It's been well over a week since Katrina hit.

When you have a moment, please go over and read Keith Olbermann's blog Bloggermann from the 5th if it's still available on the web.

Why should this disaster, though natural, be treated any differently than a known terrorist attack? Why can't you just deploy some of the same assets in a similar manner and secure the ground-zero of the attack?

If you look at it that way, consider this quote by Mr. Olbermann:

"...these are leaders who won re-election last year largely by portraying their opponents as incapable of keeping the country safe. These are leaders who regularly pressure the news media in this country to report the reopening of a school or a power station in Iraq, and defies its citizens not to stand up and cheer. Yet they couldn't even keep one school or power station from being devastated by infrastructure collapse in New Orleans — even though the government had heard all the "chatter" from the scientists and city planners and hurricane centers and some group whose purposes the government couldn't quite discern... a group called The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

And most chillingly of all, this is the Law and Order and Terror government. It promised protection — or at least amelioration — against all threats: conventional, radiological, or biological.

It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water."

Consider that. Do you feel safe right now? This isn't some media smear campaign. DAYS passed where nothing happened - and the President signed emergency orders (which I thought was odd) a day or two BEFORE the hurricane hit - and by doing so, immediately put the federal government in charge. When did FEMA - a part of the Department Of Homeland Security - not only arrive but started to do anything?