September 6, 2005 7:55 PM   Subscribe

Katrina timeline And another , as the first only goes up till Friday the 2nd. Both these only reference verified events. That said, these both seem to have been done by left-leaning people, and I'd like to see some right-wing or even (*ghasp*) non-partisan ones.
posted by delmoi (41 comments total)
Timeline: How the hurricane crisis unfolded - BBC
posted by Stuart_R at 7:57 PM on September 6, 2005

Another and another timeline.
posted by ericb at 8:01 PM on September 6, 2005

NYT: Retracing the storm.

I would like to see a more objective timeline, too - but I would caution that it's still a bit too early. There's quite a bit of paper trail yet to uncover, and many, many people to interview, before we get a comprehensive 'tick-tock' on this.
posted by Miko at 8:10 PM on September 6, 2005

posted by Edible Energy at 8:14 PM on September 6, 2005

It's hard to talk about these things without to some extent, as Scott McLellan so tastefully puts it, "playing the Blame Game."

Would anyone be impressed by a "non-partisan" study of the Rape of Nanking, or the slave trade, or the reign of Pol Pot?

How would the history of the Holocaust look, if we avoid playing the Blame Game?

Sometimes impartiality is a luxury permitted only by ignorance of the facts.
posted by cleardawn at 8:16 PM on September 6, 2005

When blame is clear, objectivism reveals it.
posted by Miko at 8:21 PM on September 6, 2005

cleardawn: In my mind "non-partisan" dosn't mean "fair and ballanced" it means "truthfull".
posted by delmoi at 8:29 PM on September 6, 2005

I still want to see a less objective timeline.

And delmoi, are you saying your first link isn't truthful?
posted by soyjoy at 8:47 PM on September 6, 2005

delmoi, I support you in your quest for the truth that makes sense of the insane picture we're seeing.

When you've found it, join those of us who saw it already.

You'll be very, very welcome. Bring your friends, too.

And be prepared for a vicious, long, dirty fight.

Because no amount of truth is going to talk these gorillas into sharing their pile of bananas.
posted by cleardawn at 8:51 PM on September 6, 2005

Speaking of the "Blame Game," whatever happened to the "Plame Game?
posted by PurplePorpoise at 8:53 PM on September 6, 2005

I think delmoi's 2nd link (which gives me a "not found on this server," should be this, which seems about as "objective" as any. Oh, and dand posted this one in the same thread ericb's two links appeared.
posted by mediareport at 8:57 PM on September 6, 2005

And here's the thing about objectivity (I'm hoping that's what you meant, Miko, not the Ayn Rand philosophy): The big Flashy NYT graphic has "President Bush cuts short his vacation" on Tuesday, which is, shall we say, an extremely charitable placement, since all he did on Tuesday, late afternoon, was announce that he'd be doing so. Then he stayed at the ranch another night, finally getting back to Washington Wednesday afternoon. It may seem like a small point, but since his inaction, hour by hour, is a major part of this story I think the "objectivity" there results in an obvious pro-administration bias.
posted by soyjoy at 8:59 PM on September 6, 2005

better add this to the timelines: CNN: FEMA accused of flying evacuees to wrong Charleston
posted by amberglow at 9:01 PM on September 6, 2005

Yep -- Ayn Rand was into objectivism, not objectivity. That's most assuredly not what I meant. Sorry.

And -- good point on that, SJ. In fact, I had this weird feeling of deja vu WEdnesday when it was reported that 'The President cut short his vacation today." I thought: didn't he come back yesterday? Then I chalked it up to information overload. Now I understand why I was confused.
posted by Miko at 9:05 PM on September 6, 2005

What soyjoy said.

We're all relying on mainstream media reports as "objective sources". When some random blog posts something, we tend to discredit it - but if it's in the Washington Post or the NYT, we assume it's broadly true.

And most of the time, it is.

But there's always a subtle, sometimes not-so-subtle, shift. The rich own the newspapers. The rich choose the journalists. The rich choose the editors. The rich choose everything.

Nearly everything.

If you haven't read Chomsky, there's never been a better time.
posted by cleardawn at 9:06 PM on September 6, 2005

Since the paper of record had Bush cutting his vacation short on Tuesday, can you blame Newsweek for assuming that's when he flew over New Orleans? Well, yes, you can. But it's understandable, anyway.

FEMA accused of flying evacuees to wrong Charleston

Jesus. How can you not laugh - and then cry, knowing that these are the people responsible for your safety?
posted by soyjoy at 9:08 PM on September 6, 2005

Cleardawn, are you trying to be as bad as Dios? Try toning down the hyperbole. Perhaps post something other than a laundry list of unsupported assertions separated by line breaks. You may find people are more receptive to your ideas, mkaay?

Also, try to be less condescending, it tends to just breed resentment. Okay kiddo?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:12 PM on September 6, 2005

I think the "objectivity" there results in an obvious pro-administration bias.

I don't think it's this much. I read the Times daily, and you can't really accuse it of a pro-administration bias. It's a mistake in need of a correction - it was in the Sunday section, which they probably started laying out Tuesday night or Wednesday and just added to. Different editors, and all.

You can write and ask for a correction:

The Times welcomes comments and suggestions, or complaints about errors that warrant correction. Messages on news coverage can be e-mailed to nytnews@nytimes.com or left toll-free at 1-888-NYT-NEWS (1-888-698-6397).

Readers dissatisfied with a response or concerned about the paper's journalistic integrity may reach the public editor, Byron Calame, at public@nytimes.com or (212) 556-7652

posted by Miko at 9:15 PM on September 6, 2005

What I meant was a pro-administration "bias" in the presentation, not in their heart of hearts. Perhaps "slant" would have been clearer.
posted by soyjoy at 9:26 PM on September 6, 2005

Expletive, if you have some actual specific disagreement with something I posted, I'm happy to debate it. Which of my assertions do you feel is "unsupported"?

If all you want to do is make insulting, condescending comments, that's fine too. It speaks volumes, and not about me.

posted by cleardawn at 9:28 PM on September 6, 2005

I want to see a more objective timeline. It is clear that the sequence of events with respect to Hurricane Katrina has an anti-Bush agenda, much like the facts in Iraq.
posted by deanc at 9:37 PM on September 6, 2005

Supposedly Jon Stewart just did a timeline piece, though I didn't see it. Anybody?
I did see this TDS graphic, though, which is timelinesque, and provided some much-needed hilarity.

posted by soyjoy at 9:49 PM on September 6, 2005

Seems to me that a significant number of people have been driven to the left by this whole fiasco.
posted by spincycle at 9:56 PM on September 6, 2005

President Bush waited for two days after the hurricane hit to cut his five-week vacation short and return to DC.

He nominated John Roberts for Chief Justice less than 36 hours after WilliamRehnquist died.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:01 PM on September 6, 2005

And delmoi, are you saying your first link isn't truthful?

Well, what I was wondering is if something was left out.

As the right appears to be, well completely insane, and generating their own set of 'facts' independent of reality, I'm starting to wonder if maybe I'm not seeing this through some kind of bias filter myself. Maybe the governer did screw some things up, I don't know.

I did see this TDS graphic, though, which is timelinesque, and provided some much-needed hilarity.

I just saw the second airing, and I was hoping that picture would show up online (the idea is, like hurricanes, presidential scandals are alphabeticaly named... Helarious). The rest of the daily show was good as well.


Watching the TV pundits, etc I do wonder if this will have much political impact at all. They say "the public doesn't blame bush for the governments failures." *sigh*. I just want to be well informed.

Anyway, I'm about to fall asleep here.
posted by delmoi at 11:08 PM on September 6, 2005

my life as a venn diagram
posted by Satapher at 1:14 AM on September 7, 2005

Trying to reverse-engineer the President's activities, and work out what it must be that he's intending, is quite interesting.

Looked at objectively, his policies do start to make sense.

Burning as much oil as possible, to increase climate change and cause as much pollution and environmental damage as possible.

Causing wars and nuclear proliferation.

Preventing first-responders from saving people who are dying.

Cutting back on health spending, increasing spending on weapons. Attacking random countries and turning them into eternal war zones.

It all adds up. It all makes sense.

As the TDS graphic says, the ultimate goal is: Zero people left on Earth.

Then the President will be able to ride his mountain bike wherever he likes and drink beer all day, with nobody bugging him about crises and shit.
posted by cleardawn at 5:47 AM on September 7, 2005

Cleardawn, I thank you for your participation lately, but you're losing me in what I can't tell is hyperbole or not. And I'm pretty far left. So, you know, food for thought.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:18 AM on September 7, 2005

I want to see a more objective timeline. It is clear that the sequence of events with respect to Hurricane Katrina has an anti-Bush agenda, much like the facts in Iraq.

Why do people think that 'objective' means it would support the Bush administration's line? Objective means factually based, and laid out with no foregone conclusions. Any conclusion should result from the study and evaluation of the facts. All I mean by asking for objectivity is: I'd like to see a timeline that lays out who did what when in terms of concrete facts that have been verified and can be traced to a source.

I believe that such an objective timeline would show clearly that the Bush Administration completely fucked up. That's why I want it. And it would be ridiculous to refute it if it were not from a source that could easily be labled lefty, as many of these can.

Never, ever, ever, be afraid of facts.
posted by Miko at 6:28 AM on September 7, 2005

The administration's comment on the blame game is essentially an admission of guilt. They will always play the blame game if they believe there is someone else to blame. And there's this timeline for meteorological info. (Scroll down for timeline)

posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:38 AM on September 7, 2005

You might want to check that hyperlink under "facts in Iraq," Miko.
posted by deanc at 7:01 AM on September 7, 2005

I applaud your effort to find an objective timeline. I'm not huge fan of the Bush administration, and won't even begin to go into reasons why, but just know that I'm vocally/adamently anti-Bush.

But I find myself at an impasse with this latest set of finger pointing toward the Bush administration and these "timelines."

You've got the people who love to show this picture of Bush strumming a guitar versus people struggling/fighting/looting/etc. in New Orleans. And people go, "Look at what Bush was doing, while all this horribleness was going on!! DOWN WITH BUSH!" And I can't help but think a number of things:

* What were you doing that very moment that Bush got his photo taken? Where you attempting to rescue people? Or were you sitting at the computer trying to come up with illogical reasoning to hate George Bush? (or whatever else).
* What do you want Bush to have been doing at that very moment? Did you want in New Orleans? Do you really think they would fly anybody into New Orleans at that moment? Or even before that moment? Let alone the goddamned President?!
* How is this photo-op while incredibly terrible things are happening, any different than any other photo-op? Incredibly terrible things happen frequently. And we all can't be there, at all times, to try and prevent them or help.

Then you've got all these people saying, "Oh it's George Bush's fault for cutting funding needed to build these levees!" And that leaves me thinking:
* Did he axe some specific piece of legislation that would appropriate money for this? My understanding is NOLA only got $5mil instead of $22mil? I agree that is obviously way under what was expected, but I'm guessing, and I'm just guessing, that whatever budgetary restraints & compliances went to George Bush to sign off on, did he really nitpick it down to $5mil himself? Or was it in a huge huge list and some committee figured they [NOLA] could get by with $5 instead of $22?
* Can you say as a pure _fact_ that the $22 million would have prevented all of this? Would it have held off all these flood waters? And also, there seems to be a gigantic social problem wound up in all of this too (the looting, etc.)
*If they did get the $22mil (i.e. the extra $17mil didn't go elsewhere), would people not be blaming Bush for not appropriating that $17mil to say... the Troops? Or education? Or ...?

Too many what-ifs are involved in my second problem there. And I find it hard to directly lay blame for any of this on George Bush Jr.

I'm not saying he's not a douchebag. And I'm not saying there hasn't been mismangament of catastrophic proportions on the attempts to help/fix/feed/etc. Because both of those things are true in my opinion. I'm just staying I have a real huge problem with blaming a natural fucking disaster on our President. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Am I out of line for thinking that? I just want some objective information too. Something that makes sense. Something where you can say "yes, proof undeniable that this is George Bush's fault. Proof that would standup in his Legislative branch, and his Judicial branch." I would accept that. I think we've already seen enough proof to show how wrong he is about everything else in the past. Why not this? Why is it just simple finger-pointing and calls for impeachment?

Arg!!! heh.
posted by mrzer0 at 7:27 AM on September 7, 2005

I'm with cleardawn on this one. When you folks on the right settle down and really look at this, I think you will only be able to say "How could I have believed in the Bush administration?" And those of us who never could will welcome you with open arms. Really.
posted by mooncrow at 7:39 AM on September 7, 2005

also, yes I realize that nothing has ever been proven beyond doubt about the Bush administration. Ever. In any other office of the government. But at least in my mind it has :)
posted by mrzer0 at 7:57 AM on September 7, 2005

I just want some objective information too.

This is the objective information. That it doesn't put Bush in a particularly good like is not due to a lack of objectivity but precisely because of its objectivity.

What were you doing that very moment that Bush got his photo taken? Where you attempting to rescue people?

When a physician doesn't answer his "call" and a patient dies because he was out drinking, using the defense to the jury, "oh yeah? What were you doing that very moment? Were you attempting to save the patient?" isn't going to work as a defense.
posted by deanc at 8:09 AM on September 7, 2005

Fair enough. But to be fair, its not like the President is lawfully held accountable for every single lost life. *shrug* Whereas a doctor...

bleh. I'm tired of arguing about it. But I see your point.
posted by mrzer0 at 8:15 AM on September 7, 2005

I want to see a more objective timeline. It is clear that the sequence of events with respect to Hurricane Katrina has an anti-Bush agenda, much like the facts in Iraq.

Yeah...I get the joke.

Mr. Zero: He's the President. When things like this hit the fan, the very first thing I want is a recognition that being in perhaps the most powerful position in the world, and being responsible for the welfare of your entire nation, carries with it the resposibility to appear before the people and address the emergency. There is a need for an appearance of awareness and leadership whenever you are in public office. In fact, there's a need for actual awareness and leadership, but when you can't even be troubled to give the appearance it's truly disturbing. It's not a light little thing, it's incredibly important in that what a leader says and does focuses the thoughts and actions of the people.

Second, although he did axe specific pieces of legislation, the other area in which he bears responsibility is for his restructuring of the federal government with the creation of the DHS and the re-arranging of the chain of command amongst response organizations. It doesn't work, and it was his plan.

Third, the budget cutting and restructuring are the expression of a specific a philosophy of government which he espouses - smaller and less locally involved. We can see the result.
posted by Miko at 8:54 AM on September 7, 2005

Supposedly Jon Stewart just did a timeline piece, though I didn't see it. Anybody?

posted by soyjoy at 12:49 AM

Oooo Ooooo! I did! And it was Nice N Clear:

Monday. Storm hits. Bush flys to Arizona to deliver Medicare Speech to seniors.
Tuesday: Levee breaks. Bush flys to San Diego to give Pro-War speech and poses for guitar Photo-Op.
Wednesday: People stranded on housetops NOT getting evacuated. People in Superdome living through hell. Bush flys to Washington DC and then appears on GMA.
Thursday: People still don't have food and water and still not being rescued. Chaos in NOLA. Bush tells head of FEMA, "Brownie, you are doing a great job!"
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:24 AM on September 7, 2005

Thanks for that peacay.
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:53 AM on September 7, 2005

Another timeline I haven't seen linked above, which also is completely sourced, from Think Progress.
posted by mooncrow at 1:23 PM on September 7, 2005

« Older First define...   |   At the end of the day Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments