Hurricane Katrina: What Bush Knew

Just in case anyone hasn’t seen it…


President Bush plays a guitar presented to him by Country Singer Mark Wills, right, backstage following his visit to Naval Base Coronado, Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005. Bush visited the base to deliver remarks on V-J Commemoration Day. (AP Photo/ABC News, Martha Raddatz)

In case everyone forgot, August 30th is one day AFTER the levees broke.

[quote]JeffR wrote:

THE WHOLE POINT OF bRADLEY’S POST IS THAT BUSH KNEW BEFORE-HAND.[/quote]

Still struggling with that little reading comprehension issue, eh jeffie? Would “Hooked On Phonics” help?

The point is that bushleague knew before hand what was coming, had more than adequate warning, knew what was going to happen, saw it happening, saw the immediate aftermath, then stayed on vacation for a few more days before flying by and looking at it out the window of his 747. Then while FEMA did absolutly nothing to help, he gave “Brownie” a big pat on the back for doing “a heck of a job”.

Brown was a political appointee who owed his job to cronyism and was in no way qualified for his position. He took the fall for the completely fucked up response, but now it turns out that Chertoff and Bush were at least as much to blame.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
harris447 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
What a non-story.

These after-the-facts–let’s try to assign blame wastes of time are truly annoying. If they really did affect future events, I could see them, but to try and lay blame is ridiculous.

The major thing that Bush F*d up on was not getting the N.G. in there pronto. Now, there are issues as to the rights and responsibilities of the federal govt as opposed to state govt that I can’t quote, but that is the blunder.

Once the sstorm hit and the levees broke ain’t nothing that could be done. Personal responsibility would have probably saved half or more of the lives that were lost. 1/2 a brain might have saved the majority of the rest.

It was, in some ways, an unavoidable situation given the circumstances that were involved. It was, in others, a cluster that could have been much better handled. There is enough responsibility–from the president to the local govt’s to the citizens–that this tape means nothing more than a few people getting some type of jolly about seeing the president further beaten down.

It certainly isn’t breaking news. It conveys no information that wasn’t generally accepted by most previously.
It changes nothing.

You’re right: it changes nothing.

Bush continues to be an incompetent disgrace.

He may be,

but not because of New Orleans.

I will admit to wondering what the guy is doing right now. It is a rudderless ship. No plan. No direction. It’s disheartening to see us in the position we seem to be in. No one leading. No one working towards a common goal/good.

I admit to looking forward to some different(any)leadership in the future.

So why, pray tell, do you have the same knee jerk reaction when others say the exact same thing?
[/quote]

So, pray tell, where is my ‘knee-jerk’ reaction. I have always been upfront about my likes and dislikes of Bush. I don’t deify him nor do I crucify him just to do so. If you can show me something I missed in the video that lays any more blame on Bush, my reaction would be different. This is rehashed nonsense that you want to be a story. Show me anything I wrote that is cheerleading or not realistic. Show me where I have glossed over somethin-ANYthing that makes this a story.

So who’s response is knee-jerk.

Watch the video. Bush said that he was surprised the levees would be breached. The weather specialist was discussing the likelihood of the levees being ‘topped’, as in the water level making it over the threshold. The weather specialist was not discussing the likelihood of the levee breaching. There is a world of difference in the loss of property/life between a topping of a levee and a breach of a levee.

Pretty much everyone thought the water would top the levees, else why would Bush offer federal assistance? The AP reporter, desperate to manufacture a controversy, fails to see the difference. Sycophants - like yourselves - have followed suit, like lemmings off a cliff.

Take a break from worshipping the Holy Trinity of Hysteria, Sarcasm, and Arrogance to read Popular Mechanics overview of the response:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
So, pray tell, where is my ‘knee-jerk’ reaction. I have always been upfront about my likes and dislikes of Bush. I don’t deify him nor do I crucify him just to do so. If you can show me something I missed in the video that lays any more blame on Bush, my reaction would be different. This is rehashed nonsense that you want to be a story. Show me anything I wrote that is cheerleading or not realistic. Show me where I have glossed over somethin-ANYthing that makes this a story.

So who’s response is knee-jerk.[/quote]

What you, and apparently others, are willing to gloss over is the slow response by the president. You disregard the extra days spent on vacation before he finally decides to fly over the devestation. I remember wondering where any type of public message was from the president for days after the event. It was as if he either didn’t care immediately or simply ignored the damage that was pasted across every weather station and news report. I don’t understand how excuses are made for that. A simple public speech acknowledging the damage would have prevented much of the criticism and the questions that followed. Will you reply to this that what I am writing is incorrect…or that it doesn’t matter?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
So, pray tell, where is my ‘knee-jerk’ reaction. I have always been upfront about my likes and dislikes of Bush. I don’t deify him nor do I crucify him just to do so. If you can show me something I missed in the video that lays any more blame on Bush, my reaction would be different. This is rehashed nonsense that you want to be a story. Show me anything I wrote that is cheerleading or not realistic. Show me where I have glossed over somethin-ANYthing that makes this a story.

So who’s response is knee-jerk.

What you, and apparently others, are willing to gloss over is the slow response by the president. You disregard the extra days spent on vacation before he finally decides to fly over the devestation. I remember wondering where any type of public message was from the president for days after the event. It was as if he either didn’t care immediately or simply ignored the damage that was pasted across every weather station and news report. I don’t understand how excuses are made for that. A simple public speech acknowledging the damage would have prevented much of the criticism and the questions that followed. Will you reply to this that what I am writing is incorrect…or that it doesn’t matter?[/quote]

X
I’ve glossed over nothing. I stated in the original threads and would do so again–willingly–that his response was slow and inadequate.
Not sending in the N.G.-though I think there is law wrt this as well as his personal response was awful.

Regarding this thread. Nothing new here. As discussed the terminology of breeching and topping is misused to create a STORY, where no story exists. He’s taken his lumps, some justifiably so, for Katrina. This thread offers nothing new. As I’ve stated above, there exists plenty of blame to go around. From the federal to the state and local govt’s, right down to the citizenry. Everyone played a role and each is culpable to some degree.

That is not the same as your suggestion of glossing over. This does not exempt anyone of their part of the responsibility.

This is such an absurd non-issue. People have been pondering whether the levees would withstand a hurricane forever.

To claim Bush knew or didn’t know is stupid. No one knew jack shit either way. Everyone wondered and hoped the levees would hold.

The media coverage this issue is getting is foolish. I don’t know if it generates more ratings or if it is just an attack on the President.

We need more coverage of how the rebuilding effort is going. What is going right and what is going wrong and how private citizens can make a difference.

The media would rather talk about racism and attack the President than do a real service for the country.

As always, some sanity from the WSJ editors - (and now back to my regularly scheduled M&A transaction…):

The Madness About King George
March 3, 2006; Page A10

“Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings. For there is none worthy of the name but God, whom heaven, earth and sea obey.”

Thus spake the humble early English King Canute, who once mocked flattering courtiers by demonstrating his impotence in the face of an incoming tide. “Stop,” he said, attempting to command the waves, which of course kept coming.

On the other hand, one power leaders have always had is the ability to drive their political opponents stark, raving mad. Thus we have this week’s new low in anti-Bush hysteria, in which Democrats and assorted media are alleging some kind of scandal in a piece of videotape showing President Bush was warned that Hurricane Katrina would be a very bad storm. And yet . . . well, and yet Mr. Bush declined to follow King Canute in attempting to command the sea, thus dooming the city of New Orleans.

The whole “story” here is so preposterous that we are inclined to leave it at that. But for the record, it’s worth noting a little semantic legerdemain on the part of the Associated Press reporter who narrates the videotape. The reporter implies that Mr. Bush lied when he said after the storm that nobody had anticipated “the breach of the levees.” This is supposed to be contradicted by the video footage of a pre-landfall briefing in which the National Hurricane Center told the President of the possibility that “the levees will be topped [emphasis added].”

But in fact the New Orleans levee system wasn’t topped; it was breached, just as Mr. Bush said – and there’s a big difference between the two. The levees being topped by the storm surge would have caused damage, but arguably much less severe than what happened after the structural failure that actually occurred. And in any case, the levee breach was the result of flaws so fundamental they were beyond anyone’s power to fix that close to the storm.

There’s plenty to criticize in the Bush Administration’s response to Katrina, but in the twilight zone inhabited by his critics everything gets reduced to lies, conspiracies and malice aforethought. Thus, Dick Cheney tried to conceal that he used his friend for target practice and the President callously refused to stop the drowning of an entire city. As the pioneering blogger Euripides once wrote, “Whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad.”

I think America has a short memory. I am not the President and I remember all the news pertaining to ( if ) a category 5 hurricane hit N.O. The president did not know it was going to happen. And if I saw it so did the Mayor and the Governor. I am still wondering what they ever did with the kid who commandeered a school bus loaded it with people that could not afford transportation and went to the Super Dome. The last I heard he was in Jail. But the Cops that were driving Cadillac’s are still free.

Video shows Louisiana governor assuring Bush New Orleans levees not breached

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060302/w0302116.html

Kerry would have stopped Katrina before it even got to New Orleans.

[quote]grew7 wrote:
Kerry would have stopped Katrina before it even got to New Orleans.[/quote]

On a serious note, I doubt any past president all of the way to Reagan would have gone that long before addressing the public after that event. Bush’s father, Bush I, wouldn’t have gone DAYS before making a statement about the condition. That is why it amazes me that some don’t understand why there is the sentiment that he simply doesn’t care about the people who went through it. The only other explanation is that he truly didn’t consider that a public statement was needed (which implies a complete lack of thought). I would almost rather he simply didn’t care rather than that he was that clueless about the situation.

Greetings liberal weenies!!!

First of all, bradley, I was wondering if you had noticed that the Governor of Lousiana, blanco, had assured Bush that the levees would hold?

Second, I was wondering if you read Lucasa’s summary and the AP “correction” of last night stating that the “levees might be topped.” Big difference between “Might be topped” and THEY WILL BE BREACHED.

I’m not going to hold my breath that you will be man enough to admit you were wrong.

Hey pox!!! Wanted to tell you I read your latest post. In it you castigated Bush for waiting too long to make a public announcement because “he just didn’t care.”

Hurricane Katrina makes landfall on August 29th on the Lousiana coastline.

Here is AUGUST 31ST press release from the White House:

pox, you are a joke.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:

pox, you are a joke.

JeffR[/quote]

I would be greatly surprised if anymore than one or two people on this entire site take you seriously at all in any way whatsoever. You are the last one who needs to be telling anyone what a joke they are.

Hey pox!!!

Thanks for the kind retort. I appreciate the time you took to admit that you were wrong. When corrected, it takes a big man to admit error. Your ability to maintain an open mind makes you a valuable contributor to this subject.

Thanks again,

JeffR

What good would Bush going on the air do? The people who had been hit by Katrina, the very people who would need to hear his message, were without homes/food/power. I know other politicians of recent past would have been concerned with their poll numbers and would have jumped in front of the first camera they could find, but what purpose would that have served to the victims?

[quote]doogie wrote:
What good would Bush going on the air do? The people who had been hit by Katrina, the very people who would need to hear his message, were without homes/food/power. I know other politicians of recent past would have been concerned with their poll numbers and would have jumped in front of the first camera they could find, but what purpose would that have served to the victims? [/quote]

First, it would have possibly rallied even more support towards sending in money to help. It would have relieved the rest of the country by putting forth the image that the President cares greatly about the citizens of this country. It would have done much towards fighting the opinion that the ONLY thing this current president seems to care about is money and making those who support him happy. Bush comes across as a “caring” president to you?

Clinton was the first to apologize for the Tuskeegee experiments. Bush Sr. didn’t. What has Bush done outside of his interest in big business that shows he cares for the people in this country including those who are far from rich? Anything? Even one standout action that presents an image other than being for his own gain?

[quote]
doogie wrote:
What good would Bush going on the air do? The people who had been hit by Katrina, the very people who would need to hear his message, were without homes/food/power. I know other politicians of recent past would have been concerned with their poll numbers and would have jumped in front of the first camera they could find, but what purpose would that have served to the victims?

Professor X wrote:
First, it would have possibly rallied even more support towards sending in money to help. [/quote]

That’s bogus. There was 24/7 coverage on every network. People saw the extent of the destruction. People gave in record amounts. Bush going on TV earlier wouldn’t have changed that.

That’s total crap. First, the majority of people in Mississippi that were wiped out by Katrina supported Bush. If Bush would have gone on the air sooner, it would just have been spun into, “Why is the president on TV trying to make himself look better instead of working behind closed doors to improve the situation?”

[quote]

Clinton was the first to apologize for the Tuskeegee experiments. Bush Sr. didn’t. What has Bush done outside of his interest in big business that shows he cares for the people in this country including those who are far from rich? Anything? Even one standout action that presents an image other than being for his own gain?[/quote]

Can you ONCE focus on a topic without trying to spin race into it? Why didn’t Carter apologize? For that matter, how many of the presidents who were in office during the experiment were Democrats?

[quote]doogie wrote:That’s total crap. First, the majority of people in Mississippi that were wiped out by Katrina supported Bush. If Bush would have gone on the air sooner, it would just have been spun into, “Why is the president on TV trying to make himself look better instead of working behind closed doors to improve the situation?”
[/quote]

I do believe that would be all well and good if anyone believed that he was working behind closed doors on the issue. Basically, the first reports were that they didn’t even know it was that bad. They came across as completely incompetent on the issue. No one would have faulted him had he made NO speech but was clearly acting quickly. He WASN’T.