duties in a given state. It does not prohibit troops from performing relief duties.

      Additionally, National Guard troops are exempt from Posse Comitatus, so General Honoree's NAtional guard troops had no restrictions on them.

      by Flint on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 10:12:21 AM PDT

      •  right!

        Bushco was trying to pull a fast one.
        He was arguing that it was too dangerous for the Guard, that the Army needed the authorization to shoot at Americans.
        Dubya played a game of showdown!
        Cocky Cowboy Games!

        by Lipstick Liberal on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 11:08:05 AM PDT

      •  True

        And they should have been sent in unarmed to ensure that they wouldn't engage in law enforcement duties.

        That said, it was a very sticky legal situation.

        by the good reverend on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 11:43:40 AM PDT

  •  Gov. Blanco requested direct fed aid on Aug. 27

    The story line that the White House is putting out (it's all the state and local's fault) doesn't hold up. On August  27, Gov. Blanco requested direct federal aid under the Stafford Act and agreed to cede coordination authority to FEMA, agreed to pay all state and local matches, and agreed to completely indemnify the feds for any damages or claims.

    Bush responded with the declaration of emergency later in the day, which gave him all the authority he needed to act, and FEMA was in charge.

    Read the full letter to Bush here:
    Blanco release

    by northwoods1 on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 03:19:36 PM PDT

•  Not entirely sure what you`re trying to say

  They are saying Bush met with Blanco and Nagin the Friday after Katrina hit. So, uhm, I`m not quite sure how you are construing this...

  by brainwave on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 09:24:01 PM PDT

  •  What I'm saying is this

    According to NPR, Bush met with Blanco and Nagin, on Friday, four days after the hurricane, and said he would issue orders for the National Guard to respond only if Blanco and Nagin agreed to take orders from the White House. Yet National Guard troops had been ready to go the day of the hurricane, but never received orders to deploy. Why didn't Bush issue the orders right away? What kind of game was he playing? Was he trying to make a Democratic mayor and governor look bad?

    by northwoods1 on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 09:36:08 PM PDT

    •  trying to make them look bad?

      In a word:  yes.  He was.  Murderous creep.

      by concernedamerican on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 09:58:12 PM PDT

      •  a new low, even 4 him-pathetic!

        It was so obvious that was exactly what was happening, thoroughly corrupt scumbag manipulator--what a new low, he should stop insulting the public, really incredibly sleazy. We all know what happened and we're on to his sick scam. It reminds me of the corrupt right-wing racist stunt pulled by infamous former LAPD chief Darryl Gates who purposely and maliciously did not send anyone to quell/stop/control mass pandemonium which led to the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict.
        A real shame; sick, twisted.

        by concerned on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 10:48:35 PM PDT

        •  Remember Stalin

          Holding his troops outsided Warsaw?

          What we have here is a personality disorder.

          by daulton on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 10:51:58 PM PDT

          •  More than once these past few days

            watching the heroic efforts of the people on the ground, I've been reminded of Warsaw's Home Army.

            by k2winters on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 11:21:04 PM PDT

            •  The Superdome and Convention Center

              made me think of Bergen-Belson.

              by Knut Wicksell on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 12:52:57 PM PDT

          •  a cult of dysfunctionality n/t

            by grollen on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 03:29:44 AM PDT

    •  asdf

      Was he trying to make a Democratic mayor and governor look bad?

      Do you even have to ask?

      by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 10:03:10 PM PDT

    •  Bush Order National Guard?

      So then, at this time, the Louisiana National Guard was under Federal, i.e, Bush command at the time, and not under Blanco's? Or does that mean National Guard from other states, under Federal Orders? Can anyone clarify?

      by Jim P on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 10:25:36 PM PDT

      •  Power, over the Guard, is shared

        between the fed and the states. That's Federalism. Unless National Guard troops are called to active duty, iow, to war, they are under control of the Governors of each state.  If they are called to war, they are under the Federal Government's, iow, the President's control.  That's why Bush had to ask Gov. Blanco to turn control of the LA Guard over to him. She refused, because officials in LA were afraid it would be akin to declaring martial law in LA.  Josh Marshall had a piece on it last Saturday.

        If you want to get a quick history of the National Guard, read the pdf of the opinion in Rendell, et al. v Donald H. Rumsfeld.  Starting at the bottom of page 6, Judge Padova gives a review of the shared power that governs the National Guard.  Pretty interesting read.

        Btw, Rendell sued Rummy to stop the closing of the Willow Grove Air National Guard base, because Rummy didn't get Rendell's approval to close the base.

        To follow up on the opinion, you can read the article at the Pennsylvania National Guard website, that provided the link to the opinion.

        by Maggie Mae on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 11:38:34 PM PDT

        •  how has this been done before?

          did state governments turn over control of the Natioal Guard to the Feds with previous hurricanes?  if they didn't then that seems to be the precedent.  if they did then this might bring some of the blame back to Blanco.

          by blue drop on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 12:04:05 AM PDT

          •  Yes, in the L.A. Riots of 1992.

            Gov. Pete Wilson did it.

            by BruinKid on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 04:09:51 AM PDT

          •  I know that my brigade was called up

            on the 31st of August to report on the 1st of September.  We arrived at the armory and were told two things.  First, that we would be doing this month's MUTA 5 drill (two and half days) on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, instead of the 8th, 9th, and 10th, and that following the drill period, we would deploy on either Saturday afternoon/evening or Sunday morning.  We were also told that we would be operating on state orders, not federal orders, and that we would essentially be loaned to the governor of Louisiana, and would be enforcing, as well as be subject to, the laws of the state of Louisiana.  It would be just like if we were responding to a disaster in Oklahoma, except we would be in Louisiana.
            This was done pursuant to a standing agreement between the governors of several states for mutual aid.
            My wife works for the state of Oklahoma.  She spent two days last week seconded to the Office of State Finance helping enter data into the computers at OSF pertaining to paying the National Guard.  She said on Thursday that just as the job was nearing completion, she was told that the brigade was going on federal orders, and that once her job for OSF was done, it wouldn't need to be repeated to pay the troops again since the feds were now paying them.  I have not been able to confirm this.  I don't know, but suspect that the guard was federalized under Title XXXII, USC.  This would've happened on either Wednesday the 7th, or Thursday the 8th.

            by soonergrunt on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 04:24:20 AM PDT

            •  Thanks for the great info

              by LisaDawn82 on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 05:14:52 AM PDT

          •  Remember

            Bush wanted federal control of the LA national guard after they had massively fucked up the hurricane response.  Can you blame her for not wanting Bush in complete control?

            by Unstable Isotope on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 06:46:53 AM PDT

          •  Not in Florida last year...

            Fed Control (ie police powers)
            is very rare.

            by Lipstick Liberal on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 11:17:57 AM PDT

            •  thank you

              i've been wondering since the whole issue surfaced but no one has discussed procedure in past hurricanes. at least i haven't seen it yet.  so now the next question is if the state had control of the national guard why weren't they there in NOLA right after the storm for security?  or does state control need to offered from the Feds once a state of emergency is declared?

              by blue drop on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 11:32:46 AM PDT

            •  never mind

              there are quite a few more comments on this diary since i went to bed last night.  i'll rummage through and see if i can find if someone has already answered.  thanks.

              by blue drop on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 11:39:33 AM PDT

        •  Thanks for clarifying...eom

          by Jim P on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 10:42:49 AM PDT

    •  My guess is he

      wanted control of the rebuild.  I bet there is some fine print to get eliminate the interests of the locals when they start handing out the FEMA funds for reconstruction.

      by Ted Hitler on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 10:49:49 PM PDT

      •  Ted, you don't think...

        ...that Halliburton would benefit from the rebuilding, do you? May God damn them all.

        by Newton Snookers on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 10:54:55 PM PDT

      •  The fine print

        is called the Kelo decision. As we sit here blogging, real estate investment corporations are being formed to exploit the situation in New Orleans. These coporations will need the cooperation of some governmental entity -- either federal, state, or municipal -- in order to seize real estate in New Orleans for "economic development" projcts. Then, federal reconstruction funds will be poured into these projects -- et voilà! --  billions in profit will be realized.

        by catullus on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 12:14:21 AM PDT

        •  Halliburton is already in there

          with no-bid contracts... Kellog Brown and Root will be rebuilding the oil infrastructure.  Bechtel is in too, for city rebuilding.  Watch these guys build cheap, ugly, cookie-cutter housing for the workers who will be serving in the new Las Vegas-on-the-delta that used to be New Orleans.

          Good luck to the mayor in trying to stop this juggernaut of corporatism.

          by playon on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 12:47:13 AM PDT

          •  Don't you think if the MSM printed a HALLIBURTON

            story on their no-bid contracts in N. Orleans, it would be easier for the general public to make a strong link to the Iraq sellout ala the administration . . . playon can you give links, pointers as to where you saw reports for these halliburton and other contracts you mention? thanks

            by daniellep on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 03:52:50 AM PDT

            •  I wish they would...

              During this administration, we have been told repeatedly that Cheney has no link to Halliburton anymore yet he was getting cash from them still and there was his stock.  

              Any option to make more money for Halliburton has been taken by this administration without exception.  I believe the Halliburton information shows an unmistakable pattern that most Americans could see if informed of it.  The drawback is that some Republicans will think it is the due of the CEO administration.

              by libnewsie on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 05:08:07 AM PDT

            •  Story title: 'The Louisiana Purchase' n/t

              by East Bay Molly Girl on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:59:56 AM PDT

          •  It's about money

            It appears the real looters plan to get to work soon. It seems every disaster engineered by this administration turns into another opportunity for their friends to fleece the federal Treasury, ala Iraq. They are destroying this country.

            by northwoods1 on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 06:00:01 AM PDT

        •  That's chilling

          When I read your comment the thought passed through my mind that things are occurring as if they were scripted.

          Of course that's silly. You can't script a hurricane.

          But damn, with these guys in charge, it actually makes you think about it for a second.
          

          by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:00:34 AM PDT

        •  Dems should ask Roberts about the Kelo decision

          Surely John Roberts has an opinion on the fact that as of June 2005, eminent domain now applies to the government's new right to seize property for economic development.

          I think ordinary home-owning Americans can relate to this in the wake of Katrina.  Given the BushCo track record, I fear a lot of people will be paid pennies on the dollar for what they have owned, and that many thousands will not be permitted to rebuild what they had before.

          Katrina changed everything.  What didn't fit into a soundbite before, and what seemed distant from the experience of ordinary Americans, is now highly relevant in light of a catastrophe that has made hundreds of thousands homeless.  (I can imagine the Senate Judiciary Dems rationalizing among themselves already:  "Who has heard of Kelo v. New London?  Why should I ask Roberts that question if it's not going to make the news?  Didn't some of us Dems support aspects of Kelo?  This is all too complicated for ordinary people to understand so let's hammer Roberts on abortion instead," etc.)  

          Well, let me tell you:  if Roberts doesn't speak out firmly against Kelo in his confirmation hearings, and firmly against the government's new right to arbitrarily decide whether ordinary Americans can rebuild their homes, it's a deal-killer for Joe Sixpack.  Wake up, Dems!  It's a new America.  Katrina changed everything.  It can't be said often enough.

          by QuickSilver on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:12:52 AM PDT

        •  It is called Disaster Capitalism

          In Iraq and Afghanistan US mil blew up everthing, then handed out US gov contracts to rebuild to US cronies and contributers.

          In NO US mil let the  disaster happen and then sat  back on their bases at Pensacola, Tyndall, Eglin, Tampa  and it get worse afterward, by not even airdropping water, and critical medical supplies for  a week.

          And evidently from the black-out on media reporting from the east side of Orleans parish since Katrina hit, The first urban redevelopment area will be the 9th Ward.

          See Naomi Klein: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and on Democracy Now audio file here.

          by shumard on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:25:21 AM PDT

        •  LA state legislature

          Needs to meet and pass laws barring Kelo-type theft, then. Like real soon.
          

          by Margot on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 04:35:00 PM PDT

      •  Follow the money

        I'm persuaded by this and some previous posts that this is the key to the whole business.

        by Knut Wicksell on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 12:55:07 PM PDT

    •  Could Use An Edit

      Diary could use an edit. Date should be added on to the Friday comment, as many are confusing it with the Friday BEFORE Katrina, that the previous paragraph was talking about.

      by ArcXIX on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 11:24:34 PM PDT

    •  It was initially explained here

      that if Blanco had given the state to Bush, the Republicans would have used it politically - saying the Democrats failed, blah, blah.
      But - I'm wondering if Bush wanted MORE power than the usual powers given in similar situations, although this one is unprecedented.
      

      by annefrank on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 11:26:46 PM PDT

    •  immature little brat

      this is what this guy is really about.  If he doesn't get his own way, he doesn't only stomp his little feet, he'll "show them" and let thousands of people die.

      by Yankee in exile on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 04:35:41 AM PDT

    •  Doesn't the Vovernor have

      authority to order Nat Guard troops into action? Wouldn't Bush be the one called on to order the militrary into action?

      While I believe that the Fed really fucked up, there was plenty of that at the State level too. I understand that this WH will use whatever means to advance itself politically, I think even they would balk at something that would cost additional lives.

      by Spud1 on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 05:01:42 AM PDT

      •  lay it out

        show where the State level fucked up. People have been doing a lot of smearing but I haven't seen any evidence of anything remotely comparable to the Feds' massive failure and neglect.

        Remember, our new model disaster response (post 9/11) was supposed to be a three-level operation--and here the most important link in the chain showed up with half a can of Dr. Pepper, a popgun and a Toyota pickup truck after the Governor said: give me everything you got.

        Thank God we're "fighting'em over there," right?

        by hhex65 on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 05:15:54 AM PDT

        •  The State blocked

          the Red Cross and Salvation Army from going into New Orleans.  Here is the story.  It has become THE accepted TRUTH by the conservatives.  That along with the school buses will be their view--it was ALL the fault of the Governor and the Mayor.

          by MKS on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:44:28 AM PDT

          •  Media Matters has a partial answer

            Media Matters has an article that says the Red Cross has changed its story and that it did not go into New Orleans because of safety concerns not becasue of an order by Governor Blanco.  Here is Media Matters's story.

            by MKS on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 10:18:00 AM PDT

            •  that's what I mean

              The logistics and facets of this event are staggering. I keep expecting to find something big which condemns the regional authorities. I keep following up bits and pieces like the one you mentioned and they turn out to be RW bs.

              I am astounded at how complete the Feds' neglect was, although I suppose I shouldn't have been. There's a huge natural gas pipeline near where I live so I'd really like to see a full investigation of what happened on the Gulf.

              by hhex65 on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 02:28:21 PM PDT

              •  should add

                with reference to the Gretna story-- by "regional authorities" I'm talking about top levels of the fed>state>city chain of command which seems to have been set up as ???>state>city.

                by hhex65 on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 02:53:37 AM PDT

          •  Well you know the drill

            Muddy the waters, smear everyone and the confused people WILL blame the state and local authorities along with the government. From the polls, it looks like its working. Revise history, do a whitewash panel and then give no bid contracts to all your friends. It seems to work every time.

            by pacificcoaster on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 04:27:29 PM PDT

      •  My understanding

        The governor of Louisiana can call up the Louisiana national guard without federal approval, but once the governor of one state requests guard troops from other states, they need both the approval of the other states' governors and approval on the federal level.

        by Lee Malatesta on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 06:15:16 AM PDT

        •  Along those lines

          I read that Bill Richardson of New Mexico (another Dem. Gov.) offered his guard units to Blanco two days before the storm hit, and she accepted, but Washington took until Thursday, 3 days post-storm to issue the required orders.

          by ineedalife on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 06:28:25 AM PDT

          •  That's what the AP reported

            From Congress Likely to Probe Guard Response:
            

            ew Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson offered Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco help from his state's National Guard last Sunday, the day before Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana. Blanco accepted, but paperwork needed to get the troops en route didn't come from Washington until late Thursday.

            
            I'm looking forward to a proper investigation should Congress ever get off of their butts and do the right thing.

            by Lee Malatesta on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 05:57:45 PM PDT

      •  Governor

        only has control of that state's national guard.  She only had 7000 troops or so for the whole state.  I learned from that report that the generators they counted on in the disaster planning were all in Iraq, so communication was spotty.

        It was transparent from that report Bush's attempt to shift the blame.  The governor declared an emergency on the Friday before the storm.  Bush declared it a federal emergency on the Sat. before the storm.  As the locals put it, it was the federal's game then.  Once the storm hit and the locals got through they said "send everything!"  So it's a lie by Bush to say he was waiting for the state and locals to request aid (even though it was already a federal disaster area).  The New Mexico National Guard was ready to go on Sun. before the storm but needed authorization from Bush to go, which they didn't get until Friday, the same as the military.

        One thing I learned was that the local evacuation plans actually went pretty well.  Everyone that could get out did, except for tourists, the poor and the infirm.  The Superdome was a shelter of last resort.  The supplies they ordered (food and portapotties) didn't arrive.  They didn't have the generators because of Iraq.  The Superdome was never meant to last for 6 days of shelter.  They were expecting the feds to bring the food.  (remember the issues with deliveries being sent to the wrong places).  I think the biggest weakness of the state and local planning was failure to plan what would happen in the event of massive flooding and what to do if communications were down.

        by Unstable Isotope on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 06:45:03 AM PDT

        •  Not to mention...

          forgetting to plan for a refusal by the Feds to respond in any meaningful way for 5 days. </snark>

          by greeseyparrot on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:28:52 AM PDT

        •  That's what I understood.

          That Bush's declaring it a State of Emergency allowed for the federal government to COORDINATE with the state and loval levels.  No reason for federal takeover.

          by East Bay Molly Girl on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 10:12:25 AM PDT

    •  What was that Rove guote?

      Something like: Cheney him hard. Cheney him like he's never been Cheneyed before."
      

      by barnowl on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 05:11:05 AM PDT

    •  Rovians concluded federalizing would be cakewalk..

      The arrogant President - Rove and (his crony G W Bush) assumed and concluded that they will re-enact another multi year road show to 2008. For me Bush is not the President. I have NO CONFIDENCE in him.

      It is a shame that this great country is headed by such an imbecile and moron. And we have another three and a half years to go. Everyone in this country will see the total downfall of America's grand stature on the world scene (in every field, even in thinking)

      I was a loyal listener of NPR. Used to provide factual, reliable news, programs and discussions. Just before the 2004 election, overnight, they made an about turn (180 degrees). Because of the corporate contributions and to survive, I think, they must have made this appalling change.

      Still, I heard this on NPR yesterday. Great commentary how things went before, during and after Katrina hit. In my clear thinking mind, it has once again reinforced and removed any lingering doubts about local / state responses to Katrina.
      

      by factoryman on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 05:59:20 AM PDT

    •  blocking Blanco

      There was a lot of fuss about how after she refused this move, the White House was stonewalling her, didn't inform her that the President was coming back down to Louisiana. She found out from the media. They called Andy Card an hour or 30 minutes before his plane was supposed to land to get her "invited" to meet the plane and to the meeting or whatever he was coming for. She changed her plans and jumped on a plane to meet him. I saw the footage of Bush landing and he went straight into an SUV and she was nowhere around.

      by Buffalo Girl on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 06:57:18 AM PDT

    •  What about Mississippi

      Did Bush require the same ring-kissing fealty of Haley Barbour and AJ Holloway (Repub mayor of Biloxi)?  I realize that Haley Barbour had probably undergone the Ancient and Secret Rites of the 666 Degree Skull and Bones, but still...was the same asked of them?

      by mayan on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 07:21:11 AM PDT

    •  NPR Report cannot be true

      or the summary was scrambled.

      And since many Kossacks are not easily familiar to the differences, scrambling is likely and an innocent error.

      Unless the National Guard was federalized in LA, which it was not, then Bush cannot issue orders to it, because the non-Federalized National Guard reports to the Governor and is not a part of the Armed Forces of the United States.  Blanco either did or did not issue orders, and I believe the answer is did .

      Perhaps the discussion was whether Bush would send in the Army.

      by phillies on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 07:25:31 AM PDT

      •  Bush did send in the army

        even though the Governor did not capitulate.

        by hhex65 on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 07:43:39 AM PDT

    •  he was probably trying to make himself...

      ...look good after his inaction the previous four days. i'm sure georgie had plans to cruise up to the port in new orleans on a troop transport ship, and as the soldiers were coming ashore, bush would appear in a wet suit (can you imagine that image????) and tell america the mission was accomplished. the mother of all photo ops. la. offifcials rained on his parade.

      snark aside, i think all officials, federal state and local, spent WAY too much time bickering or whatever over political crap while people died. truly, our government is ineffective at so many levels and on both sides of the political fence.

      by FemiNazi on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 08:48:56 AM PDT

    •  Now we know why

      he intends to investigate himself.

      by sidnora on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 08:50:22 AM PDT

  •  Power

    Bush or whomever was jockeying for power.  The best way to get that power is to withold something vital to the survival/success of the person/people you're trying to have power over.  

    That may be a little tinfoil-ish, but that's the only reason I can see the WH witholding certain things.

    by rockmoonwater on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 09:52:07 PM PDT

    •  who needs tin foil?

      I'm putting a reflective barrier under my whole roof.

      by d3n4l1 on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 10:16:10 PM PDT

    •  Not tinfoil

      that's a perfectly cogent assessment, straight from the pages of "Machiavelli for Managers 101."

      Rule #1: Identify your advantage
      Rule #2: Maintain it

      by RubDMC on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 10:43:07 PM PDT

•  Thanks for the Heads Up

  I caught the very end of the piece and it seemed pretty down to business.

  You know, now that you mention it, the ONLY way to explain the relief holdup is that Bush was playing politics or power.  That's his world.  That's all he knows.

  I hope you're right and that this story gets as ginormous as it deserves to be.

  The obscene bastard.

  by LarisaW on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 09:24:04 PM PDT

  •  Damn, I'm good

    NPR won't even cite me much less pay me.  Two of my posts from yesterday:

    GOP Beltway Katrina offense...
    Shorter version (none / 1)
    Bush refused to allow the use of existing boiler plate emergency declaration.  Insisted on a custom request by which the governor ceded control to the federal government which was not necessary in Florida.  So the prick withheld aid while people died so he could have total control.
    Which minority group would Jesus hate?
    by NorCalJim on Thu Sep 8th, 2005 at 20:07:38 PDT

    Burying the Lead
    Curiosity (none / 1)
    Just finished reading a diary which described the POTUS working hard with lawyers to craft a declaration for the Gov to sign.  Why wouldn't they just use boiler plate?
    Other reports have her refusing to 'cede' control to the feds.  Why would she need to?  Did Jeb 'cede' control?
    It sounds a bit like Bush was trying to extort control in exchange for support.  And held it up while people died.  That is mass murder.  Who controls fed troops in LA today?  Did she eventually cede?  Or did Bush finally cave?
    WOuldn't the normal course be for the fed troops dispatched to be under state control.
    Getting a little confused here.
    Which minority group would Jesus hate?
    by NorCalJim on Thu Sep 8th, 2005 at 20:55:23 PDT

    by NorCalJim on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 11:24:56 PM PDT

    •  You know ,,,,

      Your question of "Did Jeb 'cede' control is a good one! I would be real interested to find out the answer. It would seem our illustrious leader would have a difficult question to answer if he did not. (Unless I am missing something)

      by Alizaryn on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 11:37:04 PM PDT

      •  No

        he did not

        by Lipstick Liberal on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 11:34:21 AM PDT

      •  no lack of security for population in Florida

        it dissolved in NOLA so the Feds could make the argument of that premise for wanting control.  maybe?

        by blue drop on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 01:02:25 PM PDT

    •  What is the standard response?

      Who would "ordinarily" control a situation like this?  That is the real question.  This action can either be interpreted as Bush withholding troops in a power grab, or Blanco withholding troops in a power play.  What's the standard response?  What did Jeb do in Florida?  How have other hurricanes and natural disasters been handled?  What about the 1989 Loma Prieta quake, or the 1993 midwest floods?  How are national guard troops mobilized by the state in lesser instances, and is federal permission ever so withheld?  

      Since National Guard units are affiliated with the state, it would seem they should have the control.  Even if Bush's demand for control was irregular, there still is the question of the enormity of the situation, and the need for the involvement of the regular army and federal agencies.  

      by cryptochrome on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 06:16:37 AM PDT

      •  Certainly, there's more info to come

        by NorCalJim on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 08:24:12 AM PDT

      •  Bushco argued

        that the circumstances where different from normal because the police did not have the city under control.  Normally National Guard just assists and police powers remain with the locals.  Bushco wanted to them to take over for the police...wanted martial law!

        by Lipstick Liberal on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 11:38:24 AM PDT

    •  you should diary this

      I think this is a question a lot of people would like to know the answer to.

      by Central Scrutinizer on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:10:01 AM PDT

  •  alternate explanation: he just didn't care

    I think another possibility is that he just didn't care what happened to the people in New Orleans and on the Gulf Coast--and since all of his advisors were on vacation, there was no one to tell him to do something about the looming crisis.

    by benchcoat on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 11:29:52 PM PDT

    •  the two explanations ...

      ...are not mutually exclusive.  Once could ask why his advisors were on vacation when they say Katrina coming.

      by sj on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 02:05:46 AM PDT

    •  Specific Mechanism: It's Only Money to Them

      They regard all events as financial. They literally have no concept of human need.

      That's why Barbara Bush could divert her "beautiful mind" from bad news in Iraq. The financial plan was more or less on track. And it's why she would say that the evacuees are now doing "better" than when they lived in N.O.

      It's why they trained the first FEMA responders to be on-the-ground PR reps, and told people all week to be "patient." They knew even if the storm was enormous that they'd eventually get their act together, bring in financial relief and the region would eventuall begin to thrive again.

      They have no conception that a human being is a fragile chemical furnace that statistically begins flickering out in just a few days without the right inputs.

      Same for Wall Street, same for Iraq, same for the South. They only represent the dollars.

      by Gooserock on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 09:16:40 AM PDT

      •  This lends support

        To the "Republicans are killer robots from outer space" theory.

        by McJulie on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 11:12:30 AM PDT

  •  so Brown was the fall guy for Bush power play?

    reading this diary and subsequent comments makes me wonder if maybe Brown was trying to do his job but Bush kept him from doing it.  no wonder they weren't letting Brown speak yesterday.

    by blue drop on Sat Sep 10, 2005 at 01:36:36 PM PDT

•  They were slow to respond on 9/11

  as well. Waited around passively, didn't issue orders to scramble jets or shoot down the hijacked planes. Didn't pay attention to all the warnings. Didn't even try. Just let it happen.

  As we get more information over the next several months and years, if someone came up with incontrovertible proof that Bush reacted in a deliberately slow manner in sending in the Guard, I wouldn't be shocked.

  by lecsmith on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 09:24:37 PM PDT

  •  But that's the whole point

    it wasn't a "slow response", or bureaucratic infighting. It was a PR play.

    Everyone is aware that there are volumes of reports on the implications of a moderate to large scale hurricane striking in the near vicinity of New Orleans. The dangers of such have been common knowledge for decades, there have government "sim" excercises, and the occasional r