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.

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.

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.

But there is an honest way to describe the LA Times reporting on this "new revelation" BushLied video: Dishonest, inaccurate and misleading.

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.

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?

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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?

http://impeachblanco.org/images/i-need-buses.jpg

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Well at least they got around to correcting their error.

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.

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.
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:
I agree with you that the AP is "the enemy".....on March 2, the "naughty" AP reported that
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.....
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.

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.

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, 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.

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...

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.

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.

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, I'm sure he knows how to use a dictionary.

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?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/spec...tml?page=2&c=y

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....
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>

I hear he took a leak too. :rolleyes:

Ever been in a long meeting host?

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.

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.

I fail to see why anyone is shocked, surprised, apalled, or otherwise. Polititians lie. It's as simple as that. They lie. Get over it. And ya know what else? It doesn't matter whether it's the Democratic, Republican, Liberatrian, Bull Moose or the Know Nothing Party. If a lie will possibly cover their ass...they're gonna.

Ain't nobody here got a moral leg to stand on, either. Clinton lies, under oath, about something as pathetically ridiculous as a jizz stained dress...and the Republicans are outraged. (Yeah...right.) Now...Bush lies (although there is that whole thing about semantics), lots and lots of people die...and the Democrats are outraged. It's like a poorly written sitcom, that deserves its bad ratings.

Oh...and remember when the paper boy swore that he threw your paper on the front porch...and you found it later in the hydrangeas? Ya know what? He lied. Yup...lied straight to your face. Don't give him too much crap about it, though. That kid's gonna grow up to be the President of the United States. Then you can say; "Y'know...I remember the first time I caught that son-of-a-bitch in a bald faced lie."

Fine and good but Bush didn't lie in this case, so its all moot, typical political crap.

Perhaps not...but he sure as hell didn't tell the truth, either.

ok, so i dont get this thread at all:

first, i think that cowboy george needs to be held accountable for the massive fuck-up that was the federal response to katrina. period.
i do not see how, in any rational world, holding bush accountable for a fuckup of that magnitude can be reduced to the question of whether, in a particular press conference, or in any series of press conferences, he lied or not--fact is that this debacle followed from structural incoherence.
i think that questions about potential misuse of funds that were previously allocated for levee work should be investigated.
i think that state and local officials should also feel their feet being held to the fire over this.

this should not be a partisan affair
if you think about it, katrina posted problems for the entire governmental apparatus and the tacit arguments for legitimacy that rest on functioning infrastructure and/or service delivery, particularly service delivery in a natural disaster context.

so i see little more than damage control in all of this debate, including the reduction of what is at issue to the question of whether bush personally lied--which diverts things into the truly insignificant space of what goes on in the mind of the Leader, whether he knows he is lying or not, blah blah blah.

functionally, this is no different from how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

smooth's post earlier is interesting, and so as one would expect, it goes unremarked.
let us assume, then, that this entire nondebate operates within a framework of damage control.
that is, the whole of it is diversion.
to talk about what this fiasco points toward, you would have to talk about the nature, extent and brutality of class relations in the united states.
but no-one wants to do that--not the extreme right, not their partners in reaction in the democratic party--no-one wants to talk about that because it points to structural problems with the form of capitalism that the americans have inflicted upon themselves.
and for the far right, that discussion is impossible because capitalism is for them an unqualified good.
for the democrats, who differ from republicans only on questions of tactics, the same basic assumption obtains.

so what is the function of this debate, if coherent addressing of problems is excluded from the outset?

maybe smooth is right--that, in a perverse way, this is functional from the viewpoint of far-right politics in that it undermines the service-delivery functions of the state while leaving its police functions undebated--this from an ideological perspective.
of course, the right generally gets to make its arguments about the irrationality of the state in a vacuum (a polite way to refer to limbaugh and the horrifying rabnge of sub-limbaughs)--which is functional in that it enables the petit bourgeois listening public to pretend that nothing really is at stake in this matter, that one need only adopt an abstract position on the service-delivery functions of the state based on (truly idiotic) assumptions about bureaucracy and the public.
the fact of the matter is that the redistrubution of wealth--direct and indrect--is central to the political legitimacy of all capitalist states. neoliberal economic ideology is predicated upon this at the level of assumptions, even as it argues against such service delivery functions in the interest of increasing the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

so katrina revealed real problems---deep problems---structural problems--- system problems.
better to worry about whether george w bush lied or not.
the alternative is beginning to face the reality of the american economic order.
and if you think within the tiny orbits layed uot for you by the existing political formations in the states, you do not want that.

If all you have is a hammer, the whole world seems like a nail.

My guess is this thought applies to Marxists as well. If all is due to class conflicts, that is what must be at the heart of all situations.

hmm, an Ustwo double-whammy special: ad hominem layer cake topped with a truism.

for a long time, there was no real barrier that prevented folk who identified as conservative from seeing that there were systemic problems with capitalism as a mode of production (look it up)...differences between conservatives and other folk tended to play out across types of responses--conservatives preferring to advocate positions that maintained the status quo becuase in doing that they defended their own position--other advocated responses that may have requried more effort/disruption. with this older-school form of conservative, there was the possiblity of discussion about issues.

an example of old-school style conservatism: for many conservatives from brazil--say--there is no problem with admitting class stratification--at times there is no problem with admitting the injustices that follow from this--but they, in the main, support the police in this context because the poice defend the order that is because it is and for no other reason---and these folk benefit materially from that order---so they have every interest in seeing that order continue.

contemporary american conservatives--those shaped by the populist idiocy of the limbaugh school, directly or indirectly--cannot even bring themselves to admit that there are problems with capitalism. if you mention the problems you are a marxist or a pinko.
so it is no wonder the administration now in power, which wraps itself tight in the blinkered little world of contemporary conservative ideology, is so thoroughly incompetent. they prefer to not see problems...like the need for a plan in iraq--or the need for a coherent response to katrina.

i did not previously accord enough respect to old-school conservatism because i understood their tactics as reactionary. but now, i kind of miss them. in comparison with the kind of tripe you see from this administration, what you hear on right media and what you see in here from folk like yourself, ustwo, they seem paragons of lucidity.