Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

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


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-01-2006, 04:53 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
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.

Quote:
I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.
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
Quote:
Video Footage Shows Bush, Chertoff Were Warned of Katrina's Potential Impact

WASHINGTON — In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.

Bush didn't ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."

Six days of footage and transcripts obtained by The Associated Press show that federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast.

A top hurricane expert voiced "grave concerns" about the levees and then-Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown told the president and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that he feared there weren't enough disaster teams to help evacuees at the Superdome.

"I'm concerned about ... their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe," Brown told his bosses the afternoon before Katrina made landfall.

Some of the footage and transcripts from briefings Aug. 25-31 conflicts with the defenses that federal, state and local officials have made in trying to deflect blame and minimize the political fallout from the failed Katrina response:

—Homeland Security officials have said the "fog of war" blinded them early on to the magnitude of the disaster. But the video and transcripts show federal and local officials discussed threats clearly, reviewed long-made plans and understood Katrina would wreak devastation of historic proportions. "I'm sure it will be the top 10 or 15 when all is said and done," National Hurricane Center's Max Mayfield warned the day Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast.

"I don't buy the `fog of war' defense," Brown told the AP in an interview Wednesday. "It was a fog of bureaucracy."

—Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" 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.

White House deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Brown discussed fears of a levee breach the day the storm hit.

"I talked to the president twice today, once in Crawford and then again on Air Force One," Brown said. "He's obviously watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the Dome, he's asking questions about reports of breaches."

—Louisiana officials blamed the federal government for not being prepared but the transcripts shows they were still praising FEMA as the storm roared toward the Gulf Coast and even two days afterward. "I think a lot of the planning FEMA has done with us the past year has really paid off," Col. Jeff Smith, Louisiana's emergency preparedness deputy director, said during the Aug. 28 briefing.

It wasn't long before Smith and other state officials sounded overwhelmed.

"We appreciate everything that you all are doing for us, and all I would ask is that you realize that what's going on and the sense of urgency needs to be ratcheted up," Smith said Aug. 30.

Mississippi begged for more attention in that same briefing.

"We know that there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people in Louisiana that need to be rescued, but we would just ask you, we desperately need to get our share of assets because we'll have people dying — not because of water coming up, but because we can't get them medical treatment in our affected counties," said a Mississippi state official whose name was not mentioned on the tape.

Video footage of the Aug. 28 briefing, the final one before Katrina struck, showed an intense Brown voicing concerns from the government's disaster operation center and imploring colleagues to do whatever was necessary to help victims.

"We're going to need everything that we can possibly muster, not only in this state and in the region, but the nation, to respond to this event," Brown warned. He called the storm "a bad one, a big one" and implored federal agencies to cut through red tape to help people, bending rules if necessary.

"Go ahead and do it," Brown said. "I'll figure out some way to justify it. ... Just let them yell at me."

Bush appeared from a narrow, windowless room at his vacation ranch in Texas, with his elbows on a table. Hagin was sitting alongside him. Neither asked questions in the Aug. 28 briefing.

"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," the president said.

A relaxed Chertoff, sporting a polo shirt, weighed in from Washington at Homeland Security's operations center. He would later fly to Atlanta, outside of Katrina's reach, for a bird flu event.

One snippet captures a missed opportunity on Aug. 28 for the government to have dispatched active-duty military troops to the region to augment the National Guard.

Chertoff: "Are there any DOD assets that might be available? Have we reached out to them?"

Brown: "We have DOD assets over here at EOC (emergency operations center). They are fully engaged. And we are having those discussions with them now."

Chertoff: "Good job."

In fact, active duty troops weren't dispatched until days after the storm. And many states' National Guards had yet to be deployed to the region despite offers of assistance, and it took days before the Pentagon deployed active-duty personnel to help overwhelmed Guardsmen.

The National Hurricane Center's Mayfield told the final briefing before Katrina struck that storm models predicted minimal flooding inside New Orleans during the hurricane but he expressed concerns that counterclockwise winds and storm surges afterward could cause the levees at Lake Pontchartrain to be overrun.

"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.

Other officials expressed concerns about the large number of New Orleans residents who had not evacuated.

"They're not taking patients out of hospitals, taking prisoners out of prisons and they're leaving hotels open in downtown New Orleans. So I'm very concerned about that," Brown said.

Despite the concerns, it ultimately took days for search and rescue teams to reach some hospitals and nursing homes.

Brown also told colleagues one of his top concerns was whether evacuees who went to the New Orleans Superdome — which became a symbol of the failed Katrina response — would be safe and have adequate medical care.

"The Superdome is about 12 feet below sea level.... I don't know whether the roof is designed to stand, withstand a Category Five hurricane," he said.

Brown also wanted to know whether there were enough federal medical teams in place to treat evacuees and the dead in the Superdome.

"Not to be (missing) kind of gross here," Brown interjected, "but I'm concerned" about the medical and mortuary resources "and their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe."

Last edited by Rekna; 03-01-2006 at 09:41 PM..
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 05:27 PM   #2 (permalink)
Banned
 
"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.
matthew330 is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 05:43 PM   #3 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by From the Article
In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.
To which Matthew responds:
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew330
it's not hard to come to the conclusion that NOONE really anticipated that.
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 06:22 PM   #4 (permalink)
Banned
 
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".
matthew330 is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 06:26 PM   #5 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
whatever, matthew....

here is a more detailed article on this matter:

Quote:
Tape: Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina


By MARGARET EBRAHIM and JOHN SOLOMON
The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 1, 2006; 6:15 PM


WASHINGTON -- In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.

Bush didn't ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."

The footage _ along with seven days of transcripts of briefings obtained by The Associated Press _ show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster.

Linked by secure video, Bush's confidence on Aug. 28 starkly contrasts with the dire warnings his disaster chief and a cacophony of federal, state and local officials provided during the four days before the storm.

A top hurricane expert voiced "grave concerns" about the levees and then-Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown told the president and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that he feared there weren't enough disaster teams to help evacuees at the Superdome.

"I'm concerned about ... their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe," Brown told his bosses the afternoon before Katrina made landfall.

Some of the footage and transcripts from briefings Aug. 25-31 conflicts with the defenses that federal, state and local officials have made in trying to deflect blame and minimize the political fallout from the failed Katrina response:

_Homeland Security officials have said the "fog of war" blinded them early on to the magnitude of the disaster. But the video and transcripts show federal and local officials discussed threats clearly, reviewed long-made plans and understood Katrina would wreak devastation of historic proportions. "I'm sure it will be the top 10 or 15 when all is said and done," National Hurricane Center's Max Mayfield warned the day Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast.

"I don't buy the `fog of war' defense," Brown told the AP in an interview Wednesday. "It was a fog of bureaucracy."

_Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" 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.

White House deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Brown discussed fears of a levee breach the day the storm hit.

"I talked to the president twice today, once in Crawford and then again on Air Force One," Brown said. "He's obviously watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the Dome, he's asking questions about reports of breaches."

_Louisiana officials angrily blamed the federal government for not being prepared but the transcripts shows they were still praising FEMA as the storm roared toward the Gulf Coast and even two days afterward. "I think a lot of the planning FEMA has done with us the past year has really paid off," Col. Jeff Smith, Louisiana's emergency preparedness deputy director, said during the Aug. 28 briefing.

It wasn't long before Smith and other state officials sounded overwhelmed.

"We appreciate everything that you all are doing for us, and all I would ask is that you realize that what's going on and the sense of urgency needs to be ratcheted up," Smith said Aug. 30.

Mississippi begged for more attention in that same briefing.

"We know that there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people in Louisiana that need to be rescued, but we would just ask you, we desperately need to get our share of assets because we'll have people dying _ not because of water coming up, but because we can't get them medical treatment in our affected counties," said a Mississippi state official whose name was not mentioned on the tape.

Video footage of the Aug. 28 briefing, the final one before Katrina struck, showed an intense Brown voicing concerns from the government's disaster operation center and imploring colleagues to do whatever was necessary to help victims.

"We're going to need everything that we can possibly muster, not only in this state and in the region, but the nation, to respond to this event," Brown warned. He called the storm "a bad one, a big one" and implored federal agencies to cut through red tape to help people, bending rules if necessary.

"Go ahead and do it," Brown said. "I'll figure out some way to justify it. ... Just let them yell at me."

Bush appeared from a narrow, windowless room at his vacation ranch in Texas, with his elbows on a table. Hagin was sitting alongside him. Neither asked questions in the Aug. 28 briefing.

"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," the president said.

A relaxed Chertoff, sporting a polo shirt, weighed in from Washington at Homeland Security's operations center. He would later fly to Atlanta, outside of Katrina's reach, for a bird flu event.

One snippet captures a missed opportunity on Aug. 28 for the government to have dispatched active-duty military troops to the region to augment the National Guard.

Chertoff: "Are there any DOD assets that might be available? Have we reached out to them?"

Brown: "We have DOD assets over here at EOC (emergency operations center). They are fully engaged. And we are having those discussions with them now."

Chertoff: "Good job."

In fact, active duty troops weren't dispatched until days after the storm. And many states' National Guards had yet to be deployed to the region despite offers of assistance, and it took days before the Pentagon deployed active-duty personnel to help overwhelmed Guardsmen.

The National Hurricane Center's Mayfield told the final briefing before Katrina struck that storm models predicted minimal flooding inside New Orleans during the hurricane but he expressed concerns that counterclockwise winds and storm surges afterward could cause the levees at Lake Pontchartrain to be overrun.

"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.

Other officials expressed concerns about the large number of New Orleans residents who had not evacuated.

"They're not taking patients out of hospitals, taking prisoners out of prisons and they're leaving hotels open in downtown New Orleans. So I'm very concerned about that," Brown said.

Despite the concerns, it ultimately took days for search and rescue teams to reach some hospitals and nursing homes.

Brown also told colleagues one of his top concerns was whether evacuees who went to the New Orleans Superdome _ which became a symbol of the failed Katrina response _ would be safe and have adequate medical care.

"The Superdome is about 12 feet below sea level.... I don't know whether the roof is designed to stand, withstand a Category Five hurricane," he said.

Brown also wanted to know whether there were enough federal medical teams in place to treat evacuees and the dead in the Superdome.

"Not to be (missing) kind of gross here," Brown interjected, "but I'm concerned" about the medical and mortuary resources "and their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe."

___

Associated Press writers Ron Fournier and Lara Jakes Jordan contributed to this story.

On the Net:

Homeland Security Department: http://www.dhs.gov/

Federal Emergency Management Agency: http://www.fema.gov/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101731_pf.html
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 06:32 PM   #6 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 06:38 PM   #7 (permalink)
Banned
 
Whatever roach, will. I don't have time for this sort of fucktard (isn't that the word you used?) mentality.
matthew330 is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 06:48 PM   #8 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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.

Last edited by Willravel; 03-01-2006 at 06:51 PM..
Willravel is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 06:53 PM   #9 (permalink)
Banned
 
Everyone stops where they are, or I start handing out one-day vacations. You know better, and you know who you are.
analog is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 06:55 PM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Chicago
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.
__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses
JumpinJesus is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 07:07 PM   #11 (permalink)
Banned
 
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.
matthew330 is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 07:27 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
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.
__________________
"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

Last edited by smooth; 03-01-2006 at 07:29 PM..
smooth is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 07:29 PM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew330
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.
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.
__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses
JumpinJesus is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 07:38 PM   #14 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew330
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.
Matthew, please reread your post. Do you seriously expect an informative discussion to come from this?
Elphaba is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 07:53 PM   #15 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 07:56 PM   #16 (permalink)
Banned
 
"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.
matthew330 is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 08:03 PM   #17 (permalink)
Banned
 
**MOD NOTE**

Two-day vacation for rudeness to another member and perpetuating warned-against attitudes in this thread.

- analog.

Last edited by analog; 03-01-2006 at 08:33 PM..
matthew330 is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 08:29 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
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
__________________
"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

Last edited by smooth; 03-01-2006 at 08:32 PM..
smooth is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 08:45 PM   #19 (permalink)
Baltimoron
 
djtestudo's Avatar
 
Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
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?
__________________
"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 03-01-2006, 08:48 PM   #20 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 03-01-2006, 10:09 PM   #21 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by djtestudo
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?
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?
__________________
"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 03-01-2006, 10:48 PM   #22 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew330
Suggesting that a storm "could" breach levees, is not anticipating that it will.
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.


Quote:
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.
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?


Quote:
How could anyone have possibly anticipated this devastation when nothing of this magnitude had occurred prior to this.
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.


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

Quote:
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.
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."
shakran is offline  
Old 03-02-2006, 02:33 AM   #23 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
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 03-02-2006, 04:57 AM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
highthief's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
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.

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.
__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.
highthief is offline  
Old 03-02-2006, 06:40 AM   #25 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
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.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 03-02-2006, 07:19 AM   #26 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
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.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 03-02-2006, 07:48 AM   #27 (permalink)
You had me at hello
 
Poppinjay's Avatar
 
Location: DC/Coastal VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah
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.
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.
__________________
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 03-02-2006, 12:14 PM   #28 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
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.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 03-02-2006, 09:02 PM   #29 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loganmule's Avatar
 
Location: midwest
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.
loganmule is offline  
Old 03-02-2006, 11:25 PM   #30 (permalink)
Banned
 
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>
Quote:
"For Immediate Release<br>
Office of the Press Secretary<br>
<b>September 16, 2001</p><p>
Remarks by the President</b> Upon Arrival<br>
The South Lawn </p><p>

<b>....No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft - fly U.S. aircraft into buildings full of innocent people</b> - and show no remorse. &nbsp;This is a new kind of &nbsp;-- a new kind of evil........</p><p>
.......Q &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Mr. President, would you confirm what the Vice President said this morning, that at one point during this crisis you gave an order to shoot down any civilian airliner that approached the Capitol? Was that a difficult decision to make?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;THE PRESIDENT: &nbsp;I gave our military the orders necessary to protect Americans, do whatever it would take to protect Americans. &nbsp;And of course that's difficult. &nbsp;<b>Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never.</b> &nbsp;And so, obviously, when I was told what was taking place, when I was informed that an unidentified aircraft was headed to the heart of the capital, I was concerned. &nbsp;I wasn't concerned about my decision; I was more concerned about the lives of innocent Americans. &nbsp;I had realized there on the ground in Florida we were under attack. &nbsp;But <b>never did I dream we would have been under attack this way."</b>
</p><p>
Quote:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&amp;contentId=A9449-2004Apr13&amp;notFound=true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...</a><br>
By Bradley Graham<br>
Washington Post Staff Writer<br>
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A16</p><p>
While planning a high-level training exercise months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, U.S. military officials considered a </p><p>
scenario in which a hijacked foreign commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon, defense officials said yesterday. <br>
</p><p>
Quote:
<a href="http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html">http://www.mdw.army.mil/...</a><br>
Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates<br>

scenarios in preparing for emergencies<br>
Story and Photos by Dennis Ryan<br>
MDW News Service</p><p>
Exercise SimulationsWashington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 -- The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the </p><p>
Pentagon courtyard.<br>
<br>
Quote:
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/17/attack/main509471.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/...</a><br>
'99 Report Warned Of Suicide Hijacking</p><p>
WASHINGTON, May 17, 2002</p><p>

Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council when the report was written, </p><p>
said U.S. intelligence long has known a suicide hijacker was a possible threat.</p><p>
(AP) Exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report warned the executive branch that Osama bin Laden's </p><p>
terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building...... <br>
</p><p>
<B>......"I don't think anybody</B> could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade </p><p>
Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked </p><p>
airplane as a missile," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Thursday. <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:
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US

Saturday, April 10, 2004 Posted: 6:51 PM EDT (2251 GMT)

The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

.......Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York......

Last edited by host; 03-02-2006 at 11:28 PM..
host is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 03:21 AM   #31 (permalink)
Insane
 
cybersharp's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
0PtIcAl
cybersharp is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 08:08 AM   #32 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by loganmule
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.
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.

Last edited by ratbastid; 03-03-2006 at 08:13 AM..
ratbastid is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 08:39 AM   #33 (permalink)
You had me at hello
 
Poppinjay's Avatar
 
Location: DC/Coastal VA
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 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 03-03-2006, 08:57 AM   #34 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 11:12 AM   #35 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loganmule's Avatar
 
Location: midwest
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
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.
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.
loganmule is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 11:27 AM   #36 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by loganmule
Maybe he just thought that if he lied, he wouldn't get caught (Lord knows my kids have used that reasoning a lot).
Well, sure. Who lies thinking they're going to get caught?
ratbastid is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 12:18 PM   #37 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
His reasons for lying are the same as Clinton's reasons for lying... saving face.

I don't think it's all that complicated.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 02:09 PM   #38 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 03:07 PM   #39 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
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.
__________________
"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 03-03-2006, 03:42 PM   #40 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
ratbastid 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 11:05 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