ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Enough Already with the "Why Did It Take So Long to Respond to Katrina?"

I just spent the last hour or so watching developments in New Orleans. There was the usual torrent of castigation of the Federal Government, read: George Bush, for delays in responding. Am I the only one who thinks the response was about as quick as it could be?

A review of the facts:
1. Katrina crossed Florida last Saturday as a category 1 hurricane;
2. It ambled out into the Gulf of Mexico where it amazingly rapidly gained strength to where it was a category 5 by last Sunday;
3. The same day the Feds declared an emergency for the Gulf Coast which began the mobilization process for Federal resources, never mind the inept Louisana response under the crying governor (where is Rudy when we need him?);
4. The storm struck Monday doing incredible damage to the Mississippi coast while apparently SPARING New Orleans;
5. The levys failed Tuesday flooding New Orleans over the next two days;
6. The Coast Guard began rescue operations the same day;
7. Federal resources, other than the CG, began ariving Friday and were fully functional on Saturday. That means it took less than 72 hours to become operational.

Can someone, anyone, tell me how they could have moved 20,000 troops, transported millions of meals and millions of gallons of water, assembled transport to evacuate 500,000 people and moved all this into a city isolated by flood over damaged roads in less than 72 hours?

Saying there was a delay does not make it so. It is preposterous. A huge vote of thanks should be given to the heroes responding as they have... and to the American public for their amazing, but not unexpected, generosity.

Now, please, you whining logistical geniuses, please shut up so the rest of us can get on with doing what we can to help these people out.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn