Even the local talking heads - real self proclaimed experts - on the weather stations weren't sure what would happen! Not even the wizards at the major news networks got every aspect correct. There were all sorts of varying predictions of what could happen where and when.
One could make a case that the dire warnings of disaster that caused the mass evacuation of the Houston area for Rita and consequential loss of life in the process was a "lie" since they "knew" it wouldn't be as bad as they'd heard it could be. Not anticipating the extent of a natural disaster hardly constitutes a lie any more so that overstating the possibilities in good faith. Both may include errors but don't immediately imply lying because things turn out differently.
The President was correct that we did not anticipate the failure of the levee system in New Orleans and resulting flooding after the storm had passed. Many were relieved that the eye of the storm and the storm surge passed further east although not wishing harm upon the residents of those areas. The failure was not anticipated. The response to it was rapid and decisive considering the great difficulty involved.
New Orleans, while harmed, is still fortunate that the storm winds were not stronger, did not directly push a storm surge into their city, and that the levee system of the river has not yet failed. Many others along the Gulf Coast have suffered far worse over the years and even today receive much less attention for the misery they've endured and recovered from.
We need to stop trying to put blame upon the government for what did or didn't happen. People need to start asking themselves if living along the Gulf Coast and on land below sea and river level is worth the risk.
Video shows Bush knew Katrina was going to be bad.
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by The Galatian, Mar 2, 2006.
Page 4 of 7
-
#2. To change the sequence and the words of what was said - and then label it "lie" is to engage in revisionist history. We don't need that kind of "solution".
If the details are of no concern to those who want to make charges like the one above - then fine - but the rest of us should care.
In Christ,
Bob -
In the August 28 video - released to the press August 28 -- we see no prophets!! We see the federal government focused on the problem but we do not see them changing our nations Laws such or removing the local and state governments from their mandated role as first responders.
We also do see them using a crystal ball to say exactly what WILL happen. They seem to be fully aware that this is a hurrican Andrew level event just around the corner. And that is why they release it to the press August 28!!
Get it?
We should be asking ourselves "WHY" didn't the press feel it was "convenient" to air that record of the Federal government being so focused "Ahead of time" on the upcoming event? Why did they wait 6 months to show it??
In Christ,
Bob -
Barbarian points out that Bush lied, about not being warned; there are videotapes clearly showing that he had abundant warning.
-
There you have it.
Those trying to manufacture a way to crucify President Bush need to quit with the vitriolic attack dog tactics and lighten up.
Mike -
Those that are pointing fingers at our President need to look at their hands when they are pointing. Three of your own fingers are pointing back at you. Jesus said, 'Remove the beam from thine own eye and then thou shalt see clearly to remove the mote from thy brothers eye.'
With the same manner you are judging the President, you yourselves will be judged. Will you be weighed in the balance and found wanting as you are accusing the President? -
It bears repeating...
There were questions about the levee being "topped," NOT "breached." Those are two different things. The discussion in question centered around the "topping" of levees (overflow) rather than breeching (the undercutting of support structures).
I've had my disagreements with the Bush administration, but I believe in an honest discussion of facts. And from what we see and hear in the video, Bush did not lie about this. -
Amen, rbell. I do not believe he lied either.
-
It seems not even a video of the president being told that the levees would likely fail would change the minds of some. But in retrospect, there is a way out for Bush, albeit a very unflattering one.
Bush was given specific, direct, and clear warning that the levees would not hold. He told us no one suspected that they might be breached. And therein he has an out.
He was told repeatedly that topping might occur. By more than one person. On tape. It's possible that Bush didn't know that "topping" is the first stage of a breach.
"Most of the levee failures were caused by overtopping, as the storm surge rose over the top of a levee and scoured out the base of the landward embankment or floodwall."
USGS Scientists, surveying the disaster
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2006/01/
Bush sat there, displaying his usual disinterest in facts, and never asked a question. Is it possible that someone in Bush's position actually remain ignorant about such a critical problem during such a crisis?
Yeah, apparently so. Some of his advisors have said that Bush doesn't want to hear facts that cause problems for him, and his staff apparently were not willing to risk his ire over the issue.
Brown himself apparently did everything possible, short of slapping Bush in the face, to get him to realize that the levees would likely fail. But it seems to have made no impression. So it's possible that he wasn't lying. He could actually be that dumb.
Pray for him. And for us. -
Only simple-minded Bush Haters would continue to say that he lied in the subject video when it has been shown time and again that the discussion was related to possible overflow of the levee's not breach. Sadly these people have the same mentality that coined the phrase: "It depends on what the meaning of is is."
-
There comes a point when the one who improperly accuses someone of lying becomes the liar when they're clearly shown they are in error.
-
Interesting idea. Does that work both ways or only when someone is trying to get at the truth about a favored leader?
-
Only a total Bush syncophant would prefer that Bush be incompetent to accepting that he lied.
How could Bush not know that topping the levees would make them fail? His own Corps of Engineers has written entire papers on it. Did he really have so little interest in his job that he didn't bother to learn what the danger was?
Let's assume he's really that ignorant and doesn't know. Any person with any sense at all would ask what the consequences of topping would be. Assuming that they cared.
If he had, he would have learned that breaches come from topping.
Sorry, I'm not buying the story that he's that dumb. He lied. It's his M.O. The video clearly shows that he knew the levees were likely to fail. -
It seems the real motive of those accusing the President of lying about this is not to seek out the truth but to find fault by the twisting of that truth. There's nothing constructive about this!
It's a funny thing about the weather isn't it? All those smart people - even those in the news media who seemingly know all after the fact - still can't tell us exactly what's going to happen when, where, or to what extent. That's why the tornadoes, volcanoes, earthquakes, mud slides, floods, lightning, etc. still kill people and destroy our little creations.
The President, in this quoted words, expressed his surprise and frustration of having the massive flooding occur in New Orleans just at the time everyone was giving - or hoping to give - the "all clear". No one - not necessarily a literal term but a general one - really anticipated what "happened next" after the storm had passed and everyone thought we'd been spared the problem of flooding? Then things went from better to bad to worse.
Have you ever stepped into a ring, fought a fire, checked a suspect for weapons, cleared a village of enemy, etc.? If you have then you know how unpredictable things can be despite all the training, warnings, advise, care you take, or knowledge or skill you have.
-
Government has a proven track record of gaining power control and funding from incompetence but this administration has made a scientific work of art out of feigning it. And great has been their rewards.
-
If you feel better about him being incompetent than dishonest, I can't share your feeling. -
If you feel better about him being incompetent than dishonest, I can't share your feeling. </font>[/QUOTE]Then, you should know better and you shouldn't be making false accusations that the President lied or is incompetent. -
-
And its all because Al Gore was not allowed to underhandedly steal an election.
Amazing.
Mike
Page 4 of 7