From Frank Ezelle: Does the JFP have any updates on the Red Cross having food available for the SuperDome and the Convention Center and not being able to deliver it because LEMA wouldn't give them authority? The story out today is that LEMA refused to give them authority because they felt like the news that food and water was available at these two sites would act as a magnet and draw in an overwhelming number of displaced citizens. That might have been the correct decision, taking a path that meant the death of a hundred instead of creating an uncontrollable mob situation that might lead to the death of a thousand.

Since lack of food at these two sites dominated ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etal for two days, I'm surprised that there has been no reporting to confirm or refute this story. Any one here heard anything about this?

From the looks of things, having your post sent to the TruthWatch page seems to be somewhat like "out of sight, out of mind". I doubt that anyone will get over here to read this but here are the links that were also posted on the "Feds Trying to Block Media from New Orleans" thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1479824/posts

http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html

The first is one where you can question the motives of the web site, the second is from the Red Cross web site.

There is an interesting update on this story. My mother stayed with me all last week (no electricity at her house) and we watched all of the national coverage about the food shortages at the main centers in NO. Mother left for Belgium last Friday and I talked with her today. She has been watching CNN International and they are reporting that the Red Cross REFUSED to deliver the food, never mentioning that LEMA didn't want the food delivered (which may have been the right decision--see explanation on the Red Cross link above). I guess after days of reporting that FEMA and President Bush were starving thousands, they just can't report that the lack of food was the result of a LEMA decision.

Actually, Frank, Truthwatch is a perfect place for items that aren't yet substantiated. But, if people can't find into one way or the other on it, they may not post a whole lot. It's not a place for ideological argument based on partisan leaning; it's a place for facts and logical conclusions based on those facts. That's why we call it TRUTHwatch.

I'm still confused after your last posting. I'm not seeing your sources that are proving that this is true about LEMAóat least in a nefarious way. Freeps never prove anything except that there are too many nasty people int he world. A

And the Red Cross page, while interesting, does not support an argument that excuses the federal government's abrogation of responsibility in any way. I see nothing in all of this that factually addresses why the federal government had such a slow response. Red Cross is not the same as FEMA and the federal government. Logic has it that had the federal response been immediate, and the situation in New Orleans (and the Coast) by the way not been/or been perceived as out of control, then the Red Cross could have gotten in there sooner. The federal government seems to have abandoned the state and left it largely to its own devices to try to get a bad situation under control, and when they couldn't, now blame them for not doing that. I actually think your Red Cross link speaks more to that argument than toward a reason that the feds couldn't go in. I really don't think you're saying that the federal government cannot handle going into dangerous situations, right? If so, that would start to lean back toward the argument that our resources are spread too thin, thanks to the "war on terrorism."

I'm also getting some interesting reports in about problems with the Red Cross. More on those as they develop. At this point, there's no need to spread rumors that may just be that.