Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can someone explain something to me?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:28 PM
Original message
Can someone explain something to me?
Edited on Fri Sep-09-05 06:33 PM by joemurphy
I was listening to NPR's report on the chronology of the Katrina story.

If I remember correctly, the report stated that the hurricane hit on Monday. By Wednesday, people were complaining of having no food or water at the Superdome.

On Thursday, Bush flew into the NOLA airport on Air Force One and told Blanco and Nagin that he would only send in Federal troops if Blanco signed over control of her Louisiana National Guard Troops to the Federal Government. The Report said Blanco requested 24 hours to think the matter over.

The NPR Report never explained why Bush wanted Blanco to surrender control of the Guard troops to Bush. Apparently, if my memory serves, she refused to do so, although I'm not sure when that refusal was communicated to Bush.

The NPR Report stated that the 82nd Airborne came in the next day anyway.


My question: Why did Bush insist on control of the National Guard being turned over to the Federal government?

Can anyone explain?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. aWoL is a power mad idiot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CottonBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. So he could blame everything on a Democratic woman Governor
and a black Democratic Mayor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. The end game..
that fucking bush and those neo-cons
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. I don't get it.
How would his getting control of the Guard (only about 4,000 troops according to NPR) have put him in a position to blame everything on Blanco. I'd think him having control would have put all the blame on him immediately after his getting control.

Please help me with this. I think it's gonna be a big thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bernardo de La Paz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. They could say "Shocked, Shocked! We inherited a mess and cleaned up".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Yes, Bernardo. That's what I was thinking...see below
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. Somewhere I read that part of the waiver he wanted her to sign
stated that she was in dereliction of her duties as Governor. Sound like blackmail to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. If the president has to "request" federal control of NG troops,
how did they get sent to Iraq? Seems like the NG would've had to be "federalized" for that, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. So he could re-route them to Iraq ...
:shrug: Need. More. Cannon. Fodder. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCentepedeShoes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. That just may be right
Maybe only certain NG units were called to Iraq and each unit has to be handled separatly?? I don't know how these things are handled, but I think it would be a good idea for those of us who don't know to become alot better informed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teach1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
6. From the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090301680.html

Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday.

The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. Some officials in the state suspected a political motive behind the request. "Quite frankly, if they'd been able to pull off taking it away from the locals, they then could have blamed everything on the locals," said the source, who does not have the authority to speak publicly.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
8. People were already locked up in the Super-Dome and NO Convention
...Center by Saturday evening, when the residents discovered they had no way out, have no food, water, protection, supplies, baby formula, diapers, dry clothing, no communication, no money, no belongings, etc. No provisions at all! They went into these placed wet, hungry, with babies crying, nowhere to change, and no one listening to their cries for help

By Sunday evening power was off, toilets were backed up, what water they had was gone and then they were kept in by force until Wednesday, five full days in those conditions. Anyone who tried to leave to get supplies got shot and were labeled as looters. (see movie "Schendeliers List" and compare conditions).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
11. Blanco's Guard was only 4,000 men.
The New Orleans Police were around 1,500 strong.

Could it be that Bush wanted control of everything not so much for purposes of coordination but Bush wanted 100% of the credit when the Feds went in and "saved" everyone?

I'm thinking out loud here because this doesn't make much sense to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Be Brave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
13. Link here:
Edited on Fri Sep-09-05 06:51 PM by Be Brave
Basically, to take control, the feds needed the NG to impose law and order before troops can be sent it. Or that's what they thought. But the NG was under Blanco's control, so they had to try to make her give up control of the NG.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?hp&ex=1126324800&en=905e7a862e1c0023&ei=5094&partner=homepage


To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.

While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Yeah, but Bush sent in the troops anyway without invoking the
Insurrection Act. I don't understand the significance of this. It sounds crazy to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Be Brave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. They are improvising as they go along. Since the feds did not
foresee this kind of scenario, where essential local services were wiped out, in five years of wargaming since 9/11, they in their infinite wisdom wasted precious time figuring out what to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electron_blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. I don't understand this either
Why should Bush want to federally take this over?

Has he done it before? Is there any presidential precedent for this?

He doesn't need to take it over to blame the locals, he's doing fine by that. He also doesn't need to take it over to take the credit. He could have minimally helped in the beginning and taken credit for it as a "powerful leader". that would have been the easiest (laziest) way to take credit for it in the eyes of the avg American citizen.

What would federal martial law have gotten him in the hurricane cleanup?

What would it have gotten him BEYOND that - would the LA oil wells officially belong to WAshington then? Free for him to reassign them to Texas to handle while LA was "recovering"? There must have been some monetary reason for him trying to take over the NG, in keeping with Bush's past actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bernardo de La Paz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. It could be a breech of the Constitution, part of the Floodgate scandal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
16. What are his motives for anything?
1. Profit. If he controls everything he decides who gets all the contracts. I half believe the slow response was due in part to the admin trying to figure out how their buddies could make a buck off this.

2. Image. Can't have any loose cannons out there deviating from KKKarl's message. Then maybe the sheeple who gave him power will think twice and hence make it harder for his buddies to make a profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OctOct1 Donating Member (357 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-05 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
19. I am not sure what NPR is doing
And I do not understand why Bush would ask for control of the national guard when he already had it on Aug 26th when he declared a Federal disaster.
Why did this not cover it

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html

this shows FEMA had authority to coordinate all disaster relief efforts which have the purpose of alleviating the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures......
<snip>

It looks like they had control from Aug 26th.
why whould he be asking for control when he already had it??????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 07:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC