Who's in Command. Who's Controlling the situation. And how those things are Communicated. Any response, be it military or disaster relies on C3. No doubt that there was a total breakdown in all three areas.

When we are talking politics, perception is king. Cameras on site in downtown NO, meant that the rest of the country was going to perceive the disaster response in terms of what was happening there. Over three days into the tragedy, and there was no presence there of disaster relief. What'd they expect the perception to be of the adequacy of response?

And NYC is in no way comparable. Perhaps if every person in NYC who had a car and could drive was evacuated prior to the event. And perhaps if the entire island had been flooded and every bridge had become impassable, trapping the remainder in the city. And if perhaps the remainder of NY state had been beaten the shit out of by 100mph winds and all the surrounding communities had been left without a way to help. And perhaps if there were no means of Rudy communicating with the city at large. Then perhaps they'd be comparable situations.

Yes, there's a lack of leadership, both in the small groups on the ground. At the state and local level. And at the Federal level. Ineptitude abounds. But in my way of thinking, the harshness of conditions as one gets closer to the events in question, are a bit more understandable.

Assigning blame to local officials ain't gonna play out particularly well, as it has the appearance of blaming the victims. Perhaps the local officials have been negligent of their responsibilities. Or perhaps events simply overwhelmed any methodical attempt to gain control of the situation, not being able to see the forest for the trees.

But am not surprised that a visible group that had coverage by the media is going to have an inordinate influence on public perception, both inside and outside the city. Throw in the racial tension that has always been present in NO, and you have an situation that is not particularly optimal.

Anyhow, I'm not particularly one that thinks the jury on the situation is any where near ready for deliberation in terms of fault. I believe that actions are more important than words at this juncture. Those who want to spin these things in terms of blame (no matter which way), better be prepared to understand the force of their words.

Blaming planners for the last umpteen years ain't going to accomplish much - as the hindsight is that this type of scenario seems to have been ignored by lots of people. Blaming the oil business ain't gonna help as the consumers over the rest of the states were more than happy to consume that oil without consideration for trying to reduce consumption (same goes for global warming scenarios). Blaming local officials won't help much, since we are talking about one of the poorest regions in the country. Blaming (or even worse, shooting at) the rescuers don't help much.

I'll give credit to Bush for not sugar coating this thing - admitting that the response was not acceptable - without getting into a finger pointing contest. But for Marlowe's response to the crisis to be an attempt to do exactly what Bush has not been doing - assigning the blame to others - I have to say that I am not surprised about his lack of comprehension of the reality and perception of things going on in the Gulf Coast (just as he has no clue of what's actually happening in the other Gulf War).