Hey Signym, did ya see this? AP retracts Katrina story on Bush.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, March 6, 2006 02:25
VIEWED: 4303
PAGE 1 of 4
Quote:
AP FRIDAY NIGHT CLARIFICATION ON BUSH/KATRINA VIDEO
Fri Mar 03 2006 19:48:29 ET
Clarification: Katrina-Video story
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.
The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches.
You'll note that the release was Friday NIGHT, which is typically the time releases are made to ensure the least amount of attention in the news cycle. Still frustrated at all those Bush apologist now ? I suppose you'll have to inclued the AP itself now along w/ the rest of us kool-aid drinkers.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You started a whole thread for this?
Bush didn't need to know specifics, breech or over run- can you say FLOOD? This is so not important, only an idiot would even reply to your post.
I mean, uh
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You started a whole thread for this?
Bush didn't need to know specifics, breech or over run- can you say FLOOD?
No kidding- You are aware, AURaptor, that New Orleans sits below sea level, right? What exactly does that tidbit of information change?
A. Bush was warned one way that NO would flood
vs.
B. Bush was warned a different way that NO was going to flood
Looks like a grasp at straws to defend the indefensible, IMO.
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, what is indefensible is the assumption that there is some kind of criticism of Bush at all, implicit in this. To suggest that Bush should have done something other then call for evacuation based on a warning that was neither descriptive of what actually happened nor particularly convincing the day before said event occurred is to elevate Bush’s expected reaction to the level of divinity.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Looks like a grasp at straws to defend the indefensible, IMO.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You started a whole thread for this?
Bush didn't need to know specifics, breech or over run- can you say FLOOD?
...because if there's one thing a president can do, it's control the weather.
________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The AP is run by the govt, and in case everyone is a blind sheep, which saeemingly they are, and missed this not at all subtle fact, is increasingly under the arm of the executive. Actually, it's little more than a state-run propoganda machine. This is not a political statement, but an objective one of pretty obvious fact. The fact that sometimes it criticizes Bush is not surprising, since America is sill a free country. Even Tass sometimes criticized it's govt, as has Xinhua done. In American, even members of the executive have critized the executive. But boggles the mind is that there are voters who refuse to do so.
Bush's handling of Katrina was deplorable. Beyond horrid. Not only did he totally fail to respond in any way which would at all help the people, he spent the time arranging profiteering rings. If someone doesn't see this, they're really not paying any attention at all.
This isn't a partisan issue. For some reason the Busheep seem to be offended by the left placing all the blame on the feds, and yet want to do the same to state and local officials.
But state and local officials were doing the exact same thing as Bush, ie. profiteering, ignoring the pights of the people, etc. Particularly I think they are siezing on the opportunity to make use of Kelo. Whether Ray Nagin is more corrupt than Bush, which I would probably say, sure, he is, but that's really not the point. That's like saying Michael Moore is fatter than Rush Limbaugh, as an attempt to imply that Rush is thin. They both need a little distance between themselves and donuts.
The harsh reality is we've lost utter control of our government. Bush is a disaster, totally corrupt and truly devoid of merit. The only way in which he's really a worse disaster than Clinton is that he fails to cover it up, and so it's in the open for all to see. Clinton had a habit of doing more or less exactly what Bush is getting in trouble for, and getting away with it. For instance, no one has pointed out in this whole Dubai port deal that Clinton sold the ports in the first place.
Contrary to what some of you guys probably think, I used to support this guy. In the beginning I thought he was going to be like his father. But he's not. He's Clinton. Even if he were to be solidly conservative, if he were this corrupt, I'd still have a problem with. But what we've got here is a perpetual run of candidates and elected officials who are somewhere between Marie Antoinette and Czar Nicholas.
What I see when I look at these posts is Merry and Pippin arguing about which Orc captors they like more.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
To suggest that Bush should have done something other then call for evacuation based on a warning that was neither descriptive of what actually happened nor particularly convincing the day before said event occurred is to elevate Bush’s expected reaction to the level of divinity.
Can't explain color to blind people, Finn. In their eyes, Bush is at fault for all of the accumulative wrongs of mankind.
Everyone involved in emergency management knows that responsibility begins with local responders, then state, and lastly the federal government. Although, that could be repeated ad naseum, and still they will fault Bush.
In my opinion, the main fault lies with the idiots (local residents) who didn't evacuate when they KNEW that the city was below sea level and a major hurricane was enroute. The local municipalities were responsible for evacuating anyone who didn't have the means to leave on their own -- and they (the local authorities) failed miserably in that respect.
The federal government could not force people to leave their homes or fix a levee system in the hours (or days) before the hurricane hit. The federal government recommended evacuation, which the local authorities did not properly enforce or enable.
If I built my home on the side of an active volcano, it would not be the government's fault if my home was subsequently destroyed by that volcano. I cannot fathom the mindset of people who intentionally build/live in a city below sea level in an historically active hurricane zone, then willingly ignore evacuation orders when a category 5 hurricane is predicted to make landfall there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Can't explain color to blind people, Finn.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm really here.
After I just indicated that this was the most sheepish thing someone could now post, you do it anyway. Sorry, but B-a-a-a-a.
I'm sure I could dig up countless places where Bush said he was goung to federalize first responders, in fact that he had already done so was pretty much his whole reelection platform.
Quote:
In my opinion, the main fault lies with the idiots (local residents) who didn't evacuate when they KNEW that the city was below sea level and a major hurricane was enroute.
I'm beginning to think I was wrong about you. You might be an idiot. Yes, they were so dumb as to be poor and not have cars. Some were dumb enough to get caught in traffic or turned back by police. How stupid can people be, don't they know when people point guns at you and threaten to open fire that the thing to do is run at them unarmed and hope for the best? I can't understand why they didn't do that. Oh, but then they'd get shot and die. Hmm, maybe black people aren't as dumb as you say.
Quote:
The local municipalities were responsible for evacuating anyone who didn't have the means to leave on their own
Oh really? Shucks. (Really not disagreeing with you here)
Quote:
-- and they (the local authorities) failed miserably in this.
Oh really? Shucks. Well, that's it. I guess Nagin is a corrupt corporate tool, and well, they elected him, or most of them, and so, oh well, I guess everyone dies. I mean, after all, it's not like we have a federal response team, or a dept of homeland security.
Quote:
The federal government could not force people to leave their homes or fix a levee system in the hours (or days) before the hurricane hit. The federal government recommended evacuation, which the local authorities did not properly enforce or enable.
Apparantly not. Apparantly it couldn't do anything at all. Pretty sucky federal govt. huh?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You started a whole thread for this?
Bush didn't need to know specifics, breech or over run- can you say FLOOD? This is so not important, only an idiot would even reply to your post.
I mean, uh
The 2 things are not as similar as you'd like for us to believe. The AP corrected itself for a reason. Try to keep up and pay attention.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The AP is a nonprofit organization cooperatively own by US newspaper and television news networks. As far as I know not a single person who sits on the AP board of directors is a member of the government, but the AP is not run or owned by the government or any member of, and furthermore the AP enjoys the benefits of the Free Press clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution just like every other legitimate news organization in the United States. [1] [2]
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The AP is run by the govt, and in case everyone is a blind sheep, which saeemingly they are, and missed this not at all subtle fact, is increasingly under the arm of the executive. Actually, it's little more than a state-run propoganda machine. This is not a political statement, but an objective one of pretty obvious fact.
[1] http://www.ap.org/pages/about/faq.html#2
[2] http://www.ap.org/pages/about/about.html
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME