Opinions, Context & Ideas from the TPM Editors TPM Editor's Blog

Another TPM Reader JW

Another TPM Reader, JW, responds to <$NoAd$> the Times article ...

I read the Times article before getting to TPM this morning and as I read the section you quote and the rest of the piece what became obvious to me is that the staff work for the executives was abysmal on all sides. First of all the Feds, and I mean FEMA especially, should have had a check list of the things that must be in place: proclamations made, signatures, documents, forms etc. Second, the governor should have had staff people telling her what was needed and making certain that everything was prepared and in a folder if not weeks and months in advance certainly in the days before the storm hit. And if the state people did not have everything in place the FEMA people should have had senior experienced staff people knowledgeable in the machinery who could speak to their counterparts and to the Governor and the President or at least to Andrew Card and make sure it all happened. For that matter why isn't there a kit or a plastic weather tight box that all of this stuff can be placed in and sent by Fedex to the governor with explicit instructions at the onset of this kind of thing. Or even better a kind of two week out of the box course that all governors and presidents (and staff ) take at the beginning of an administration that covers what to do in case of emergency.

I mean this stuff should never have to be made up on the spot as if no one had ever seen an emergency before. In fact, as I think of it wasn't this the rationale put forth for the Homeland Security Department in the first place? I was never enamored of the plan even though it was a Democratic idea and now I am less enthusiastic but I don't think there is any putting that genie back in the bottle.

Joe Allbaugh on why

Joe Allbaugh on why he made Michael Brown Deputy Director of FEMA. From today's Oklahoman ...

Allbaugh said Brown was his first hire after being tabbed to head the emergency agency.

"I hired him solely on his ability as a strong ethics attorney," he said.

Later that year, Brown played a major role in the agency's response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Allbaugh said Brown headed up operations in the Washington office while he was in New York.

The deputy director's slot was vacant during that time.

"I decided he was the right person to become the deputy of the agency," Allbaugh said. "He was the logical person."


A strong ethics attorney who'd just gotten canned from his last job because of ethical <$NoAd$> improprieties.

Id really like to

I'd really like to hear more about today's article in the Times about troop delays in NOLA from people who have knowledge of the relevant law and/or history. I discussed the piece here.

It's worth noting the article covers the specific issue of why there were delays sending in more troops. It doesn't deal with the FEMA lapses. But the more I hear from readers who have some knowledge of the relevant law, the more I get the impression that the White House was making aid contingent on the governor declaring that a portion of her state was facing a domestic insurrection and turning it over to the authority of the president.

But like I said, I'd like to know more. The Times article left me with too little context or explanation from outside sources as to whether the claims of the administration sources were reasonably based in the law.

As long as we're on the subject, here's a note I just got from TPM Reader EJ on the Times article ...

Hi, I'm regular reader. I'm writing regarding your 9/9/2005 1:05 AM post Re the story in the Times. A couple of things struck me reading this story. One is that it seems to present a narrative of kathleen Blanco resisting federal authority (and therefore timely aid) but if you close read the text it actually says that Federal officials were certain that she WOULD resist federal control (and that taking this control might have political consequences). The only quote from Blanco (and almost the only information sourced to Blanco)attests that she thought she had requested all possible aid. The article's lede suggests negotiations between state and federal authorities, but unless i'm mistaken, it reads more like the feds were negotiating with themselves.

I'm not at all certain that I'm reading this correctly, and I am concerned. If Blanco did put up unnecessary impediments to aid then she certainly shares more of the blame than I had thought. But, if this is true it seems like it would have become the centerpiece of the adminstration's blame deflecting strategy and as such would have gotten more play than the completely false (and easily disproven) "no state of emergency declared" tactic.


The Times clearly got some good access for that piece. But they need to follow up because their narrative was confusing and raised more questions than it answered.

Theyre a bit late

They're a bit late to the party. But the Post adds some valuable details on the perilously high hack quotient at today's FEMA. One fun snippet: "[E}xperts inside and out of government said a 'brain drain' of experienced disaster hands throughout the agency, hastened in part by the appointment of leaders without backgrounds in emergency management, has weakened the agency's ability to respond to natural disasters."

Heres one youll want

Here's one you'll want to read. Juliette Kayyem unearths and examines the grueling 42 minute confirmation hearing then-chairman Joe Lieberman put our guy Michael Brown through when he was appointed Deputy Director of FEMA in 2002.

The Times has a

The Times has a piece tomorrow about the back and forth between Blanco and the White House around the time of the Katrina's landfall. A look at the sourcing suggests it comes mainly, though not exclusively, from administration sources from DOJ, DOD, DHS and the White House. Despite that, it really doesn't put things in a particularly good light.

I'm still not completely clear from reading the article precisely what the ins-and-outs were of how or why the president would have needed to invoke the Insurrection Act (see the article). I got the sense from the article that by the time lawlessness really started breaking out, the White House wanted to run the whole show or basically not get involved.

Whether that's true or not, the whole process seemed to amount to a lot of not-particularly-urgent brainstorming about how federal law and state control over the Guard would interact, how the Governor would react, what the politics would be -- basically a lot of thumb-twiddling by mid-level appointees while the whole situation spun out of control. And I don't see how you could read the piece and not think: why weren't any of these questions hashed out in advance?

Assuming the key points in the story are accurate, you can sorta see how one development led to another, and so forth. But the big picture just seems like these guys didn't have their act together.

Which, when you think about it, is pretty much what it seemed like in real time.

And one other point. A short way into the piece there's this graf ...

The debate began after officials realized that Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.


That's quite a flaw when you consider that most of the really bad terrorist scenarios would almost by definition knock out local first responders. A dirty bomb? A small nuclear device? A bioweapons attack? Several hundred first responders were killed on 9/11. And the only reason New York City's police and fire departments remained functional is that, for all its horror, the 9/11 attacks were highly localized in one section of downtown Manhattan.

We've heard for four years how we're in a war on terror, how we live in a new world where the nexus of fanaticism and technology can inflict unimaginable horrors on us in our very cities. And they never figured anything could happen bad enough that it might knock the cops and fire departments off the feet for a day or so?

Time finds what it

Time finds what it really, really charitably calls 'discrepancies' in FEMA Chief Michael Brown's resume. Like when he served as "assistant city manager with emergency services oversight" in Edmond, Okla.? Okay, he was an intern (title=administrative assistant) there while he was in college. Or about his position as "Outstanding Political Science Professor [at] Central State University." The school says he never taught there. He's been a director at the Oklahoma Christian Home since 1983. Only no one there's ever heard of him.

You can't make this stuff up. Or, I guess, maybe that's not the best line in this case.

The chick governor excuse.

The chick governor excuse. From tomorrow's Times ...

Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.


More here.

Im told tomorrows Congress

I'm told tomorrow's Congress Daily says Tom DeLay has now acknowledged he met voluntarily last month with Travis County DA Ronnie Earle about the TRMPAC case.

LiveWire