"Why can't you just concede my points? It will make it easier on us all. "

It might have something to do with (1) You can't argue points, just pontificate badly while shooting yourself in the foot and (2) In as much as you have any content, that content is usually wrong.

First off, the summary of efforts you offer is as of roughly two days ago (if it is indeed correct) and secondly, your link (http://www.fema.gov/media/index.shtm#rita) does not contain any of the information you cite, so I see this as a bit irrelevant on those two counts.

Lets assume, though, that it is not and it is true: Now if you can google up the comparable level of preparedness for Katrina at that point, and if the two efforts were comparable, then you might have something to say about at least the pre-positioning of supplies. Without that, though, were still trying to get to relevancy.

If it turns out, however, that there was LESS prepositioning in Katrinas case, then you sort of just shot yourself in the foot. Which given your notorious style of 'DID NOT!!DID NOT!!!' argument, is sort of your forte.

If it turns out, however, that there is just about the same, then you need to make a case that FEMA isn't supposed to do better in both cases. Which you are not making in your post.

Beyond that, though, this yardstick (prepositioning of supplies) is not the only yardstick-nor would I say even the important one. The important yardstick is response to the disaster (which is in Katrinas case, the failure of the levees) since FEMA is a disaster response agency. Beyond that, there is the yardstick of actually knowing what was happening and knowing the facts. Response is one of FEMAS major tasks, and its going to take a LOT of spin to make anyone believe that any agency so badly informed about the facts and so badly informed about the widely predicted events could be performing that task effectively.

"800 people aren't anywhere near enough to deal with a non-evacuated city. FEMA is counting on local folks doing their jobs and evacuating as many people out of harms' way as possible."

Oh I agree. It would seem FEMA should try harder, then- yes? Because when REAL disaster strikes (EG New Orleans) there won't BE any nlocal authority.

You remember what I said about shooting yourself in the foot? You migth want to look into that.

You can't stage meals and troops for a nuclear attack unless you have some advance warning.

Huh? Your point?

If Rita displaces a million folks, 250,000 will go without meals. And if it weren't for the American Red Cross, they wouldn't have the 750,000 meals they are staging to the area.

Hmm, again, that foot thing. Seems like FEMAs not doing too good a job if it can't deal with predicted, seasonal emergencies without calling in the red cross.

And yes, thank you for your amazing feat of erudition with the Red Cross, but yes- I'm awayre its an NGO. In fact its a secular NGO I like to give lots and lots of my money to. Since they, you know, do seem to do such a good job with disasters.

That FEMA agency though, I wince that it gets so much of my Tax money.

"Its swell and fine to expect FEMA to deliver but my point still stands - they are not equipped to save everyone. They can only manage resources put at their disposal"

The DHS, under which FEMA operates has a FY 2005 of 40.2 billion. FEMA and FEAM alone, in 2001 had a 3 Billion dollar budget prior to their fusion with the DHS. Now, Please tell me- what is it that FEMA and The DHS are supposed to be doing with all of those resources put at their disposal. Apparently, if you have your way-precisely nothing. It seems we can't hold them accountable for anything, since they are supposed to do nothing.

If thats your argument. I wan't my money back and Bush impeached for taking 40.2 billion dollars of tax money to deliver 700,000 red-cross provided meals.

" if FEMA had to be a first responder and the sole provider of assistance - nearly everyone would die."

Well, then we better do something- because that is exactly the scenario we were supposed to be getting ready to face after 9/11. If a port in Oregon got Nuked, there would be no first responders to respond with- the City of portland (or wherever) would be gone. This is exactly what happened in NO- the city and the first responders were pulverized, set on their heels.

So Not only is FEMA and DHS supposed to do nothing with the 40 billion it has, its not even supposed to do anything for the type of disasters that were the reason we created DHS and merged FEMA into it for the purpose of facing.

"Source: DHS.GOV"

How about a link, for starters, and how can you look at Katrina and look at that and NOT find fault, especially with Response, Prepare and Recovery. Now watch your foot, because this is from your own source:

"Response -- Lead, manage and coordinate the national response to acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies." [emphasis mine]

I agree, that phrase says it all- and in this case the national response was sadly lacking, poorly coordinated and badly managed, if managed at all.

You should put that foot back in your mouth where it spends most of its time. Its safer there...

DL.