Talk:Timeline of Hurricane Katrina

Federalizing the National Guard

Just a few comments I want to make. First of all, the President of the United States does not need a Governor's permission to Federalize the National Guard. Eisenhower did it in Little Rock Arkansas to escort the black children to school. The governor was dead-set against it. I want to say President Kennedy did the same thing to protect civil rights workers. All the President needs is to know that the security of people is in jeopardy. Secondly, my Newsweek reports that Governor Blanco asked President Bush (by phone) to give her everything he had to help. That was I think Sunday night. A couple of days later, she said she did not want to give up authority over her guardsmen. So I am not a legal expert by any standard. I do think President Bush could've done more earlier under his own authority. Scott.

Scott, I gave your comments a section head to make it easier to add comments by section. You are dead right on President does not need Governor approval to call up the national guard, but generally a President does not do so unless there is clear and obvious need to do so. You may recall that early on, what people in the rest of the nation knew was there had supposedly been an evacuation before the hurricane struck, then right afterwards, all the local radio communications for first responders and emergency workers was non-functional, so no one in government had realized the scale of the people who were unable to evacuate (for whatever reasons), so the time line needs to show when they got educated about this, and how rapidly they took appropriate action. AlMac|^(talk) 20:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Scott, this answers most of your "questions". The president needs a lot more then "just knowing that people are in jeopardy". Per the constitution (always a reliable source): "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." These are the only reasons the president can federalize the national guard without a specific request of the governor. I would asume that if Bush had federalized the guard for one of those reasons without the request of the governor, that would be the only way they could be used. I.E. he federalizes them to execute the laws of the union.. they wouldn't be able to do relief missions while under federal control since the constitution doesn't allow for that. That's just conjecture though. But, your two examples of the president federalizing the guard without the permission of the governor would fall under "executing the laws of the union"

(This also answers Scotts comment regarding the federal army)Someone keeps adding that the federal army could have been called in without a specific request of the governor. But news articles are disagreeing with that: "Bush for instance is consitutionally barred from deploying federal troops in a state -- unless he is asked to by the Governor, who commands the state's National Guard." [1]here is another article that says a bit more on the subject [2] and CNN backs it up in this video of Governor Blanco: [3] If you watch the whole video, Scott, there is a part of it in which Blanco tries to claim that she asked Bush "for everything you've got" but the CNN reporter calls her on it and says as the governor she has to specifically request federal troops. The constitution is very clear about these things.

El C - you're an administrator... care to cite your scources that the federal Government can deploy active duty armed forces in a state without a request of the Governor? I can't find any. US Lawmakers are currently talking about allowing federal troops to become first responders and deploy without governors request... why are they talking about changing this law if it's currently allowed?

As the article states, a gubernatorial request is only required for armed forces to be deployed to perform law-enforcement duties - Posse Comitatus is very clear about that. They can be deployed without such a request if they are performing other duties, as happened in this case - the army began deploying troops to Louisiana on August 26. The military can and did undertake relief operations without a gubernatorial request under the Posse Comitatus Act. Evacuation is a grey area, since it would theoretically involve law-enforcement (the military could undertake such operations jointly with police or National Guard forces, though). The request is only needed - and was only made - for the military to engage in law-enforcement duties (in this case, combatting looters, and later, forcibly evacuating people who had remained behind in New Orleans). Why don't you ask CNN, if they really think the military can't deploy without a request, why it says it was deployed to Louisiana on August 26. Did Blanco's initial request actually serve to allow the military mobilisation, despite what various GOP-trained reporters have said? Did the army deploy illegally? Or is the Pentagon now lying to the nation?

Well, you have one thing incorrect for sure, which makes the rest of your "info" very circumspect: Under the Posse Comitatus act Armed forces cannot deploy to a state for law-enforcement duties even if a Governor requests it, except in 3 very specific circumstances none of which occured during Katrina. Can you post a couple of mainstream articles (as i've done showing the opposite position from CNN and yahoo.com) that the regular army can deploy to a state without a specific request of the Governor? Can you show articles that regular army (not national Guard, which is controlled by the Governor) were deployed and performing duties in NOLA on the 26th? I do know the USS Bataan, even though it was prepositioned, didn't actually start rescue missions until the 31st (after theGovernor asked for military assistance).

Bush photo-op

Are these items really pertinent to a timeline of Hurricane Katrina?

• 29 August - Morning – President Bush shares birthday photo-op with Senator John McCain
• 29 August - 11AM — "Bush visits Arizona resort to promote Medicare drug benefit": “This new bill I signed says, if you’re a senior and you like the way things are today, you’re in good shape, don’t change. But, by the way, there’s a lot of different options for you. And we’re here to talk about what that means to our seniors.”

--timc | Talk 00:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

If Bush spent that morning kicking FEMA's ass, instead of saying cheese, probably hundreds more people would have been saved. Is the priority of POTUS relevant to the success of the relief effort of Katrina? Yes, I would think so. --Gebuhuka 00:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would he need to be "kicking FEMA's ass" prior to Katrina hitting? Considering the track record of FEMA in the recent past(see Hurricanes Charlie, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne, and Dennis), he had no reason to believe that they would have problems. Although the difference between Katrina and those previous five storms is where they hit. The other five all hit in Florida. Maybe we should be scrutinizing the local and state governments of Louisiana here rather than President Bush. --Holderca1 02:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

While I strongly agree with the spirit behind that statement, I note that Bush's response and/or lack thereof is notable on its own, and a timeline devoted to him, can also depict the latter, whereas here, we are interested in the former (i.e. as directly relating to Hurricane Katrina). That said, if he issued statements relating to the Hurricane at that time (and I would be truly amazed to learn he said nothing at all on that front throughout September 29), then these items can and should be re-entered and modified with those qualifications in mind. El_C 01:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That was my motivation for starting George W. Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina to document the actions/inaction by the commander-in-chief during this national tragedy. As a timeline of happened events, it could maintain neutrality by staying factual, and could complement articles like Political effects of Hurricane Katrina which is filled with POVs and speculations. Given the facts, readers can formed their own judgement on Bush's responses. Unfortunately George W. Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina is up for vfd and it's my fault because I don't have the time to expand it. --Gebuhuka 01:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about it; it makes sense that someone has already initiated such an effort. I voted keep. El_C 01:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• In theory, if the top executive has put good people in charge of Homeland Security, FEMA, the Pentagon, Department of Transportation, NOAA, etc. then he not need to micromanage them. However it can be critical to the people to know when he found out there was a problem, and what action he took to make sure it was being properly taken care of.
  • Ditto relevant people in the various agencies on down the chain of command. We want to be assured that they were promptly informed of the scale of the disaster, and that they did appropriate followup to make sure that what was being done was appropriate and timely.
• Urban legend arrives ... so for example after 9/11 we are told that Bush's reaction was "That is one lousy pilot!" so because of such "stories" it becomes critical to know what exactly he said when about things, so we can distinguish truth from fantasy.

AlMac|^(talk) 17:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Something missing

I think this is a great page. However, as I was reading it, it was jarring to come upon the Astrodome being full without any explanation of why. There is no entry in the timeline for when bus evacuations started after the flooding. Sorry, I don't know the date for that, but it's important that it be there.

Evacuate where and when

• There was a lag time in getting relief to the people at the various designated shelters ... Superdome, Convention Center, and also where people got to the highway. The time line should indicate when people started arriving at these places, when relief started arriving there, when buses helicopters etc. started moving people out of them, when they were finally cleared out, and how many people.
• There was a lag time in finding some place to evacuate people to. The Houston Astrodome was the first shelter made available. There are now hundreds all over the nation. As they went into use, the news media not told about all of them, because some people with private transportation were going there directly, and they filling up, before the busses got there.
  • Perhaps a chart some place with population figures associated with the disaster area before landfall, and where those evacuees ended up, by state.

AlMac|^(talk) 20:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark Wills' guitar

Shouldn't this article make at least passing mention of the near-infamous photo of George Bush playing Mark Wills' guitar the day after Katrina struck the Gulf Coast? I've no idea whether or not said photo actually had any significant effect on public opinion, but it's undeniably one of the more memorable images associated with the whole fiasco, particularly on the internet. And documenting ubiquitous PoV, in as NPoV a fashion as possible, is one of the cardinal functions of any encyclopedia.

Or is this aspect of public opinion tangential to this article? With George W. Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina deleted, I'm not entirely sure where this sort of factoid should go.

Also posted to Political_effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina. There seems to be some overlap between the two articles, and I suspect this question presently falls under their joint purview.

The photo is a fake ... see http://www.snopes.com/katrina/photos/recreate.asp ... briefly, there are people who deliberately create photos of government officials doing things they never did, then circulate those photos on the Internet to undermine their credibility. AlMac|^(talk) 20:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The photo of Bush with a guitar in New Orleans is fake, however the photo of Bush with a guitar and Mark Wills at Naval Base Coronado is real.

Buses/Superdome/Food/Dates

"Saturday, August 27: New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin calls for a voluntary evacuation of the city. Although current Louisiana Emergency Evacuation guidelines allow use of public transportation, no idle school buses are used to transport. The emergency plans rely on citizens to bring their own 3 day supply of food and water to the Superdome and Convention Center." and "Sunday, August 28: 10AM CDT - Mandatory evacuation is ordered for New Orleans City by Mayor Nagin. No public transportation is afforded the mostly poor citizens."

would appear to be contradicted by this dated the 28th, notably:

"As many as 100,000 inner-city residents didn't have the means to leave, and an untold number of tourists were stranded by the closing of the airport. The city arranged buses to take people to 10 last-resort shelters, including the Superdome.

Nagin also dispatched police and firefighters to rouse people out with sirens and bullhorns, and even gave them the authority to commandeer vehicles to aid in the evacuation.

The 70,000-seat Superdome, the home of football's Saints, opened at daybreak Sunday, giving first priority to frail, elderly people on walkers, some with oxygen tanks. They were told to bring enough food, water and medicine to last up to five days." Auz 11:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Governor <-> Bush exchange plus questions regarding FEMA timeline

I go by Governor Blanco's request ( http://gov.louisiana.gov/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf ).

The article in it's current form states that Gov. Blanco requested the president declare a state of emergency. THIS IS WRONG. in her request Gov. Blanco requested he declared a major disaster. Bush did not follow that request. Instead he declared a state of emergency. (I'll correct that in the article)

I am not familiar with the procedures, but I suspect a state of emergency is not the same as a major disaster.

In the request it reads: "Parishes expected to receive major damage based on the anticipated track of Hurricane Katrina are: Ascension, Assumption, Jefferson, Lafourche, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Terrebonne, and Washington." Emphasis mine.

NONE of these parishes are mentioned in the linked FEMA designated counties ( http://www.fema.gov/news/eventcounties.fema?id=4786 ) from the 27th. The areas listed in the FEMA "designated counties" are listed in the governors request for help as "Parishes that are affected by the evacuation of persons from the southeastern parishes".

    FEMA split Blanco's request into at least two parts.
    Here is the second part, two days later.
    Here is the parish list, which includes Jefferson and Orleans.
    (Hope I added this commment correctly.) GJM 68.105.3.243 22:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Could it be that the declaration of an emergency just means FEMA was to help with dealing with the aftermath, but NOT with desaster relief?

Which would also explain, why FEMA was discouraging help efforts directed towards the devastated area. They simply expected some other agency to step in and order *them* what to let through and where to go and help.

Anybody know of any resources, where one could veri-/falsify the possible link between the declared states (emergency/disaster) and FEMA / Homeland Security duties?

The article would then read: August, 27th: FEMA was only assigned to dealing with evacuated persons, due to the lower threat level set by the president.

August 29th: Due to the declaration of state of emergency, FEMA is now in charge of the whole desaster area. This includes a 72 hour timespan where the cost for rescue operations are entirely covered by federal funds.

The state of emergency and a major disaster seem indeed to differ, but only in the effect that in a major disaster the feds will cover 75% of the cost, see ( http://web.archive.org/web/20040814023657/http://lacoa.org/proclamations.shtml ). could this have been all about the nookie?

from the washington post [4] There is a FEMA program called the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System (US&R) -- now part of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (EP&R) of the Department of Homeland Security. According to federal legislation, it "provides specialized lifesaving assistance during major disasters or emergencies that the President declares under the Stafford Act. US&R operational activities include locating, extricating and providing on-site medical treatment to victims trapped in collapsed structures, victims of weapons of mass destruction events, and when assigned, performing incident command or other operational activities."

So where was the US&R?

from [5] "The EP&R Directorate continues FEMA's efforts to reduce the loss of life and property and to protect our nation's institutions..."

So is FEMA just a remaining stump and not a real agency and the EP&R Directorate has to make all the important decisions (like deploying the US&R)? Could that be the reason why FEMA was initially preparing for deployment only in the outskirts of the affected areas?

Interleaf hurricane and political timeline

Can I urge that we combine the two timelines in this page into one, so for each date we have a list of hurricane events followd by an indented list of political events. This would allow for a better juxtapositioning of information. It would also allow us to interleaf hurricane photos with political photos. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I second this motion and recommend a re-name like The Katrina Disaster Timeline, to accomodate the fact that it is not only about the hurricane itself but also about the people affected and the political implications.

Above posted by user 84.137.135.124

I also think interleafing is essential because of the great temptation of people to insert political stuff in the top, non-political in the bottom, and the fact that some events are a bit of both.

At least for the first few dates, it looks easier to make sure the top section has all the political section stuff. AlMac|^(talk) 18:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Political is not just Bush

If demand continues to have what actually happened as opposed to the political dimension, then it ought to be renamed, because it is POV to focus on Bush without context of State & Local, and the responsibilities of some government agencies to act without waiting on commands from above.

Perhaps the title could reflect other responsibilities of leadership, what's going on with them when this disaster unfolding, how high a relative priority they appear to be giving this. AlMac|^(talk) 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Predictability of Levees at Risk

Currently the first section is about the Hurricane when it first formed, was seen coming, etc. Would it be appropriate to add a section in front of that about history that is relevant to disaster preparedness for the nation and the geographic area affected by Hurricane Katrina, such as Hurricane Pam and efforts to improve the levee system? AlMac|^(talk) 18:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

helpful link

this link and its dated sublinks should be useful for this article's progress. Kingturtle 08:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I also found this timeline which lists all that was *said* on press conferences, perhaps we could work that into the article Sp4rk33 11:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Such timelines can help us find useful info, but then we should try to go to primary sources, in case of distortion at the secondary write-ups. Some government agenices publish what was said on THEIR web sites, which also would be good places to direct people who want to see more about what we might be summarizing that was new as of the time of the press conference. AlMac|^(talk) 18:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Whitewash?

I noticed that the article seemed a bit lighter than when I last looked at it: Heres the diff. Seems to be some whitewashing regarding earlier dates. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Katrina_timeline&diff=23231890&oldid=22893537 -St|eve 21:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)