Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-03-2006, 04:42 PM   #41 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
In the video, there was mention by the weatherguy to Bush that the levees might be TOPPED, not BREACHED. He never mentioned to Bush that they might be breached. These are relevant technical terms when describing levee systems' behavior. "Topping" means some water spills in but the levee remains intact, "breaching" means a comprehensive failure of the levee. The distinction is critical.

Therefore, given Bush's use of the term "breach", I believe he acted in good faith and should not be held soley responsible for the Katrina effort.
powerclown is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 05:09 PM   #42 (permalink)
Somnabulist
 
guy44's Avatar
 
Location: corner of No and Where
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
In the video, there was mention by the weatherguy to Bush that the levees might be TOPPED, not BREACHED. He never mentioned to Bush that they might be breached. These are relevant technical terms when describing levee systems' behavior. "Topping" means some water spills in but the levee remains intact, "breaching" means a comprehensive failure of the levee. The distinction is critical.

Therefore, given Bush's use of the term "breach", I believe he acted in good faith and should not be held soley responsible for the Katrina effort.
Wow. I guess it depends what the definition of is - er, topped - is , huh?

I mean, come on. Do you really think that Bush hung up the phone after that meeting, glanced at Cheney and said, "Whew - for a second there, I was worried he was going to say breached. But no, he said topped, which is an utterly different term that implies a completely different event. Thank goodness I'm intimately familiar with the technical meanings of those two words in the context of levee systems, because otherwise, boy howdy, I'd be nervous."

Realistically, while you are very minutely, technically correct, there is no way to honestly construe what meteorologist's statement as "the water may possibly top some of the levees, but not outright break them."

There is just no way that such microscopic parsing was occuring:

A) in the presentation of a worst-case scenario to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the President,

B) in anyone's mind during the meeting, or

C) during Bush's statement regarding whether or not anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.

Basically, just because the exact word that the meteorologist used wasn't "breach," doesn't mean that Bush's statement was true. I just don't think your argument passes the sniff test.
__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"
guy44 is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 05:22 PM   #43 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy44
Basically, just because the exact word that the meteorologist used wasn't "breach," doesn't mean that Bush's statement was true. I just don't think your argument passes the sniff test.
But notice the semantical effort involved to convince you otherwise. There IS no workable response to this on the Republican side apart from semantical wordsmithing.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 05:33 PM   #44 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy44
Realistically, while you are very minutely, technically correct, there is no way to honestly construe what meteorologist's statement as "the water may possibly top some of the levees, but not outright break them."
But there is an honest way to describe the LA Times reporting on this "new revelation" BushLied video: Dishonest, inaccurate and misleading.
powerclown is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 05:46 PM   #45 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Your golden boy got caught red-handed in a lie and the only way to excuse him is to play lawyerly word games... and you STILL DO IT. You don't see what a shill you've become?

heyyyyy, calm down grasshopper

Let 'em play their lawyerly word games. Let 'em try to redefine "anticipate" Let them do what they so love to remind us Clinton did.

Almost every time we bring a charge against bush the answer is "Well but Clinton. . . ."

Now that they're taking this horseshit tactic, I intend to throw that right back in their face the next time they do it.

So yeah. . . Let them dig their own grave. Suits me just fine.
shakran is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 06:05 PM   #46 (permalink)
It's all downhill from here
 
docbungle's Avatar
 
Location: Denver
So...
The argument is that...Bush was informed of the potential damage of the hurricane ONE DAY before it hit...and then is called a liar when he states he had no idea it would be as bad as it was?

That's ridiculous. Nowhere in that video does anyone even come close to describing the actual damage that happened.

Yeah, they told him it would be bad. But no one had any idea it would be THAT bad. He thought he was prepared, but it turned out he wasn't. This video doesn't change that.

And even if it did (which it doesn't), just what can one expect to get accomplished in one day? Build a new Superdome?
__________________
Bad Luck City

Last edited by docbungle; 03-03-2006 at 06:09 PM..
docbungle is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 06:22 PM   #47 (permalink)
Baltimoron
 
djtestudo's Avatar
 
Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
I think it's time to do something Bill Clinton obviously spent too much time lying to do: consult a dictionary.

v. topped, top·ping, tops
v. tr.

1. To form, furnish with, or serve as a top.
2. To reach the top of.
3. To go over the top of.
4. To exceed or surpass.

5. To be at the head of: She topped her class.
6. To remove the top or uppermost part from; crop: topped the fruit trees.


v. breached, breach·ing, breach·es
v. tr.

1. To make a hole or gap in; break through.
2. To break or violate (an agreement, for example).


So we are talking about water going over the leavees, while they stay in place, versus the water breaking through the leavees.

Sounds like a little bit of a difference to me, and likely WOULD make a difference when it comes to a disaster like that.
__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun
djtestudo is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 06:28 PM   #48 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by djtestudo
I think it's time to do something Bill Clinton obviously spent too much time lying to do: consult a dictionary.
Did we ever get that Shakran's Law made official? Sheesh, you could have at least given yourself a couple of hours before I nailed you like I said i would in my last post on this thread.


Quote:
So we are talking about water going over the leavees, while they stay in place, versus the water breaking through the leavees.

Sounds like a little bit of a difference to me, and likely WOULD make a difference when it comes to a disaster like that.
We are talking about Bush being warned that damage could be devastating. We are talking about Bush telling officials on the Gulf that we were ready for it and resources were mobilizing to take care of it. We are talking about that never happening. We are talking about Bush lying. End of story.

Dude, give it up. You CANNOT win this one. Bush lied. The videotape shows it. Playing bullshit word games will not change the fact that he lied- they will only make you look bad. Why don't you take up a fight you can win? You don't see me defending Kerry for being a big enough dipshit that he lost the campaign do you? That's because it would be a fight I could not win. Kerry WAS a dipshit. Just as Bush DID lie.
shakran is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 07:04 PM   #49 (permalink)
It's all downhill from here
 
docbungle's Avatar
 
Location: Denver
Quote:
Dude, give it up. You CANNOT win this one. Bush lied. The videotape shows it. Playing bullshit word games will not change the fact that he lied- they will only make you look bad. Why don't you take up a fight you can win? You don't see me defending Kerry for being a big enough dipshit that he lost the campaign do you? That's because it would be a fight I could not win. Kerry WAS a dipshit. Just as Bush DID lie
No, it makes him mistaken. He never said "It won't be a problem." or "Everything will go as planned." or "We have it all worked out."

He said he was prepared and ready to help. That's it.

And the people in the video in NO WAY whatsoever stated firmly that there was an extreme danger of the levees failing. They used the word "potential."

This is nothing more than a witch hunt.
__________________
Bad Luck City
docbungle is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 04:07 AM   #50 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Who cares who lied. All politicians tell big stories and as someone stated earlier it's only lying if they are under oath.

It don't take a lot of common sense to figure out if a cat. 4 storm is heading my way and the levy down the street is only rated at cat. 3 then I better pack my shit and get the hell outa dodge. I don't necessarily need the President to stop by and let me know the dangers of the levy being breached. If I have no means of moving myself then it's time to start walking. If I'm unable to walk then you can bet your sweet ass the phone will be ringing at city hall, not at the President's desk. It's not FEMAs responsibility to move me out of my house beforehand, thats the job of the LOCAL government and police. It's FEMAs responsibility after the disaster to provide local relief, not beforehand.

What we have here is a failure to communicate and properly prepare starting at the local level. There is no way possible for any federal response to take care of people that haven't enough common sense to take proper care of themselves.

Make no mistake, there was failures at the federal level but none that compares to the failures at the local level.
scout is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 04:35 AM   #51 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: watching from the treeline
Bush came out a few weeks ago and took responsibility for the hurricane relief effort's slow response, even though it wasn't entirely his fault. What else do you want him to do?

The local and state government is more to blame for the disaster than anybody else. Mayor Ray Nagin was the one who had a few hundred school buses under his control to evacuate the leftover residents. The buses flooded as soon as the levies broke. Obviously Nagin didn't think the levees would break, or he would have evacuated these people. Right? How about calls to kick his sorry ass out of office?

__________________
Trinity: "What do you need?"

Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns."

-The Matrix
timalkin is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 04:40 AM   #52 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
My synopsis of this fiasco:

FEMA has been somewhat castrated by its incorporation into DHS.

Brown did not have the experience to work the system in washington, let alone to handle a true emergency.

Chertoff did not prioritize FEMA as the primary responder to this disaster (here is the biggest mistake), and did not take warnings seriously.

Bush placed people in positions based on criteria which had nothing to do with qualifications, or experience.

The combination of these things, and the failures on a local level led to undo death and suffering for the American People.

there is plenty of blame to go around but, when all is said and done the release of recent information makes it clear to me where the buck stops, and I honestly think Bush needs to accept responsibility for making extremely poor descisions which allowed this failure to happen. Unfortunately....he will not, and the current power structure in this country is incapable of forcing the issue.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 07:46 AM   #53 (permalink)
You had me at hello
 
Poppinjay's Avatar
 
Location: DC/Coastal VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by docbungle
No, it makes him mistaken. He never said "It won't be a problem." or "Everything will go as planned." or "We have it all worked out."

He said he was prepared and ready to help. That's it.

And the people in the video in NO WAY whatsoever stated firmly that there was an extreme danger of the levees failing. They used the word "potential."

This is nothing more than a witch hunt.
You're leaving out the crucial part of this. There is video tape of him being told that the event could be catastrophic and that the levees could be breached. Then, days afterward he said, "Nobody anticipated that the levees would be breached."

Honestly, I don't think he purposefully lied. He looked disinterested throughout the video, asked no questions, and probably forgot everything he was told.
__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet
Poppinjay is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 08:58 AM   #54 (permalink)
Junkie
 
This thread is not about who is to blame for Katrina but instead on the fact that Bush misslead the American public in order to make himself look better.

Now scout are you honestly saying it is ok to lie as long as you aren't under oath? What kind of a message does that logic send to a childern? I'm sorry but I don't believe being under oath has a single thing to do with lieing being wrong or not.
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 09:18 AM   #55 (permalink)
 
trickyy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Our Bush used a remarkably similar phrase to hide what he knew BEFORE 9/11, about the potential threat of terrorists hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings, just five days after 9/11.....
interesting that you should mention such a thing
adding insult to injury is that fact that we were supposed to learn something about coordinating responses to national disasters after 9/11
now that we again look back at the mistakes (systemic and otherwise), is anything going to change for the better? what happens next time? i don't want to change the subject here, but i'm worried that we are once again passing laws, adding positions, and changing org charts, but essentially aren't making any useful improvements.

back on bush, i thought he did accept responsibility a few days after the hurricane. i'm not excusing his statements in the original post...and regardless of what he said, i really hope we don't have another catastrophe for a long time. i don't know if we can handle it.
trickyy is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 10:07 AM   #56 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by trickyy
interesting that you should mention such a thing
adding insult to injury is that fact that we were supposed to learn something about coordinating responses to national disasters after 9/11
now that we again look back at the mistakes (systemic and otherwise), is anything going to change for the better? what happens next time? i don't want to change the subject here, but i'm worried that we are once again passing laws, adding positions, and changing org charts, but essentially aren't making any useful improvements.

back on bush, i thought he did accept responsibility a few days after the hurricane. i'm not excusing his statements in the original post...and regardless of what he said, i really hope we don't have another catastrophe for a long time. i don't know if we can handle it.
if, or when, we do have another disaster, this incident has been machined so that people don't expect much from the feds. Now, I am not going to go so far as to say that bush deliberately refused to respond, hid the fact that he refused to respond by claiming that no one knew he should have, in order to demonstrate what his political party already thinks about the federal government in general. but it certainly, conveniently, meshes with his supporters' a priori belief that the federal government is bloated, unresponsive, and incapable of responding to these types of things, on the basis that it did not. so whether it's intentional or not, it certainly feeds into his political platform to reduce the feds on some things while increasing their police powers, which is the most troublesome aspect to me.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 02:03 PM   #57 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
This thread is not about who is to blame for Katrina but instead on the fact that Bush misslead the American public in order to make himself look better.

Now scout are you honestly saying it is ok to lie as long as you aren't under oath? What kind of a message does that logic send to a childern? I'm sorry but I don't believe being under oath has a single thing to do with lieing being wrong or not.
No I am not taking the position that it is ok to lie. I am taking the position that it really doesn't matter at this particular point and time. I am also taking the postion that it's over, done deal. What more could he have done even if he had foreseen the levies being breached? It's still very much the responsibility of the local government to evacuate the handicapped people in danger. It's even moreso the responsibility of the able body persons to get off their lazy asses and move out of harms way BEFORE catastrophe strikes. That's my position.
scout is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 03:55 PM   #58 (permalink)
It's all downhill from here
 
docbungle's Avatar
 
Location: Denver
If this is to be viewed as a lie, it has got to be viewed as a very tiny one. I compare it to saying I've read a book, when I've actually only read three quarters of the book and watched the movie.
__________________
Bad Luck City
docbungle is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 04:39 PM   #59 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scout
No I am not taking the position that it is ok to lie. I am taking the position that it really doesn't matter at this particular point and time.
Shouldn't the American people be able to trust the President to be truthfull and honest to them? When the President makes a statement to the people of the US it should be 100% truth. And this is why Clinton got heat. If such a statement cannot be made then don't make a statement at all. I would not consider dishonesty to be a quality that I would want my leaders to have.
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 05:17 PM   #60 (permalink)
Adequate
 
cyrnel's Avatar
 
Location: In my angry-dome.
I don't know Rekna. I don't mind them lying when required. Say, for items of national security, but this is just a mess. Taking responsibility goes beyond the few press releases I've seen. Someone should be working to correct problems instead of digging more little holes. This seems like an irresponsible teenager's line of BS mixed with semantics. Covering ass because their planning and/or chain of command is screwed up is lame. It's not perjury, nor treason, but it is very weak. OTOH, that they're unable to respond to natural disasters with fair warning and untold billion$ spent in preparation (or de-preparation with regard to FEMA), and have to resort to weak vagaries to cover ass, now that's negligent at best. Asses should be kicked far beyond one or two fall-guys.

I don't expect we'll see better of either party, and here we are debating Webster definitions.
__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195
cyrnel is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 05:50 PM   #61 (permalink)
Baltimoron
 
djtestudo's Avatar
 
Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrnel
I don't know Rekna. I don't mind them lying when required. Say, for items of national security, but this is just a mess. Taking responsibility goes beyond the few press releases I've seen. Someone should be working to correct problems instead of digging more little holes. This seems like an irresponsible teenager's line of BS mixed with semantics. Covering ass because their planning and/or chain of command is screwed up is lame. It's not perjury, nor treason, but it is very weak. OTOH, that they're unable to respond to natural disasters with fair warning and untold billion$ spent in preparation (or de-preparation with regard to FEMA), and have to resort to weak vagaries to cover ass, now that's negligent at best. Asses should be kicked far beyond one or two fall-guys.

I don't expect we'll see better of either party, and here we are debating Webster definitions.
We AREN'T going to see better from either party, so that is what we are reduced to until the disallusioned can organize into political forces for change.
__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun
djtestudo is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 11:51 PM   #62 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
AP clarifies story about Katrina, Bush

WASHINGTON — In a Wednesday 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.

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 Katrina, Bush was told there were grave concerns the levees could be overrun.

It wasn’t until the next morning, as the storm made landfall, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had asked about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.
Well at least they got around to correcting their error.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 03:38 AM   #63 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Shouldn't the American people be able to trust the President to be truthfull and honest to them? When the President makes a statement to the people of the US it should be 100% truth. And this is why Clinton got heat. If such a statement cannot be made then don't make a statement at all. I would not consider dishonesty to be a quality that I would want my leaders to have.
I agree Rekna but unfortunately none of our public leaders have any qualms about lying out of their collective asses. Honesty eludes both parties and just about all elected officials. Very few stay honest throughout their political careers. The few that do aren't reelected so their careers are short. We the voters don't seem to mind, as the liers and thieves are reelected time after time. This is more our fault than theirs as we see fit to give them the votes needed to be reelected.
scout is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 03:45 AM   #64 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Well at least they got around to correcting their error.
Ustwo, you seem to be someone who wants to make doubly sure that the "facts" get published.

The "fact" is..... http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html arrived at the opinion in the next quote box. I can accept it, and remind everyone, once more, that Bush's <b>"I don't think anybody anticipated...insert disaster on my watch, HERE"</b> response is eerily similar to his <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2018456&postcount=30">9/16/01 response</a> to the 9/11 attacks.
Quote:
http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html
<b>........Nobody anticipated breach of the levees?</b>

In an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on September 1, President Bush said:

Bush: I don’t think anyone anticipated breach of the levees …Now we’re having to deal with it, and will.

Bush is technically correct that a "breach" wasn't anticipated by the Corps, but that's doesn't mean the flooding wasn't forseen. It was. But the Corps thought it would happen differently, from water washing over the levees, rather than cutting wide breaks in them.

Greg Breerword, a deputy district engineer for project management with the Army Corps of Engineers, told the New York Times:

Breerword: We knew if it was going to be a Category 5, some levees and some flood walls would be overtopped. We never did think they would actually be breached.

And while Bush is also technically correct that the Corps did not "anticipate" a breach – in the sense that they believed it was a likely event – at least some in the Corps thought a breach was a possibility worth examining.

According to the Times-Picayune, early in Bush's first term FEMA director Joe Allbaugh ordered a sophisticated computer simulation of what would happen if a category 5 storm hit New Orleans. Joseph Suhayda, an engineer at Louisana State University who worked on the project, described to the newspaper in 2002 what the simulation showed could happen:

Subhayda: Another scenario is that some part of the levee would fail. It's not something that's expected. But erosion occurs, and as levees broke, the break will get wider and wider. The water will flow through the city and stop only when it reaches the next higher thing. The most continuous barrier is the south levee, along the river. That's 25 feet high, so you'll see the water pile up on the river levee.

Whether or not a "breach" was "anticipated," the fact is that many individuals have been warning for decades about the threat of flooding that a hurricane could pose to a set below sea level and sandwiched between major waterways.............
At this late date, with <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186634,00.html">Foxnews March 2 Polling</a> revealing the effects of the relatively small amount of accurate, thorough, negative coverage of the Bush regime, compared to what the potential actually is, your "take" continues to disturb me. The sheer volume of factoids that you are required to put aside, or overlook, just to maintain your unwavering belief system is astounding. Rest assured, it will not grow smaller.

Note that Foxnews' own poll result shows a 14 point preference for a shift to Democratic control of the House in the November election. (On TV, Fox actually displayed the numbers as "48 percent" for Democratic party candidates, vs. "34 percent" for Republicans. In print, the best Fox can admit to is:
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186634,00.html
......Furthermore, by a 14-percentage point margin voters think it would be better for the country if Democrats win control of Congress in this year’s election, up from an 8-point edge in early February and 11 points in January...........
I agree with you that the AP is "the enemy".....on March 2, the "naughty" AP reported that
Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...8G32A900.shtml
........_Bush declared four days after the storm, <b>"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees"</b> that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility _ and Bush was worried too............
Thankfully, and I'm sure that <b>your opinion is, correctly, too.</b> The Washington Post, NY Times, and USA Today, all omitted that pesky 'lil Bush quote from their reporting.....
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/na...02katrina.html
.....Mayor C. Ray Nagin of New Orleans watched parts of the videoconferences and said he now had a "realization" that "there was full awareness before the storm, and a promise to do whatever it takes."

"It seems as though they were aware of everything," Mr. Nagin said. "It surprises me that, if there was that kind of awareness, why was the response so slow."

Democrats on Capitol Hill saw the transcripts as offering a new opportunity to criticize the president's handling of the disaster, and they took it.

"Despite the president's claims, the federal government was clearly not 'fully prepared' for this disaster," Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, said in a statement...........
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101731_pf.html
A newly leaked video recording of high-level government deliberations the day before Hurricane Katrina hit shows disaster officials emphatically warning President Bush that the storm posed a catastrophic threat to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, and a grim-faced Bush personally assuring state leaders that his administration was "fully prepared" to help.

The footage, taken of a videoconference of federal and state officials on Aug. 28, offered an unusually vivid glimpse of real-time decision making by an administration that has vigorously guarded its internal deliberations.

Reactions to the tape, which was obtained by the Associated Press, varied widely -- reflecting the intense debate that has brewed for six months about who should be held accountable for an initially flaccid government response to the catastrophe.

Democrats said the tape shows Bush being warned in urgent terms of the potential magnitude of the storm, making it less defensible that the administration did not act with more dispatch to be ready.

White House officials said the footage reinforces what they have said to critics: that the president, at his Texas vacation home, was fully engaged from the opening hours of the emergency, while leaving operational decisions to the agencies in charge.............
Quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...tape02.art.htm
.........Bush appeared on the tape sitting at a table in a small room at his Crawford, Texas, ranch. He didn't ask any questions. He told state officials that the federal government was prepared to handle the storm and its aftermath.

�I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm,� he said.

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said the tapes offered �nothing new or insightful.� He said transcripts from days of similar pre- and post-Katrina briefings were released months ago as part of a congressional investigation into the government's failure to prepare for and respond to Katrina.

It wasn't clear Wednesday whether the Aug. 29 briefing's transcript obtained by the AP had previously been released. Homeland Security released the transcript Wednesday..........
So....Ustwo, it seems that the only news reporting that was "naughty" enough to threaten your belief system, posted a correction to their "Newly Discovered Video of pre-Katrina Official Briefing of Bush story." Since the "Liberal Media" in the other three reports didn't mention the Bush <b>"No one could have...blah blah blah...</b> quote in question, Bush is off the "hook", as is your belief system....except for those Foxnews March 2 polling numbers...........and these pesky little examples of a "Liberal Media" that wasn't so "one sided" in it's "reporting"....or so obviously "out to get Bush", either.

Last edited by host; 03-05-2006 at 03:51 AM..
host is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 02:26 PM   #65 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
This is the Republican Response!?
For the record I do not represent, nor am I spokesperson for the Republican Party, if you have read my posts you know that. I don't know why you would mislead people into thinking my post was some kind of Republican response. Were you trying to lie to prove a point?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 03:52 PM   #66 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
For the record I do not represent, nor am I spokesperson for the Republican Party, if you have read my posts you know that. I don't know why you would mislead people into thinking my post was some kind of Republican response. Were you trying to lie to prove a point?

Your posts have a solid history of representing the right. You may not be a card carrying republican, but you are certainly a republican apologist, and you and the republican party speak with one voice far more often than not.
shakran is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 05:16 PM   #67 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
We're getting off topic here, but there is a valid point that we're all individuals, even if it seems like we're "good party members"... I know I appreciate being treated as if I might have my own thoughts. Everyone here speaks only for themselves... That seems like a safe and productive assumption to make.

With that, let's try to get back to the topic at hand. Thanks!
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 09:03 PM   #68 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
ace: I apologize for referring to your post as "the Republican response".

It is telling, however, that the amount of right-leaning posts on this thread is vastly lower than average. I suspect that the majority of right-leaners know this is an unwinnable point.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 09:44 PM   #69 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Ratbastid, I think you might have hit on something with the "unwinnable point" comment. Of course, every party and indeed every politician finds itself in that place at some time... And all of them find a way to disappoint me with their handling of that particular place.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 10:53 PM   #70 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
ace: I apologize for referring to your post as "the Republican response".

It is telling, however, that the amount of right-leaning posts on this thread is vastly lower than average. I suspect that the majority of right-leaners know this is an unwinnable point.
It is telling but I rather doubt for the reasons you think.

I'd also add the AP corrected their little error in this story, making it something of a non-story.

But continue please...
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 10:54 PM   #71 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Enlighten us, Ustwo.
Willravel is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 10:58 PM   #72 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Enlighten us, Ustwo.
willravel it should be very obvious....

There are people who, if Bush commented on the blue sky would insist he lied about it and the sky was in fact azure, what an idiot he was, how Cheney told him to say the sky was blue, and how he plans to use the lie that the sky is blue to turn the US into a police state.

Most of us have just been ignoring these people.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 11:04 PM   #73 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Are you suggesting that the people you describe when you say "most of us" are simply ignoring this thread? I find that confusing. It's obvious that the accusation of this thread is that Bush is lying, therefore those who would normally jump to Bush's defence would have an easy opportunity if this were such a simple topic. This particular case is more like Bush saying, "The sky is orange", and everyone going "Did he just say what I think he said?". It's difficult to excuse or explain away this case. ratbastid is right in pointing out that this thread has a very low amount of Bush supporters.
Willravel is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 11:11 PM   #74 (permalink)
Psycho
 
89transam's Avatar
 
Location: Central California
Quote:
Originally Posted by djtestudo
I think it's time to do something Bill Clinton obviously spent too much time lying to do: consult a dictionary.
Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, I'm sure he knows how to use a dictionary.
__________________
I'd rather be rich than stupid.
89transam is offline  
Old 03-05-2006, 11:39 PM   #75 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Are you suggesting that the people you describe when you say "most of us" are simply ignoring this thread? I find that confusing. It's obvious that the accusation of this thread is that Bush is lying, therefore those who would normally jump to Bush's defence would have an easy opportunity if this were such a simple topic. This particular case is more like Bush saying, "The sky is orange", and everyone going "Did he just say what I think he said?". It's difficult to excuse or explain away this case. ratbastid is right in pointing out that this thread has a very low amount of Bush supporters.
My reply was to ratbastid, and the AP did a clarification, Bush was in fact NOT warned of any leavies breaking.

Story = null, but continue....

As a side note, did you know the Katrina relief effort was the largest and fastest in U.S. history?

Quote:
GOVERNMENT RESPONDED RAPIDLY
MYTH: "The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history."--Aaron Broussard, president, Jefferson Parish, La., Meet the Press, NBC, Sept. 4, 2005

REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.

Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day--some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, "guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways," says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.

These units had help from local, state and national responders, including five helicopters from the Navy ship Bataan and choppers from the Air Force and police. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries dispatched 250 agents in boats. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state police and sheriffs' departments launched rescue flotillas. By Wednesday morning, volunteers and national teams joined the effort, including eight units from California's Swift Water Rescue. By Sept. 8, the waterborne operation had rescued 20,000.

While the press focused on FEMA's shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success--especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state.

NEXT TIME: Any fatalities are too many. Improvements hinge on building more robust communications networks and stepping up predisaster planning to better coordinate local and national resources.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/spec...tml?page=2&c=y
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Last edited by Ustwo; 03-06-2006 at 12:07 AM..
Ustwo is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 12:25 AM   #76 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
willravel it should be very obvious....

There are people who, if Bush commented on the blue sky would insist he lied about it and the sky was in fact azure, what an idiot he was, how Cheney told him to say the sky was blue, and how he plans to use the lie that the sky is blue to turn the US into a police state.

Most of us have just been ignoring these people.
My advice is to add Bob Woodward to your "list"; the WaPo reporter who comprised half of the investigative team that were largely responsible, for the reporting that brought down the Nixon presidency. Bob Woodward, who enjoyed unparalleled access to the Bush White House during the first term. The Woodward who compromised his own reputation for reproting the news, in exhange for unique access to the White House. Woodward failed to report, for more than two years, that Bush administration officials had revealed details of Valerie Plame's CIA employment, in mid 2003.

Fortunately, Woodward provided a description of the man who ten days after this Jan. 10, 2001 briefing meeting with the Joint Chiefs and outgoing defense secretary William Cohen. Frightening, to me, that when he was about to become the most powerful man in the world, instead of thirsting for as much information concerning the duties, responsibilities and capabilities that he was about to take on as CIC of the U.S. Military, Bush was distracted by the uneaten mints he observed in front of the officials who were briefing him....
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...04Apr19_2.html
PLAN OF ATTACK : Cabinet Divided
Cheney Was Unwavering in Desire to Go to War
Tension Between Vice President and Powell Grew Deeper as Both Tried to Guide Bush's Decision

By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 20, 2004; Page A02
......... Immediate Focus on Iraq

In early January 2001, before Bush was inaugurated, Cheney passed a message to the outgoing secretary of defense, William S. Cohen, a moderate Republican who served in the Democratic Clinton administration.

"We really need to get the president-elect briefed up on some things," Cheney said, adding that he wanted a serious "discussion about Iraq and different options." The president-elect should not be given the routine, canned, round-the-world tour normally given incoming presidents. Topic A should be Iraq......

......On Jan. 10, a Wednesday morning 10 days before the inauguration, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Powell went to the Pentagon to meet with Cohen. Afterward, Bush and his team went downstairs to the Tank, the secure domain and meeting room for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....

..........The Joint Chiefs' staff had <b>placed a peppermint at each place. Bush unwrapped his and popped it into his mouth. Later he eyed Cohen's mint and flashed a pantomime query, Do you want that? Cohen signaled no, so Bush reached over and took it. Near the end of the hour-and-a-quarter briefing, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton, noticed Bush eyeing his mint, so he passed it over.

Cheney listened, but he was tired and closed his eyes, conspicuously nodding off several times.</b> Rumsfeld, who was sitting at a far end of the table, paid close attention, though he kept asking the briefers to please speak up or please speak louder. "We're off to a great start," one of the chiefs commented privately to a colleague after the session. <b>"The vice president fell asleep, and the secretary of defense can't hear." </b>
Ustwo, even Bush's poodle at Newsweek, Howard Fineman is having second thoughts about his role as cheerleader. Do you ever feel embarassed as you keep up the pretense that the Main Stream U.S. press, owned by just five giant meida corporate conglomerates is somehow operating with a left leaning bias. or as you maintain the pretense that Bush is a capable leader with all of our safety and our other best interests as his #1 priority?

Maybe the lack of posts here is related to some folks having reached the limit of how much they have to ignore to ever more frequently post phrases similar to, <b>"Well....Clinton did blah blah blah.....".</b>
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11623419...wsweek/page/2/
Un-Explainer in Chief
Bill Clinton's gift (and curse) was that he could explain just about anything. <b>George Bush, on the other hand, distrusts public talk.</b>

By Howard Fineman
Newsweek
Updated: 3:36 p.m. ET March 1, 2006

........I think most Americans found some comfort in Bush the Growling Cowboy.

That time has passed, though. The main reason of course, is that the simple, black-and-white solutions that the president sketched for us in the "war on terror" haven't materialized. Most Americans now consider the war in Iraq to have been a mistake, one that has made us less secure here in what is now called "the homeland." They see his Manichaean clarity not as a comfort, but as a danger—because it underestimates the complexity of the real world. There are many more moving parts to consider in the world than the simple clockwork Bush had described.........
host is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 05:34 AM   #77 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Bush was distracted by the uneaten mints he observed in front of the officials who were briefing him....
I hear he took a leak too.

Ever been in a long meeting host?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 06:45 AM   #78 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Why is no one asking the queston: What happened to the millions and millions of federal dollars that were given to the State of Louisiana and New Orleans over the last decade to improve the levees? Why weren't they improved? Why were they breached if the millions of dollars in federal funding were supplied to the local governments responsible for the upkeep of the levees? Did bush lie here too?
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 06:59 AM   #79 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
Why is no one asking the queston: What happened to the millions and millions of federal dollars that were given to the State of Louisiana and New Orleans over the last decade to improve the levees? Why weren't they improved? Why were they breached if the millions of dollars in federal funding were supplied to the local governments responsible for the upkeep of the levees? Did bush lie here too?
People are asking that question. Just, not in this thread. This thread is about whether or not Bush lied about knowing about the impending disaster.

host, I call the same "threadjack alert" on you. If we're to have a civil discussion about this, dragging in how Bush handles himself in meetings isn't really cricket. It's interesting, it's just not this thread.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 03-06-2006, 07:08 AM   #80 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
People are asking that question. Just, not in this thread. This thread is about whether or not Bush lied about knowing about the impending disaster.

host, I call the same "threadjack alert" on you. If we're to have a civil discussion about this, dragging in how Bush handles himself in meetings isn't really cricket. It's interesting, it's just not this thread.
I waited until now to ask that question becuase it appeared the debate was over. Bush wasn't warned of "breaching" he was warned of "topping" some call it semanitics, but in actuallity, the difference between the two is quite real. Then Ustwo posted the AP correction and we all see what a big stink the was over nothing (as usual) so I asked another question. Sorry for derailing the stopped train.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
 

Tags
lie

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:53 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360