Quote :

"Red Cross Barred From Super Dome and Convention Center? According to Hugh Hewitt, Major Garrett of Fox News is reporting that the Red Cross "had prepositioned water, food, blankets and hygiene products for delivery to the Superdome and the Convention Center in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, but were blocked from delivering those supplies by orders of the Louisiana state government, which did not want to attract people to the Superdome and/or Convention Center." Explosive, obviously, if true. Hugh has interviewed Garrett, who says the report comes from "sources at the highest levels of the Red Cross." UPDATE: Several readers report seeing this statement made by Red Cross officials. Jane Ehrgott writes: I saw the woman who was the spokesperson for the Red Cross on tonight's Shepard Smith Report. She said on that interview that the Louisiana "STATE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPT." stopped them from going to the Superdome in the immediate aftermath. I was shocked. Kent Anderson writes: Your story on the red cross being barred from nola was confirmed wed morning by an official spokesperson of the red cross on the diane ream npr show. a caller inquired if it was true and she (the spokesman) replied unequivocally that it was true. UPDATE: David Kolbe sends a link: A Red Cross official, Carol Miller, said on NPR's Diane Rehm show this morning that the Red Cross was told not to provide aid at the Superdome by the Louisiana, not U.S., Department of Homeland Security. Audio here: http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/ (click link on left side of page) the comment is about 35:40 into the show. I've listened to the exchange, and the Red Cross representative clearly confirms that the Louisiana authorities directed the Red Cross not to operate in New Orleans lest residents be tempted to stay. The Super Dome and convention center aren't specifically mentioned, but obviously would be included in the prohibition. Other readers have pointed out that the same information is on the Red Cross web site. So there isn't any doubt about the basic point. The thing that would make it more explosive, I guess, is if the Red Cross had specifically stockpiled materiel to go to the Super Dome and convention center, as indicated by Garrett's report on Fox. THE LAST WORD: The Political Teen has the video of Major Garrett on Fox, and RadioBlogger has the transcript of Garrett's interview on Hugh Hewitt's show tonight. Some key exchanges: I was watching up on the corner television in my studio, and it's headlined that the Red Cross was blocked from delivering supplies to the Superdome, Major Garrett. Tell us what you found out. MG: Well, the Red Cross, Hugh, had pre-positioned a literal vanguard of trucks with water, food, blankets and hygiene items. They're not really big into medical response items, but those are the three biggies that we saw people at the New Orleans Superdom, and the convention center, needing most accutely. And all of us in America, I think, reasonably asked ourselves, geez. You know, I watch hurricanes all the time. And I see correspondents standing among rubble and refugees and evacuaees. But I always either see that Red Cross or Salvation Army truck nearby. Why don't I see that? HH: And the answer is? MG: The answer is the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security, that is the state agency responsible for that state's homeland security, told the Red Cross explicitly, you cannot come. HH: Now Major Garrett, on what day did they block the delivery? Do you know specifically? MG: I am told by the Red Cross, immediately after the storm passed. HH: Okay, so that would be on Monday afternoon. MG: That would have been Monday or Tuesday. *** HH: I also have to conclude from what you're telling me, Major Garrett, is that had they been allowed to deliver when they wanted to deliver, which is at least a little bit prior to the levee, or at least prior to the waters rising, the supplies would have been pre-positioned, and the relief...you know, the people in the Superdome, and possibly at the convention center, I want to come back to that, would have been spared the worst of their misery. MG: They would have been spared the lack of food, water and hygiene. I don't think there's any doubt that they would not have been spared the indignity of having nor workable bathrooms in short order. HH: Now Major Garrett, let's turn to the convention center, because this will be, in the aftermath...did the Red Cross have ready to go into the convention center the supplies that we're talking about as well? MG: Sure. They could have gone to any location, provided that the water wasn't too high, and they got some assistance. The Democrats may need to re-think their calls for an investigation."

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011594.php

9/13/2005 7:10:04 PM

i said this a long time ago and everyone was like "omg source?!"

9/13/2005 7:11:45 PM

hmmm... so, it was the louisiana state dept. of homeland security that blocked them allegedly...

OMFG! IF IT WEREN'T FOR DUBYA CREATING THE NATIONAL DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY THEN LOUISIANA WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THE SAME!!! OMFG ITS ALL DUBYA'S FAULT STILL!!!

but seriously, source plz... i want to believe that such a thing removes some "blame" from the feds, but I still don't think it takes a lot of it away...

9/13/2005 8:07:11 PM

well i mean i guess there are links to Diane Reame's show... which could HARDLY be characterized as a conservative source

9/13/2005 8:58:05 PM

I may have forgotten how logic works, but I'm pretty sure showing that locals fucked up does not mean that federal also did not fuck up.

But that's only if you want to use logic.

9/13/2005 9:13:51 PM

but if this is the case it does kinda destroy the "OMF WHY DIDNT W SEND SUPPLIES TO THE SUPERDOME, HE HATES BLACKS" argument

[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 9:15 PM. Reason : but i guess i could just not know how logic works]

9/13/2005 9:15:37 PM

W does hate blacks. Kayne West said so.

9/13/2005 9:20:54 PM

this is the red cross.

not the federal government

the red cross sent shit that was apparently blocked, not the federal government.

this really has nothing to do with

Quote :

"the "OMF WHY DIDNT W SEND SUPPLIES TO THE SUPERDOME, HE HATES BLACKS" argument"

9/13/2005 9:36:49 PM

^^^ unfortunately, those aren't the only criticisms of the federal government, and the superdome and convention center problems weren't just for the day or 2 when this stuff supposedly went down.

Anyway, this is all pointless if there is no corroboration for this other that other conservative blogs quoting this Fox shill. There are already conflicting reports calling into question this garbage reported on Fox.

(http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=major+Garrett doesnt bring up anything credible, after all)



p.s. Isn't this guy too ugly for TV?

[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 9:40 PM. Reason : I thought "major" meant a real major.]

9/13/2005 9:37:16 PM

Quote :

"the red cross sent shit that was apparently blocked, not the federal government."

isn't fema responsible for coordinating with the red cross?

9/13/2005 9:39:26 PM

ehh, yes and no.

Quote :

"Is the American Red Cross part of the U.S. government? The American Red Cross functions independently of the government but works closely with government agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), during times of major crises. It is responsible for giving aid to members of the U.S. Armed Forces and to disaster victims at home and abroad. It does this through services that are consistent with its Congressional Charter and the Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement allowing the Red Cross to stay neutral and impartial. Back to Top"

http://www.redcross.org

9/13/2005 9:41:30 PM

^^ and yet if the red cross has never seen a reason before that would expect them to be barred from NO, then why should they expect to need FEMA this time? Maybe dicking around w/ FEMA due to the incompetence of the state and local gov'ts killed the time frame in which the supplies could have been delivered...

9/13/2005 9:58:40 PM

Quote :

"this is all pointless if there is no corroboration for this other that other conservative blogs quoting this Fox shill"

oh maybe you didn't read the article. It was reported on NPR's Diane Reame show - which could hardly be characterized as conservative by any stretch of the imagination

9/13/2005 11:11:35 PM

Quote :

"Explosive, obviously, if true."

Indeed.

9/13/2005 11:14:12 PM

^^ I read it. You didn't interpret it -- the blog post mentions no context and gives no actual quotes (if you can find the clip, link it). Furthermore, another thing that appears to be in play is that this Red Cross lady has changed her story over time. Without further corroboration, the matter remains as before -- possibly made up BS from Fox "news".

(Incidentally, a google news search for "Carol Miller" also doesn't yield anything credible. Must be a left wing media conspiracy?)

---

The audio was hardly illuminating. Less than one minute about the whole thing.

[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 11:59 PM. Reason : sdfkj]

9/13/2005 11:46:31 PM

so... Cindy Sheehan can change her story but this lady can't. Got it! [/strawman from me, and a bad one at that]

9/14/2005 12:31:58 AM

Quote :

"(if you can find the clip, link it)"

i think that says it all

9/14/2005 12:41:01 AM

I guess you've given up making a point.

9/14/2005 12:51:44 AM

sure

9/14/2005 12:56:12 AM

hell, you never started, skokiaan, so why should excoriator?

9/14/2005 1:01:23 AM

^I guess we all can't understand the english language

9/14/2005 1:09:53 AM

yes, you are living proof.

9/14/2005 1:13:25 AM

as always, a high density of aaronburro posts means that this thread has become asinine

9/14/2005 1:20:41 AM

skokiaannaana, i think the point we're trying to make here is that your response has been limited to the most stereotypical knee-jerk denial, without regard for the content of the article or its corroborating source - namely the NPR program.

I like how you glossed over almost a full minute of programming on the extremely liberal Diane Reame show as though you could just sweep it under the rug without so much as a nod to the explosive nature of its content.

it is clear from your own edits that you've been replying to this thread PRIOR to reading the article and PRIOR to listening to the audio. and like I said before, I think that, in and of itself, says it all.

[Edited on September 14, 2005 at 9:50 AM. Reason : s]

9/14/2005 9:49:42 AM

I don't care if the government of La ordered ninjas to track down and kill all NO survivors.

Since when did the President of the United States have to wait for the authorization of poor southern state before helping his people in need.

9/14/2005 11:38:43 AM

hm since the constitution was ratified, i'd guess...

9/14/2005 11:40:26 AM

plz to look up "executive order"

and then come tell me which congressmen would have challanged the president if he had ordered the immediate evacuation of the Convention Center and Superdome?

Right.

9/14/2005 11:45:39 AM

Quote :

"MG: Well, the Red Cross, Hugh, had pre-positioned a literal vanguard of trucks with water, food, blankets and hygiene items. They're not really big into medical response items, but those are the three biggies that we saw people at the New Orleans Superdom, and the convention center, needing most accutely. And all of us in America, I think, reasonably asked ourselves, geez. You know, I watch hurricanes all the time. And I see correspondents standing among rubble and refugees and evacuaees. But I always either see that Red Cross or Salvation Army truck nearby. Why don't I see that? HH: And the answer is? MG: The answer is the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security, that is the state agency responsible for that state's homeland security, told the Red Cross explicitly, you cannot come. HH: Now Major Garrett, on what day did they block the delivery? Do you know specifically? MG: I am told by the Red Cross, immediately after the storm passed. HH: Okay, so that would be on Monday afternoon. MG: That would have been Monday or Tuesday."

9/14/2005 12:09:35 PM

Quote :

"I REPEAT THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN SINCE I HAVE NOTHING USEFUL TO SAY"

9/14/2005 12:13:54 PM

President of the United States.
|
|
Dept. of Homeland Sec.
|
|
Gov. La.
|
|
Local Mcdonalds
|
|
....
|
|
La. Dept of homeland security.

9/14/2005 12:31:43 PM

Quite a non-response you have crafted here.

Quote :

"skokiaannaana, i think the point we're trying to make here is that your response has been limited to the most stereotypical knee-jerk denial, without regard for the content of the article or its corroborating source - namely the NPR program. "

So, to counter my point that your sources were not credible (fox) or not conclusive ( NPR 30 second clip), you repeat an argument that I already countered (that NPR clip corroborates the FOX account) and engage in ad hominem (calling my reaction "knee-jerk")?

So up to this point, you have a bunch of logical fallacies.

Next:

Quote :

" I like how you glossed over almost a full minute of programming on the extremely liberal Diane Reame show as though you could just sweep it under the rug without so much as a nod to the explosive nature of its content. "

1. Carol miller spoke for less than a minute on this point.
2. The fact that Diane Rheme's show may be liberal is irrelevant to whether the account reported on Fox was true or not.
3. Nodding to the explosive nature of the content is wholly irrelevant to determining the veracity of the content.
4. I didn't gloss over the clip, I summarized what it proved, and nothing you have said in response changes my summary (that the clip was not "illuminating"). Carol Miller never says why the supplies were stopped in the clip, never identifies specific people who told them not to deliver supplies.

All she says is that supplies could have been delivered but were not. We have no information about the context to consider extenuating factors. The fox report added the more outrageous details to Miller's account-- details that have not been corroborated, especially not by the NPR clip.
5. You never address point that Carol Miller's credibility may be suspect since her argument has apparently changed over time. She is, after all, a spokesperson who answers to the administration. Other people with similar jobs include Scot Mcclellan, Ari Fleischer, and the Iraqi Information Minister pre-invasion.
6. You never address the point that no one else seems to be reporting this. All we have is this major garret guy and carol miller. No other credible third party has said anything on this (and no, Carol Miller's terse response to a phone call does not count as NPR reporting anything.)

As you can see, it is you who have swept my argument under the rug while repeating already-countered points.

Quote :

" it is clear from your own edits that you've been replying to this thread PRIOR to reading the article and PRIOR to listening to the audio. and like I said before, I think that, in and of itself, says it all. "

Actually, I read the article before I posted but did not listen to the clip. Listening to the clip turned out to be inconsequential since it had almost no extra information. Anyway, this is irrelevant. -1 for more ad hominem. If you can't address the points I have raised, just say so. No need for the histrionics.


[Edited on September 15, 2005 at 12:12 AM. Reason : sf]

9/15/2005 12:04:26 AM

Quote :

"The fact that Diane Rheme's show may be liberal"

ahaha you partisan hack

9/15/2005 1:05:18 AM

^^ you do realize that much of what you quoted there was Excoriator talking to SandSanta, right?

Quote :

"You never address the point that no one else seems to be reporting this."

Ummm, I think it goes without saying that the liberal media would not generally report this, as it goes against their agenda of showing how evil dubya is.

Quote :

"All she says is that supplies could have been delivered but were not."

and that says a god damned lot when you consider that the media has been thrashing bush for allowing people to exist in said areas without said supplies...

9/15/2005 7:41:44 AM