New York Times Katrina Coverage: Abandoning Any Semblance of Objectivity?

Here's the Headline:

Breakdowns Marked Path From Hurricane to Anarchy

Here's the summary on the digital "front page":

An initial examination of Katrina's aftermath demonstrates the extent to which the federal government failed to face domestic threats as a unified, seamless force.

Wow. That is a very serious accusation directed solely at the federal government. They must have solid proof, right?

State and federal officials had spent two years working on a disaster plan to prepare for a massive storm, but it was incomplete and had failed to deal with two issues that proved most critical: transporting evacuees and imposing law and order.

Wow. I wonder whose responsibility those two issues should be?

The Louisiana National Guard, already stretched by the deployment of more than 3,000 troops to Iraq, was hampered when its New Orleans barracks flooded.

The NG had plenty of troops on hand. If they had been used effectively by the Governor, they could have provided more immediate relief.

Partly because of the shortage of troops, violence raged inside the New Orleans convention center, which interviews show was even worse than previously described. Police SWAT team members found themselves plunging into the darkness, guided by the muzzle flashes of thugs' handguns, said Capt. Jeffrey Winn.

So, is law enforcement the job of the federal government or these guys:

"In 20 years as a cop, doing mostly tactical work, I have never seen anything like it," said Captain Winn. Three of his officers quit, he said, and another simply disappeared.

They just quit. States all over the country lent their police, who proudly arrived to help keep order. These guys cut and ran in their own neighborhoods. Some quit, some disappeared, and some even looted.

Those who did their job and stayed are getting free vacations so that others can do their jobs...and New Orleans wants MORE federal money???

As the city become paralyzed both by water and by lawlessness, so did the response by government. The fractured division of responsibility - Governor Blanco controlled state agencies and the National Guard, Mayor Nagin directed city workers and Mr. Brown, the head of FEMA, served as the point man for the federal government - meant no one person was in charge.

Americans watching on television saw the often-haggard governor, the voluble mayor and the usually upbeat FEMA chief appear at competing daily news briefings and interviews.
The power-sharing arrangement was by design, and as the days wore on, it would prove disastrous. Under the Bush administration, FEMA redefined its role, offering assistance but remaining subordinate to state and local governments. "Our typical role is to work with the state in support of local and state agencies," said David Passey, a FEMA spokesman.

With Hurricane Katrina, that meant the agency most experienced in dealing with disasters and with access to the greatest resources followed, rather than led.

Obviously these authors never heard of a little thing called the Constitution. Oh, wait...they have...they just don't care:

As New Orleans descended into near-anarchy, the White House considered sending active-duty troops to impose order. The Pentagon was not eager to have combat troops take on a domestic lawkeeping role. "The way it's arranged under our Constitution," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld noted at a news briefing last week, "state and local officials are the first responders."

Pentagon, White House and Justice officials debated for two days whether the president should seize control of the relief mission from Governor Blanco. But they worried about the political fallout of stepping on the state's authority, according to the officials involved in the discussions. They ultimately rejected the idea and instead decided to try to speed the arrival of National Guard forces, including many trained as military police.

Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland security, explained that decision in an interview this week. "Could we have physically moved combat forces into an American city, without the governor's consent, for purposes of using those forces - untrained at that point in law enforcement - for law enforcement duties? Yes."

But, he asked, "Would you have wanted that on your conscience?"

I can just see the headlines now--Dictator Bush Invades American City.

There are others who have done a much better job researching what was and was not done. I just wanted to note that the New York Times is unabashedly publishing editorials under the guise of "news." I strongly suggest everyone check out:

Right Wing Nut House: Katrina Response Timeline

Red Cross was blocked from delivering supplies

Balloon Juice: Calm Down and Let's Get this Right