Bush did not lie about Levees

[gtownspur]

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...


Friday, March 3, 2006 11:54 a.m. EST
Bush Didn’t Lie About Levee Breaching



Print Friendly Version
Forward this Page
E-mail NewsMax
RSS Feed

Reprint Information

'Duke' Cunningham Gets 8+ Years in Prison

Video: Blanco Wrong on Levee Breaches
Wal-Mart to Stock Morning-After Pill
Episcopal Parishes Torn by Gay Issue
Madonna to Await Messiah in Israel?


News sources have reported that President Bush lied when he said he wasn’t warned that the levees in New Orleans could be breached during Hurricane Katrina.

But a videotape of a key meeting between Bush and hurricane officials supports the president’s contention that the breaching of the levees was unanticipated.

On September 1, four days after Katrina struck, Bush said: "I don’t think anybody anticipated a breach of the levees.”

The Associated Press on Wednesday claimed that "federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees.”



Story Continues Below



The Democratic National Committee attempted to make political hay out of the AP report, stating that "during the briefing, National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield told the president that the integrity of the levees was ‘a very, very grave concern’ that the president appears to have ignored.”
However, the tape shows that what Mayfield actually told Bush was: "I don’t think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not, but that’s obviously a very, very grave concern.”
Mayfield told NBC News on Thursday that he warned only that the levees might be topped – that is, the storm surge could push water over the top of the levees – not breached, and that on the many conference calls he monitored, "Nobody talked about the possibility of a levee breach or failure until after it happened.”
Mayfield even told Bush: "The forecast now suggests that there will be minimal flooding in the City of New Orleans itself.”






The Washington Times, commenting on what it called a "hit job” on the president, opined: "If it were true that Mr. Bush heard predictions of levee breaches before the storm hit, then that makes a despicable and costly lie of his statement four days after the hurricane.
"The truth, instead, is that no adviser warned the president of the possibility that the levees could fail. Of course, it makes a juicier story to suggest that the president was warned.”

[MaNuMaNiAc]

NewsMax.com?? :lmao Yeah gtown, you proved your point without a doubt http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smirolleyes.gif

[Boris]

Bush was high as a kite before Katrina....that is why his memory is so bad.

[Yonivore]

NewsMax.com?? :lmao Yeah gtown, you proved your point without a doubt http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smirolleyes.gif
The AP issued a correction as well...and, they're the ones that started the lie.


Clarification: Katrina-Video story

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.
What an utterly pathetic performance by the AP, both in its original reporting and its Friday night clarification.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

The AP issued a correction as well...and, they're the ones that started the lie.


What an utterly pathetic performance by the AP, both in its original reporting and its Friday night clarification.
now that is better

[xrayzebra]

^^My I am so happy that you feel better. Since AP said it must be true, well
the second time anyhow.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

^^My I am so happy that you feel better. Since AP said it must be true, well
the second time anyhow.
I'm not saying it because AP said so, its because now its supported by more than one source. Besides, AP is still more reliable than NewsMax http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

[SA210]

:lmao @ this thread (attempt)

[boutons_]

The DHS/FEMA/WH handling of disaster preparation and mgmt was/is a total Repug fuckup, and that story hasn't even been fully exposed, yet.

Overrun the levees, or breach/hole in the levees, WGAFF?

And you red-state, right-wing dubya-suckers ridiculed Willie because he distinguished betweeen penis-in-vagina sex vs other sex acts?

Breach or overrun (overrunning would almost certainly be followed by breaching, as the levee backing washes away) would lead to the very same flooding disaster, which dubya and his Executive branch totally fucked up.

Had dubya been warned explicitly about BREACH (rather than overrun), do you REALLY think he/DHS/FEMA would have been in a nicer smelling pile of shit, would have re/acted differently? GMAFB

[Mike D.Brown]

Bush knew damn well what we up against but didn't lift a finger that back stabbin' son of a bitch!!

[George W Bush]

Brownie, you Did a heck of a job back then,
now you suck!

[gtownspur]

:lmao @ this thread (attempt)

Either way it invalidated your waste of a thread. And it turned out right.

[RandomGuy]

Being one of the few who takes the time to read the WHOLE article, let me throw in a few snippets that I found rather telling.


That video "makes it perfectly clear once again that this disaster was not out of the blue or unforeseeable," Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said Thursday. "It was not only predictable, it was actually predicted. That's what made the failures in response - at the local, state and federal level - all the more outrageous."


After AP's broadcast this week showing some of the Katrina briefings, the Homeland Security Department refused Thursday to release videos from five other days immediately before and after Katrina hit. The agency insisted last year - in response to AP's requests under the Freedom of Information Act - there were no such tapes. Now it acknowledges more tapes exist.

Cover up anyone?

Honestly, given that this administration has consistantly lied about just about everything, then tried to cover up those lies in viels of secrecy, what shred of credibility do they really have?

I must admit that someone beat me to the punch and put it much more eloquently than I could have:


In the Bush administration "the negation of truth is so systematic. Dishonest accounting, willful scientific illiteracy, bowdlerized federal fact sheets, payola paid to putative journalists, 'news' networks run by right-wing apparatchiks, think tanks devoted to propaganda rather than thought, the purging of intelligence gatherers and experts throughout the bureaucracy whose findings might refute the party line -- this is the machinery of mendacity...The point here is not the hypocrisy involved, though that is egregious. The point is the downgrading of truth and honesty from principles with universal meaning to partisan weapons to be sheathed or drawn as necessary. No wonder the Bush administration feels no compunction to honor the truth or seek it; it conceives truth as a tactic, valuable only insofar as it is useful against one's enemies." Russ Rymer

This administration has no honor, and that shames me as an American.

[boutons_]

Caught on Tape

Saturday, March 4, 2006; A16

ON THE DAY before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, federal emergency officials warned President Bush that the hurricane could be "the big one," the storm the region had long feared; that the Superdome, the shelter of last resort in New Orleans, was below sea level and might well lose its roof; that medical and mortuary teams might not be prepared; and that the levees might not hold back the floodwaters. Mr. Bush, speaking during a videoconference, a tape of which was obtained by the Associated Press, responded by reassuring state officials that "we are fully prepared."

Without a doubt, the tape provides evidence that the White House received ample warning of the catastrophe. Yet within days of that videoconference, Mr. Bush would excuse the federal government's extraordinarily poor performance by telling an interviewer that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." Moreover, at the time of the conference the White House had no idea whether federal emergency services were truly prepared. On the tape, the president doesn't ask any questions about preparedness, and there is no evidence in documents since released that he was any more engaged before or after the conference. Had anyone called the Defense Department? Was the National Guard en route? Were local Army bases prepared to help? Were emergency food and water supplies in place? The president, like everyone around him, appears to have assumed that everything would run like clockwork, just as it was supposed to on paper.

Before Louisiana state and city officials get too excited about this video, it's worth noting that similar criticisms could be lodged against them. Another tape recently released to the AP reveals that Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) reassured the president that the levees had held -- three hours after they had broken. New Orleans officials also understood in advance of Katrina the scale of the potential catastrophe -- they had carried out simulations of a levee breach -- but were unable to cope. Even some specific consequences of the hurricane, such as the failure of low-income people to leave the city, had been predicted. Yet little was done to accommodate them, either.

The tape adds to a growing body of evidence that the disaster was a failure of execution, not prediction. That indicates to us that federal and local government employees must spend more time carrying out practice exercises and involve more people in disaster planning. It also should tell the nation something about the value of leadership. The Gulf Coast might have suffered less had the president just asked a few people the right questions.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

=====================================

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ta/2006/ta060303.gif

.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_03032006_520.gif

[Sec24Row7]

I would be more ashamed of the corruption in NO stealing money that was supposed to be used for the levees and using it on "other" things.

[Melmart1]

Did anyone see Mike Brown on Bill Maher last night.

Now, I know some on here will instantly dismiss him as being left or liberal, but he really does bash both equally.

Anyhoo, he was still trying to be diplomatic but said that the (lack of) federal response was due to 'overconfidence' on the part of the Bush Administration. Take that as you will.

[Dos]

and this is the same govt. you want to run health care for everyone... lol...

[Nbadan]

and this is the same govt. you want to run health care for everyone... lol...

Actually, the health care system would remain much as it is today, overbloated and inefficient. What would change is the way we would all pay for health-care. The costs would be added on to the price of goods and services, but costs for employers would also go down concurrently, because they would no longer have to pay for expensive healthcare for employees and contribute to medicare/medicade. A bigger insurance pool should lead to lower costs, theoretically, and also less sick leave and healthier employees would contribute to a better bottom-line for employers.

[boutons_]

Dos, you're part of the vicious, dishonest, destructive Repug agenda to make The American People believe the federal govt can do nothing right or effeciently.

The Repugs have been/are fucking up, by action, inaction, cronyism, willful incompetence etc the US Govt, including fiscally with the bogus war + tax cuts (aka "starving the beast"). The Repugs are totally unserious about running the fed govt well. (eg: DHS/FEMA, etc, etc, etc) while providing 100s of $Bs in corporate welfare. They want to make the federal govt perform horrendously, to fail, so that The American People will lose all faith in govt. The American People are being lied to and set up by the Repugs.

The Repug plan is to force The American People more and more into the clutches of private industry where they a) will be raped "for profit". or b) won't be able to afford a service at all.

[gtownspur]

President bush was the one who ordered a mandatory evacuation. The danger of new orleans was that the levees would flow. Obviously guys like RG still have trouble with semantics. The point of the article was that the thought of the levees busting up was very miniscule. It was the overflow of the levees that had the Admin worried.

[Nbadan]

President bush was the one who ordered a mandatory evacuation. The danger of new orleans was that the levees would flow. Obviously guys like RG still have trouble with semantics. The point of the article was that the thought of the levees busting up was very miniscule. It was the overflow of the levees that had the Admin worried.

Blah, your arguing semantics. I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect that levee's, especially concrete levees, would fail if there was 'over-topping'. I mean I'm not an engineer, but the amount of water pressure per square ft. rushing over the top would easily exceed the strength of the levees, especially because the current created by over-topping would undermine the integrity of the levee from the other side.

[Peter]

Actually, the health care system would remain much as it is today, overbloated and inefficient. What would change is the way we would all pay for health-care. The costs would be added on to the price of goods and services, but costs for employers would also go down concurrently, because they would no longer have to pay for expensive healthcare for employees and contribute to medicare/medicade. A bigger insurance pool should lead to lower costs, theoretically, and also less sick leave and healthier employees would contribute to a better bottom-line for employers.

Sounds great in theory, much like every other large entitlement program.

[Peter]

Blah, your arguing semantics. I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect that levee's, especially concrete levees, would fail if there was 'over-topping'. I mean I'm not an engineer, but the amount of water pressure per square ft. rushing over the top would easily exceed the strength of the levees, especially because the current created by over-topping would undermine the integrity of the levee from the other side.


So what exactly were the Feds supposed to do? Upgrade the levees in two whole days? I'm not exactly sure what the issue is here.

[George W Bush]

So what exactly were the Feds supposed to do? Upgrade the levees in two whole days? I'm not exactly sure what the issue is here.


Peter, they are mad that I was on vacation for 4 whole days
while all them black people were dyin'.

I say,
What's the big deal? Isn't that what we want?

God Bless America :tu
(white America, anyway)