| September 2005 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Contrary to nonsensical efforts to pin slow FEMA response times on GWB, FEMA response to previous devastating hurricanes was also criticized for being slow:
FEMA has been criticized for its response to Hurricane Katrina because of the time it took to assist storm victims stranded at the Superdome and Morial Convention Center in New Orleans and to others in surrounding parishes.
Many of the problems FEMA is being criticized for now occurred in similar relief efforts in 1989 for Hurricane Hugo, in 1992 for Hurricane Iniki and in 1993 for Hurricane Andrew.
...Hurricane Andrew caused $30 billion in damages, considered then to be the largest economic loss from a natural disaster in U.S. history, according to the General Accounting Office.
..In July 1993, the GAO released a report titled, "Disaster Management: Improving the Nation's Response to Catastrophic Disasters."
"The nation's management of catastrophic disasters was intensely criticized after Hurricane Andrew leveled much of South Florida and Hurricane Iniki destroyed much of the Hawaiian island of Kauai in 1992," the GAO wrote.
"Prior to these storms, other major disasters, such as Hurricane Hugo and the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, also generated intense criticism of the federal response effort."
It added that "catastrophic disasters overwhelm the ability of state, local and voluntary agencies to adequately provide victims with essential services, such as food and water" within a day after the storm has hit.
In previous cases, there was no widespread attempt to seek political gain from the suffering of fellow Americans, by seeking to pin the blame for slow FEMA response on a sitting President.
The Democrat party deserves better leadership.
Last night at a private residence in Los Angeles, people gathered to hear Ehud Zinar speak about the forced withdrawal, from Gaza, of the population of his town, Netzarim. Ehud is the Assistant to the Chairman of the Council of Netzarim, which is working to prepare a new life for that population. What is amazing is that the population is not bitter, not angry; it is hopeful and is looking to do good for itself and for Israel, even though the withdrawal was "a tragedy."
The people of Netzarim have made a brilliant and surprising decision: they will stay together geographically. They will find a place to which they can all move to maintain their community, and to continue the work at which the different individuals in it are skilled. They are seeking undeveloped land in Israel on which to live.
