Talk:Were New Orleanians caught in political crossfire?

Navy helicopters

an edit was added by SEWilco at the end of paragraph 4 (which i removed bc it didnt add anything pertinant and was unsourced):

"Navy helicopters were over the city on August 30th and landing craft busy the following day."

I googled for info on the claim and found that two pilots flew an unauthorized mission to the city and are facing disciplinary action. Not sure what the landing craft are doing, where they went, etc.

Senator wants Pensacola rescue pilots' careers protected http://www.palmbeachpost.com/storm/content/gen/ap/FL_Katrina_Navy_Rescuers.html

-bstender

The image description contains some info. USS Bataan web sites (and linked en:article) also. I added to Sources section. (SEWilco 18:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC))

September 16

SEWilco put his stuff back and i then sent him an email telling him my problem with it and suggesting a new section detailing the actual eforts of the military (i suspect he desires to see their efforts highlighted regardless of the point of the article) he didnt reply but put it back in with attribution and its own paragraph. i dont need to battle over it, but it does add a chunk of extra info that adds nothing to the story. -bstender

Actually, the section I added contradicts the preceding paragraph that says that no active duty personnel could have been sent, and that the first mention of authorization is dated after they were there. And you can sign your comments with ~~~~; try it in Preview. (SEWilco 18:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC))

-the administration source suggested that the reason for the martial law declaration was because of sending troops absent this deccree, that potential law and order difficulties would be encountered. i point out that there are other things for them to do and that the troops were eventually sent in anyway (as always) so the martial law decree appears to be unnecessary after all. the troop activities you have added strengthens this point. the date of authorization is an aside i think, but we can leave it.

btw, the "NY Times calim" is not a claim, it is in another article sourced here and in at least two others i have read. it is a fact.

i removed all of the sectioning bc it confuses the read. Bstender 20:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing

Saying it this way is hardly neutral:

questions have arisen as to whether the Bush administration withheld the deployment of troops and other assistance pending an agreement by the Louisiana Governor, Kathleen Blanco

Better to say that (Named Source A) accused the Bush administration, etc. Then balance this with (Named Source B) defended Bush.

I've heard, by the way, that criticism has tended to split along party lines, with Democrats blaming Republican President Bush and Republicans faulting Democratic Governor Blanco and Democratic Mayor Nagin. --Ed Poor 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)