Reply With Quote
7028
Concord MonitorCataldie, a former medical examiner, acknowledged that identifying and releasing bodies has been painfully slow. Of the nearly 8,000 bodies taken to the morgue, he said, just 32 have been identified positively and another 340 have been identified tentatively.
Because many bodies decomposed in heat and floodwaters after being left uncollected, Cataldie said, some victims never will be identified and their cause of death never known.
Forensic specialists supervised by the Federal Emergency Management Agency are taking X-rays and fingerprints of the corpses, but identifying bodies and notifying next-of-kin is being handled by state officials. Their greatest fear is misidentifying a corpse in the deluge of bodies
Compare and Contrast:
CNN NewsThe search for Katrina victims ended in Louisiana with a death toll substantially less than the 10,000 victims some officials feared.
The toll Tuesday stood at 972, eight more than Monday, the state health department said.
A private company has been hired by the state and will remove any other
bodies that are found.
7028
how reliable is that 8k number? How often is it repeated?
Interesting!
Where was clinton when 750+ died in Chicago from Heat wave?
Not in Chicago....
Where was clinton during the 1st WTC bombing? He didn't visit the site...
I'll tell you where he was.. getting head from a girl the age of his daughter...
Nice math SW
Actually wouldn't that be 8,972?
I don't know how realiable the 8,000 figure is, it's the first time I've seen it, but there reports of about 9,800 reported missing in NO, including about 2,500 children.
New Orleans: 972 Dead, 8000 Dead - What's the difference?
Well, the most pertinent question here is how credible is the 8k figure?
Ahhh, Touche'New Orleans: 972 Dead, 8000 Dead - What's the difference?
Didn't catch that before. I woudln't be suprised to see that number go much higher. I believe the dead count at the moment is based upon actual bodies, and we all know in a situation such as this there will be a large number of bodies that are never found.
Youre such a bag if you think "visiting a site" makes a ing difference
I can hit a random guy in the face with a bat, to make him look and act like a complete utter disgrace to what I stand for, fly him in Air Force 1 over the deluge of NO, and it still wouldnt cause any more or less life to be lost, any quicker or slower cleanup of the problem...
"we all know"
the bodies in NO should all be found. What would have moved them away?
bodies in MS and in LA outside of NO killed by the violence of the storm could be anywhere.
Yeah, water never carries anything away.
the water in NO was pumped out.
Do you think your missing bodies got sucked into the pumps unnoticed?
I think whenever you have that amount of flooding and that volume of water in a place, you are going to have a large amount of bodies that are never found.
Then there were a lot of douchbags around here and in the media criticizing Bush for not *visiting the site* for 3 days or whatever. I think that was his point, although I could be wrong.
Then there were a lot of douchbags around here and in the media criticizing Bush for not *visiting the site* for 3 days or whatever. I think that was his point, although I could be wrong.
yeah and thats re ed
so is claiming that he eventually did visit the site is such a noble act
Not really ... I think it's his job to some degree, at least to show that he knows what's going on. Although since security for the POTUS drains a lot of local resources that they didn't have near enough of to begin with, it would have been foolish for him to go there until the area was more secure.
Maybe. I know actions speak louder than words, but to say that clinton was wrong for not visiting chicago is bunk, just like using Bush's little fly in air force 1 over NO as a reason he's a good leader is bunk.
A good "leader" will get what needs to be done done. The NO thing has been criticized as botched, and Bush visited like twice. I can see how it is comforting to some people to see the president visiting, but I care more about what he really does in trying to alleviate the situation, not how much face time he gets looking really sad in the middle of a disaster.
You are indeed a "good" Democrat! Many of your partners were in here a day or two after the storm shouting "where is Bush?" Do you not remember?
I might have said that too, but in a condescending way. I'm not a democrat, im a cons utionalist.
That's exactly the point I bring up in my history class. We have loads of new students from UNO and Tulane and none of them want to hear this. All they want to hear about is how the President failed them. And yes Bush could've definitely handled it better but having said that I believe the real failures of this tragedy are Blanco and Nagin.
I put responsibility from the bottom up and yes, both Nagin and Blanco need to take the bulk of the blame for it was their city and state at risk.
That being said I do feel that President Bush should have visited the area sooner and down on the ground not by air.
And I like a President who is down with the people and I do feel Bush has that qualify which was why I was surprised by his late appearance in the devastated region. To me, that was very unlike Bush.
But I don't blame him for any of the fiasco that was post-Katrina and I've commended him taking charge and getting things done.
Oh, and I love my man Bill but come on. That BJ couldn't have lasted that long.
Bringing up the past is no excuse for the present.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
