Another Lie
 

Today Fox news has an article about what the white house new regarding Katrina. The administration has repeatedly said that no one anticipated the levees would fail. Here is a direct quote from Bush.

But there is now a video showing Bush was advised in the days leading up to Katrina that he was directly warned and he claimed the federal government was ready. That video can be found here

Michael Brown is shown informing the president how dangerous this hurricane is. Now Bush has used Brown as a scapegoat. In what world do we allow our leaders to mislead us and directly lie to us without holding them accountable? Does anyone on this board defend Bush openly lying to us? It is my opinion that congress needs to start holding Bush accountable for his actions.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186525,00.html

"Does anyone on this board defend Bush openly lieing to us?"

I do! I do!!

Seriously, there's a large cohort of people that everything out of Bush's mouth is/has/will have been a blatent lie/corruption/start of the end of the world. I take no criticism from this cohort seriously, and that's not to say I don't consider criticism of him at all.

Michael Brown, if he indeed was a scapegoat of the administration, was as much if not more so for his opposition. He was a bridge connecting his failures directly to Bush, what he did was the fault of the administration for appointing him. Now your making him sound like an unsung hero.

In my eyes it's a pretty simple matter. This was a natural disaster of unseen historic preportions, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that NOONE really anticipated that. Not surprising that mistakes were made from the local to the federal level. Hell, if anyone anticipated what happened, not one single person would have died, because everyone would have left town.

To which Matthew responds:
I have to admit that this actually surprised me. Rekna proves that Bush lied. There is no doubt. Bush said "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." right after it was videotaped that he DID know. He is either dumb as a stump (i.e. far too stupid to be president, or possibly to drive a car), or he is a big fat liar.

I'm finally ready to join roachboy. I need binoculars to see that far to the right.

Suggesting that a storm "could" breach levees, is not anticipating that it will.

Suggesting that Bush lied about this, is suggesting that he and those who warned him knew (or anticipated if you will), that what actually happened was going to happen and they purposefully did nothing - as has been suggested more than once. How could anyone have possibly anticipated this devastation when nothing of this magnitude had occurred prior to this. This is nothing more than arguing the semantics in the aftermath of a natural disaster to "prove" what the left has been doing since 2000.

This has nothing to do with right or left for me. When you show me something other than semantics to prove that Bush is satan personified, then I'll listen. Or maybe when you stop suggesting he's satan personified, I'll listen. In other words, hen reasonable people offer criticism, I listen.

I don't think binoculars will help either you or roach, and there lies the previously referred to "irony".

whatever, matthew....

here is a more detailed article on this matter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101731_pf.html

Bush: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
...federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees...

I don't know if I can make it much more clear than that. Bush said no one anticipated the levee breach right after he was warned that the storm could breach levees. This isn't a critisism...this is cold, hard facts. I happen to think Bush is a moron and extremly corrupt, but that opinion isn't necessary in this thread (yet). The only thing that mattere is that what Bush said didn't match with the truth, therefore he was lying, whether on accedent or on purpous.

Whatever roach, will. I don't have time for this sort of fucktard (isn't that the word you used?) mentality.

Well I did a search on 'fucktard', and I've never used it. Roach used it to describe racist people who beat up muslims back in July of 2005, but I'm still not sure what you were refering to. If you mean "dumbfuckery", then I was refering to Bush doing things like choking on pretzels and saying "nucular" instead of nuclear. I did not use the word to describe someone on TFP, espically you.

Edit: apologies on the threadjack...this is an important thread and Rekna deserves our respect.

I distinctly remember watching a show on the Science Channel back in June of last year that proposed a scenario in which New Orleans was destroyed by a direct hit of a Category 5 hurricane. They specifically mentioned levees failing as the main contributor to the disaster.

In the days leading up to the hurricane, I also distinctly remember the Weather Channel speculating over and over again just how disastrous it would be in New Orleans if the levees were breached.

I don't know if President Bush watched any of this or was aware of any of these, but I find it highly unlikely that as the president, he was wholly unaware of any such danger.

Who could anticipate such a thing happening? Just about every news and weather agency out there.

If every news and weather agency out there was so dead on and definitive, why was Bush's response necessary? If this was such common knowledge, why was there anyone remaining in the area?

Oh yeah, stupid me. It was only minorities who were too poor to afford TV's and radios and didn't have access to word of mouth who were killed, and a concious effort by the administration to keep this life saving information from them.

the fact that you answered your own questions, albeit with a string of stereotyping of what you think other people believe about the situation, indicates you aren't interested in someone else answering your questions. so it looks like you're just making straw-men and dragging the discussion down.

besides, none of what you wrote even addresses rekna's thread: why did bush say no one had any idea this was going to happen when a lot of people did know, including him (as the video now shows).

but what I really don't get, is why this kind of discussion seems to dig so deeply under your skin. I mean, why not just state your opinion and leave it at that instead of taking your comments to a whole new level by lashing out at other members of the tfp?


if nothing else, at least let me know what definition of "anticipating" you are using. Because I saw you make a distinction between someone thinking something could happen and whether that person is then anticipating the event's possibility. I wouldn't think of a difference myself, and so I'd like to know how you see it.

matthew,
I'm not sure why you feel the need to respond in such a manner. Why do you take criticisms of Bush so personally as to feel it necessary to resort to such replies? I'm not sure I understand where this ire is coming from.

I'm also a little unclear what your reply has to do with the topic at hand, which is: Bush is accused of lying about his being informed of the dangers of the levees failing. We could rehash the entire thread about why not everyone was evacuated, but I think it would just be easier to search for it and re-read it.

Recent information calls into question Bush's earlier statements regarding his ignorance of the dangers facing the residents of New Orleans. Many have stated that no one could have anticipated that. My reply was that the information was there. As the president, I'd expect him to be more aware of current events than me and if he is, then to be forthright about it. If you wish to discuss that, then we can. If, however, you wish to go off on a tangential tirade while simultaneously insulting and patronizing those with whom you disagree, then I believe you're in the wrong forum.

Matthew, please reread your post. Do you seriously expect an informative discussion to come from this?

ANYWAYS...Let's get back on track here.

I'll admit, I've been against Bush on a lot of things, but I was never sure why the Katrina thing shot down Bush's aproval rating more than a preemptive war, losing said war, finding out that there were no WMDs, finding out there were no al Qaeda links, wiretapping, etc....now I'm beginning to understand. This is more obvious than the forementioned. A lot of people (even me!) knew about the levee problem before Katrina hit, and many were trying to do whatever they could to prevent disaster. Then Bush comes on and says, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." This is truely offensive, espically to those who saw the weather channel reports and discovery channel specials.

Can this simply be a case of extreme isolation? Nope, we now have proof he was breifed on the dangerous levee problem. And yet again, I find myself thinking that President George W. Bush is either uniltelligent to a dangerous degree, with teporary and continuing memory loss and a lack of problem solving skills....or he is truely corrupt in a way that he is a much worse than a hinderance to America and it's citizens.

"but what I really don't get, is why this kind of discussion seems to dig so deeply under your skin."

I'll start with this - it doesn't. Apparently I come across differently with my posts then I think i do. There's only been a few posts in the 3-4 years I've been posting where emotion took over sensibility, that I can remember. Though it seems all my posts get the same reaction and it's downhill from there.

"why did bush say no one had any idea this was going to happen when a lot of people did know, including him (as the video now shows)."

How can anyone anticipate, mobilize, and prepare for something that has never happened before - and what a fool you would be if you did, and nothing did happened.

Everyone fucked up. To a situation noone had been in before. Not suprising. I trust it won't happen again.

"if nothing else, at least let me know what definition of "anticipating" you are using. Because I saw you make a distinction between someone thinking something could happen and whether that person is then anticipating the event's possibility. I wouldn't think of a difference myself, and so I'd like to know how you see it."

That someone thinking something "could" happen was the media, who had no stake in the outcome. It was a great story regardless.

If the administration reacted to everything in the world that "could" happen, well...it'd be a great story i suppose. At some point they have to "anticipate" what is likely to happen, and react accordingly. Mistakes were made here, and I believe that in hindsight, even those who stressed the most of this situation, didn't really "anticipate" what actually did.

ok, matthew, I don't agree with a lot of what you're saying.

For one thing, the article clearly delineates the fact that numerous officials, not weathermen, were speaking with the president and warning him of what they thought was most likely to occur.

in one portion of the article originally posted, the point is made that bush himself becomes concerned. so those facts alone simply don't square with your contention that it was just the media following the big story...

but, for the sake of this next point, I'll just concede what you're saying. give you the best case scenario. that everything you are claiming is true...

even still, bush consistently made the claim that, while mistakes may have been made, they weren't made by him because he didn't have prior knowledge of the extent of what was going to happen. no one had a clue, was his claim.

that doesn't square with these new facts, facts that are documented on tape and transcripts and presumably he didn't think the public would access. because there is only one reason to say you didn't know that something could happen when your advisors and experts are warning that it very well might--to avoid personal responsibility. in a courtroom, these kinds of statements would be used as evidence of a guilt.

the only way around that is to say that someone saying something could happen is not the same as anticipating that it might. you didnt explain the difference between those two claims, and to everyone else in here there is none. not because we are liberally biased and hate the president, but because anticipating something and warning others about it is as close as you can come to thinking something could happen without watching it actually go down. I don't get why so many of us have to go through these language tests on this board, it's really frustrating to have to actually argue that someone else understand/adhere to a dictionary definition. it appears as though you are just disagreeing because you find it unpalatable to agree with people you disagree with on so many other issues--so you're grasping at straws to explain and parse out words into oblivion.


to put it simply, if the president was admitting that mistakes had been made, and that he was at least partially to blame, this issue wouldn't even be a news story. you are even saying, oddly thinking it's a defense of his statements, that mistakes were made. but he doesn't admit they were made by anyone other than everyone else. talking about the situation was the "blame game" and he just decided to tell the nation, hey, I didn't even realize this was going to happen and neither did anyone else. which is now clearly and documented bs.

edit: well shit, see yah in a couple days, man

See, I think Matthew makes a good point, albeit in a very undiplomatic manner.

If all of these different organizations and media knew about this that far in advance, why wasn't there more of an effort in getting people out, especially on the state/local level?

If the president wasn't going to do anything, why didn't someone else?

djtestudo: Well it really isn't that easy. A levee project would take years, possibly decades. The process itself is massive. I suspect that this thread simply speaks to a serious presidental lie more to the other failings surrpunding Katrina.

well, since the thread really isn't going much further, it seems, I hope it's not too far out of whack to discuss this portion that keeps getting raised.

First of all, after re-reading the original article (again), I notice that the president ensured the various people asking that he was prepared to respond. He assured them that there were appropriate measures being taken and that emergency teams/military were being mobilized. They weren't, at least until later, as the article reveals.

that aside, there was an effort to get people out. the discussion centered around whose responsibility it was to evacuate people, but that sidestepped the white elephant, in many people's opinion: that when you have people making minimum wage, or less, and simply can't miss a single day of work, they aren't going to leave unless you forceably remove them. and that requires a federal level declaration and response/action.

it wasn't the case, in my opinion or statement, that people didn't have tv's or radios and were unaware of the impending danger. They knew, but it doesn't much matter to flee town when your only possessions would have to be left behind. one's best bet, at least in their minds, is to hunker down and protect their only place they have their possessions, keep working until the disaster hits and the employer shuts the blinds. these kinds of notions aren't new to people who have experienced poverty, southern poverty especially, but they certainly catch the rest of the nation by suprise and our inabilty or desire not to discuss serious deprivation and poverty in our nation's boundaries, along the lines of what we think happens in developing countries, renders an inability to even conceive why people don't just do what we think rational people would do in an ordinary world.


down the way from me, there's a nuclear reactor built on what was later to be revealed a fairly active fault-line. now, no one in their right mind disputes that the fault is going to stay stable forever. we all anticipate it cracking the foundation of he reaction chamber. we all know it "could" happen, just not exactly when. but the reactor is still running. and people still live nearby. and a large...HUGE...port that our nation's economy depends on is at risk. so far nothing is being done. so we can sit here and wonder, when it goes, who the hell should be responsible. but when things of a critical nature happen to our nation, the buck is supposed to stop at the president...do you agree with me?

Boy. . This sounds a lot like the famous statement "it depends on what your definition of "is" is." I railed on Clinton for saying that then, and I'll rail on you for saying this now.


Anticipation does not require that the anticipated event actually come true. I can anticipate that it will be cloudy tomorrow. This does not make me a liar if the sun comes out.

Suggesting Bush lied about this is not suggesting that he and those who warned him knew that what actually happened was going to happen and they purposely did nothing. It is suggesting that he and those who warned him knew that what actually happened was likely, and in fact the closer the storm got had a very high probability, of happening, and they purposefully did nothing to prepare for that eventuality.


Destruction was anticipated. Trying to wiggle out of that by redefining anticipation is beneath you.

But even if you were correct about that, if you know that the hurricane COULD devastate the Gulf, wouldn't it be kinda prudent to have resources in place to deal with the problem if it DOES happen? If I think leaving a lit candle in my kid's room could result in him knocking it over and setting the drapes on fire (even though this event might NOT happen) would it not be wise for me to remove the candle or, at the very least blow it out?


I have never had my left ear burned off by a blowtorch, but I can still anticipate that if I hold a blowtorch up to my left ear, it will burn off. The neat thing about human beings is that we've got these big brains that allow us to draw logical conclusions about likely events. We don't have to actually experience something in order to make deductions about its consequences. You post here, and therefore you presumably have not been run over by a Mack truck while lying in the street. But that does not mean that you do not understand that lying in the street in front of a speeding Mack truck would be a bad idea. You predict. . .anticipate. . the consequences of lying in front of a speeding Mack truck and, discerning that those consequences would be bad for you, you avoid doing it.


You're attempting to redefine the term "anticipate," yet you accuse others of playing semantics?

No one has said Bush is satan personified. They have said Bush was less than honest about his understanding of the hurricane before it hit. He has said many times that he had no idea it could be that bad, and that's why the resources werent' in place to help out afterwards. This video shows that those statements are not accurate.



And even if we accept your argument that Bush did not lie because of your semantical redefinition of the word "anticipate," don't you think Bush is being less than forthcoming by not then admitting "of course, while I didn't anticipate it I was told many times that it COULD happen and I flat out ignored it."

One thing to consider in all this, is the incorporation of FEMA into the dept. of homeland security. In past Hurricane scenarios it seems the response was far more coordinated, and certainly more effective. I personally dont know if this is because of the change in leadership, more red tape, of just a cooincidence, but something seems to have changed in the way FEMA operates.

Exactly. Levee breaches have been at the top of the federal disaster plans for years now, and administration after administration at the federal, state and municipal levels have failed to take action.

But yes, this is another lie from dubya. At this point, i think people just shrug their shoulders when he does that.

You know, Clinton lied and got impeached for it. The only casualty in his situation was a dress. The difference is, Clinton was under oath. That IS a difference. Lying is immoral and slimy, but it's only illegal if it's done under oath.

Even so, there's no defending this. Bush's approval ratings reached a new low this week (a CBS poll that ended 2/26 had him at 36%). I just don't see any way to for the administration to climb out of the hole that they've dug. The sharks on both sides of the aisle smell blood, and they're not going to stop until they've torn Bush apart.

the goofy thing about this whole situation is that none of it was or is necessary: the bushpeople did not adequately respond to warnings they recieved (and on video), they watched on tv as the worst scenario unfolded, were slow and inadequate, as an administration, to respond, etc etc etc.

when machiavelli talks about the prince, the manner of getting to power is secondary. however you get there, mr. prince, you are there and you need to act.
the main category around which the whole theory of action on the part of the prince is fashioned is "vitu"--which means many things---some are inward (strategic acumen, tactical efficacy, the ability to think in instrumental terms), some are attributes that would be accorded by the publc as a function of successful manipulation of opinion (manliness, purposefulness, etc.) and some are a function of appearing to control situations (luck).

this administration has none of these working for it at this point.

the neocons like to quote machiavelli--the prince is one of those texts that enables them to imagine that their planless, formless mode of thinking about the exercise of power amounts to a realpolitik.
on that basis they like to claim for themselves the cateogry of "realist" while all who oppose them are relegated to "idealism"
you see this often enough.

but it is funny how political history seems to work itself out: how often illegitimate powers find themselves confronted with no luck. everything that happens turns out to be the worst scenario. or nearly.

Having been in the path of a few hurricanes, I can say that the FEMA response prior to Katrina was nothing short of amazing.

There were even some measures that took place when Tom Ridge was in charge of homeland that were really confidence inspiring, including funding a networked emergency response system for coastal police, fire and rescue forces. Something towns like the one I lived, a working fishery and blue collar town, would not have been able to afford.

Under Chertoff, that started to change. FEMA attempted to take back a bunch of trailers early both in NC and in FL. They seemed to become more about the procedure and less about the result.

Sorry for the thread jack. I am among those who has a small burst of resignation every time more info comes out that Bush is not doing right by his country.

You know, I just watched the video... And it's pretty clear that what Bush says on the video and what he says to the news camera less than a week later are blatantly contradictory.

On the briefing video, he talks directly to people at the state level... Federal resources are here. We're mobilizing every resource we've got to help you out, both now and after the storm has passed. Advisors are VERY clear with him that topping/breaching levees are a significant concern.

And then, four days after the storm, he looks square into the news camera... and covers his own sorry ass. "Oh, well, we couldn't have known!" First off, as if that was an excuse--over 1000 people died on your watch, bubba, now your job is to be accountable for that. Second, it's a flat-out LIE.

I apologize if this is offensive to anyone, but I'm offended that our leader would behave like that in a matter this serious.

I'm not defending Bush, and am surprised, as is Will, that his numbers took a big hit, compared with the fallout from other of his actions.

To address the point of the thread, was he lying, i,e, intentionally saying something which he knew not to be true? Well, we know it wasn't true. As for his intent, I have to conclude that he knew his statements to be false.

Why would he lie? Maybe he was making a judgment call that there would be less harm in that than in tellling the truth. If he had said flat out "New Orleans is screwed if it takes a direct hit from a cat 4 or 5 hurricane" panic would certainly have followed.
On the other hand, maybe people in the city would have taken the evacuation warning more seriously. The problem with this line of thinking, for me anyway, is that the federal government didn't jump immediately in on the disaster with both feet, which suggests (go figure) Bush and others in the administration didn't have the smarts to figure out what they were dealing with.

However you look at it, New Orleans has been a disaster waiting to happen. Here's a link to an article in Civil Engineering Magazine which ran a few years before the storm. It gives a lot of historical background, and talks about the billions of dollars in expenditures required to put into effect a potential solution to the hurricane disaster scenario: http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ce.../0603feat.html

The following excerpt from it is particularly relevant, as it speaks of the state of affairs commonly known to those, including politicians, having to address the issue:

"In the Flood Control Act of 1965, passed shortly after Hurricane Betsy pummeled New Orleans, Congress appropriated funds to increase the height of the levees around the northern side of the city, where Lake Pontchartrain ominously abuts what used to be swampland but today is suburbia. With help from a meteorologist from the National Weather Service, Corps engineers determined a wind speed and pressure that they felt closely characterized Hurricane Betsy. The work was done before the development of the Saffir-Simpson scale, which today is used to categorize hurricanes. At the time Corps engineers called their approximation a standard project hurricane (SPH), equivalent to what today would be called a fast-moving category 3 storm."

Matthew, you asked "How could anyone have possibly anticipated this devastation when nothing of this magnitude had occurred prior to this?" The answer, as the above article illustrates, is that many people did, and for many years prior to Katrina.

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.....

<p>This is on the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html ">http://www.whitehouse.gov/...</a> website, but it is never quoted....only Condi's similar declaration....months later, gets repeated!</p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
<br>
From the Aug. 6, 2001 PDB delivered to Bush while he was on vacation at his Crawford, TX ranch.....the words that he used all of his presidential powers to attempt to conceal from you.....and from me:

History doomed to repeat? Yes in concordiance with the evidence at hand, Bush has repeatedly made the same lie, and then when things go bad, repeatedly blames others.. (Waits for next "holywar") Any time now.... Bush's reasoning to me is totaly forign, mainly because it follows no nearly posititve outcome for the American People that I can see.

No, look, this is really simple. He lied because the truth ("We knew all about it, have for decades; we saw this particular storm coming and knew the likely consequences, and sat around with our thumbs up our asses, and 1300 people died.") doesn't look good. And looking good is Priority #1 for this administration. (Okay, that's pretty much true for politicians in general these days.)

The lack of integrity that this has revealed is simply SHOCKING.

Even with all the nonsense going on in Iraq, I haven’t thought there was a need for impeachment. I think there was a thread on that topic here a while back, and it seemed ridiculous to me at the time.

Now I really think my mind has been change, not because Bush was caught in a lie – I’m pretty sure that’s SOP for politicians – but because it demonstrates a critical lapse in judgement and demonstrates incompetence. When Bush took office, and when he received a second term, I didn’t really see his being in office as an actual detriment to the country in any large way. Now this, combined with what he knew about Iraq, he’s severed the trust that we will be kept safe in an irrevocable fashion.

The unfortunate thing is that at this point and time, impeachment won’t even be whispered by anybody because of our recent history with that procedure.

If there’s a way that he can be censured, or that a no-confidence vote could be made, I think we really need to do it. This is abominable behaviour on his part, and unlike an oval office dalliance, this affects us all in a deeply trenchant manner.

I think that he would be more effected by a caining than impeachment. We're talking about a spoiled rich kid who's never really been punished and has always had Daddy to fall back on. I blame Bush Sr. for not teaching dubuyuh boundries.

Bush acts as a child, and he should be treated as such.

I struggle with this, because I try, from my subjective point of view, to understand the motivation for behavior. My speculation about a possible reason for Bush's lie is admittedly a stretch, but to me, a lie makes him look worse than to have told the truth(e.g. "I regret to report that all of us, including me, have had our collective thumbs up our asses for decades"). Maybe he just thought that if he lied, he wouldn't get caught (Lord knows my kids have used that reasoning a lot). Either way, I agree with your observation about the absence of integrity, and would only add that this reaffirms the perception of Bush as clueless and stupid.

Well, sure. Who lies thinking they're going to get caught?

His reasons for lying are the same as Clinton's reasons for lying... saving face.

I don't think it's all that complicated.

Both lies were mind bogglingly stupid, though. How completly stupid do they have to be to think they woulnd't get caught?

The presidents word = dog crap.

I remember listening to an interview of a guy who won the state lottery. He said:

"I never thought I would win."

Yet, he bought a ticket.

I guess you can say he lied. And I also guess about 99.99% of the adult population understands it was hyperbole.

This is the Republican Response!? It's telling, by the way, that you would so trivialize a situation that resulted in 1300 deaths and left thousands homeless.

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?

Look: the apt analogy here is, guy KNOWS he's got the numbers that will win the lottery, and rather than going to buy a ticket, he stays at his ranch and clears brush. Except, this lottery could have prevented hundreds of deaths and ameliorated the suffering of thousands.