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 2 of 4
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: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. "
Good God, how old ARE you?
NOTIFY: N | 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"
Dreamtrove, you always seem to make very broad, sweeping assertions without ever actually backing anything up with direct evidence or facts. This is not a very effective method of getting your point across or swaying anyone's viewpoints, and as such everyone you speak to is less likely to accord you any real measure of intellectual respect. You also really need to stop spewing out standard rhetoric. Everything you say seems to follow a VERY predictable formula. Honestly, I think you've lost any sense of objectivity or neutral analytical reasoning. Ironically, this is the same sort of thinking you continually condemn in your rants. Time to take a serious look in the mirror.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I certainly think that there is more then enough criticism to go around. I don’t think the events following Katrina were handled as well as they could have been and should have been, by any branches of the government; though I don’t think that was a result of gross negligence or malice for the most part. I think that the Katrina incident was such a huge catastrophe that it stressed the limits of what our national emergency response apparatus can achieve. We need to take the lessons of Katrina and, if possible, find out a way in which we can quickly and effectively respond to massive catastrophes in real time. If a nuclear terrorist attack occurs in a major city, it could be orders of magnitude worse then Katrina. So it behooves us as a nation to come together and try to figure out, NOT who is to blame, but rather what we can do better next time.
Originally posted by cartoon:
Can't explain color to blind people, Finn. In their eyes, Bush is at fault for all of the accumulative wrongs of mankind.
However, I do agree with you that some of the anti-Bush crowd do seem to blindly follow an ideology of Bush hating more then any kind of constructive criticism. Their whole Bush-Cheney perspective, if it can be called that, is one big ad hominem.
And I also agree with you that the first responders must be the local government. You can’t rely on the federal government to respond as quickly as the local governments can. The local government is on the scene; they are there when it occurs and, assuming they continue to be there, they must act with rapid and competent first response. I’m not saying this to criticize the New Orleans and Louisiana government, but I think that the first change we need to make is in this philosophy to rely on the federal government for first response. The US is just not set up that way.
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 Finn mac Cumhal:
However, I do agree with you that some of the anti-Bush crowd do seem to blindly follow an ideology of Bush hating more then any kind of constructive criticism.
The problem- as usual Finn- is that neither Bush nor his supporters ever take any criticism; they just call it an "attack" or say that the person criticizing "hates Bush," basically sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALALALALA." Just like you all are doing now. I'll elaborate:
1.
Quote:
You can’t rely on the federal government to respond as quickly as the local governments can.
and
2.
Quote:
with rapid and competent first response. I’m not saying this to criticize the New Orleans and Louisiana government,
and the doozy,
3.
Quote:
but I think that the first change we need to make is in this philosophy to rely on the federal government for first response.
1. No one expected the Feds to be the first responders, so stop acting like that's the argument. It isn't.
2. Yes, you are saying it to criticize the local and state gov't; anyone who prefaces something with "now, I'm not saying this to..." is doing exactly that. It's a deflection, nothing more, nothing less. You're calling attention to something unrelated to the larger issue in order to make your "team" look better. Anyone that has your so-called "constructive criticism" in mind is shunted off by that, as you try and pin the blame on the donkey instead of seeing what went wrong on the Fed level. Did the locals screw up? Yes, but a hurricane hitting NOLA like that is something above and beyond what even the best local response can handle - that's why we HAVE a federal response in the first place, and the feds screwed the pooch.
3. THEN, after your failed attempt at deflection, you ignore the fact that the gov't sat on their hands after it was declared a disaster (which was even BEFORE the damn thing hit in the first place); were warned the levees would OVERFLOW (happy, AURaptor? Finn?) then acted surprised when NOLA flooded; sat on their hands during, relying on the paper for info about where refugees were and conditions(remember that quote? I can't remember if that one was Chertoff or Browne); Bush played guitar in Cali and had cake with McCain then did a flyover after a few days, another of his little vacations, instead of being down on the ground where he should have been; then, they mismanaged the supplies getting in to NO (ice trucks anyone?), and have since mismanaged recovery relief (housing and monetary dispersement).
Seriously, explain to me how the Feds should be completely absolved of any wrongdoing in this, because as we all know, it was entirely the locals' fault. No one is blaming Bush for the weather, we're blaming Bush for the half-assed government response.
I'll bold this, Finn, so you get the full thrust of the point I'm making. The role of the federal government is partly to handle problems too large for the state and local governments to handle. When the federal government screws that up, there's a serious problem, and the buck stops with the man in charge.
------------------------------------------
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:I think that a lot of people do, including you.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
1. No one expected the Feds to be the first responders, so stop acting like that's the argument. It isn't.
Quote:But I thought you just said that no one expected the Federal government to be the first responders? Now you’re saying that the federal government should be the first responder when the local governments can’t handle the problem? First of all, if the local governments can't handle it, what makes you think the federal government can? The federal government is just another government, just further away. To say that the state and local government is absolved of responsibility because the federal government should have come in to manage a crisis that was beyond the scope of the local government is to not only demand that the federal government be the first responder, but to assign impossible expectations on the federal government.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Yes, but a hurricane hitting NOLA like that is something above and beyond what even the best local response can handle - that's why we HAVE a federal response in the first place, and the feds screwed the pooch.
Quote:When did I say they should be completely absolved of any wrongdoing. Show me where I said that? What I actually said was that there was more then enough criticism to go around.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Seriously, explain to me how the Feds should be completely absolved of any wrongdoing in this, because as we all know, it was entirely the locals' fault. No one is blaming Bush for the weather, we're blaming Bush for the half-assed government response.
Quote:And President Bush said exactly that the buck stops with him. He took responsibility as he should as the head of the government. But that’s meaningless. That gets us no where, except right back where we started, with you claiming that the federal government should be the first responder, when they clearly cannot do that. What about the events during Katrina makes you think that they can? Our system of government is a federal republic, and it is designed that way so that the local government is on the scene and not a thousand miles away in Washington, DC. Are you actually suggesting that we should have a temporary change of governance right in the middle of a major disaster? You’ll spend half your time changing over jurisdiction when you should have people out there dealing with the crisis. This is exactly what I’m saying we need to change.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I'll bold this, Finn, so you get the full thrust of the point I'm making. The role of the federal government is partly to handle problems too large for the state and local governments to handle. When the federal government screws that up, there's a serious problem, and the buck stops with the man in charge.
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
Hayward,
Not really out to convert anyone, just sounding off.
Just ignorant savage me.
Finn,
My sister worked for the AP. It seemed pretty much an integral part of Capital Hill to her. Even if I didn't know that, anyone reading the result could see that it was just by reading it. Besides, it's common sense. An institution that close to people on the Hill are not going to tick them off. It would be a dumb thing for them to do. You're never going to see the AP with an all out assault on the executive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
However, I do agree with you that some of the anti-Bush crowd do seem to blindly follow an ideology of Bush hating more then any kind of constructive criticism. Their whole Bush-Cheney perspective, if it can be called that, is one big ad hominem.
As a hater of Bush, well I agree that the left has this virile unnatural hatred of the right based on nothing but lefties talking to lefties and repeating lies such as 'the nazis were a right wing party' or 'empires are right-wing' or 'wars are a right-wing thing' to one another and then never talking to an actual conservative - Bush hating is something else.
If I loved Bush today, I would still hate him tomorrow because of something else he would do. About Bush. Pretty much ideologically, his administration is Trotsky-inspired, and the fact that Blair just admitted his was, and there's almost no discernable difference between the two, I think that supports my argument. I agree with you on Alito and Roberts being good choices for the bench, but they were the choices of Arlen Specter and the members of the Senate Judiciary. Bush made it known that his own choices were Miers and Gonzalez, who would have been disasters. Fortunately neither ever came to a vote. Just because Bush is a disaster doesn't mean the Senate GOP is. But just because the Senate GOP does its job doesn't mean that Bush isn't a disaster.
I'm really daily forced to re-examine the situation, as every new disaster unfolds. Stalwart Bush supporting isn't stalwart at all, because Bush is not a stationary position but a rapid trip over a waterfall. Whether or not Bush is better than a democrat isn't really the point.
I mean, sure, objectively, he's still batter than Kerry, but again, that's like thinner than Michael Moore. I feel confident now that he's not better Feingold, I'm not certain that he's better than Dean, even though there's a possibility Dean is an idiot. I guess, it's theoretically possible to have a better democrat. Maybe.
But as republicans, we can do a lot better than Bush, which is sort of the point. We control the entire govt., as a party, and thus we are guaranteed to pick the replacement. That position is put into jeopardy by the constant disaster known as Bush. Bush is so amazingly unpopular 66:34 that he is going to cause democratic party upsets in '06. I'm actually suspicious enough to think he might do it intentionally, the way he undermined Pirro to support Hillary. (Someone today just told me again about page-10-gate as if it was a 'boy that woman has no business running for public office' wow-the media does spin.)
Or it could just be incompetence, but anyway, assuming there's more Bush fumbles, and democrats win big in '06, we could get a democratic SotH who the democrats would then try to make president by impeaching Bush. Given that only 34% of the people support Bush, and that feeling in the Senate is far more hostile towards Bush, and growing daily, it's either get rid of him today for Hastert or someone of the GOP's choosing, or face the possibility of president Pelosi.
Okay, that last was too far. If democrats had backbones, they could easily make it happen, but they don't. They're fish. Instead they'll do nothing and hold out for President Hillary. And oh yeah, win. Not because she's popular, but because the system is seriously I've been trying to reel in these rants. I guess my point is Bush-hating is not a position of ideologic irrationality. It's a pragmatic one based on everything he does every day. Or Cheney does, since Bush himself does nothing. Which is preferable. For some people sure. I tend to identify these people by their use of the word "Republican" in certain contexts to me "all that is evil and wrong." Okay, sometimes I use democrat that way, but I try to bring up good democrats when I can. There are others, Leahy, Durbin, Dodd, who I should bring up more. But anyway, some democrats take the position of "But McCain is okay" thus showing that they don't view us as the enemy, just Bush.
I guess, if I want to make a final point a
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
7%,
I don't think you're being fair to Finn. I dont think, correct me if I'm wrong, that he's one prepared to follow Bush over a cliff when the point comes. I think he just thinks of him as better than the competition.
To which I agree, for what it's worth, Bush is better than the competition. As long as that competition is Hillary Clinton or John Kerry or someone from the Clinton camp. While I believe Bush is someone from the Clinton camp, he's a Clinton who has to occasionally bow to republicans (as with the supreme court nominees, or on torture, etc.) rather than a Clinton who has to bow to democrats (very few of whom took Bill Clinton to task for committing genocide against the people of Iraq, and croatia or preventing it against the people og Rwanda/Burundi/Congo.)
But I still think Bush isn't up to a level I consider acceptable, by any means, and is not better than the competition from within his own party. An overthrow of Bush/Cheney in favor of McCain or Hastert would be most welcome from my point of view.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Good God, how old ARE you?
Not only is my age irrelevent to the point, I see that you don't even address the facts. How old are YOU?
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
My guess is Auraptor is 45 and works for a defense contractor. But I'm just guessing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME