Report: White House Knew About Levees

barry2952

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
0
Report: White House Knew About Levees

By LARA JAKES JORDAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - The earliest official report of a New Orleans levee breach came at 8:30 a.m., hours after Hurricane Katrina roared ashore. Word of the possible breach surfaced at the White House less than three hours later, at 11:13 a.m.

In all, 28 federal, state and local agencies reported levee failures on Aug. 29, according to a timeline of e-mails, situation updates and weather reports that Senate Democrats say raise questions about whether the government moved quickly enough to rescue storm victims from massive flooding.

The documents were released in advance of a Senate hearing Friday at which Michael Brown, the former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was set to testify.

Brown is widely considered the public face of the government's sluggish response to Katrina. But he signaled earlier this week that he was prepared to discuss his storm communications with President Bush and other top White House officials - a possible signal that his testimony would assign blame elsewhere.

The White House has barred some top advisers and staffers from answering Senate investigators' questions about the administration's response, saying that certain discussions and documents must remain confidential. But Brown, who quit FEMA shortly after the storm and left the federal payroll Nov. 2, is no longer covered by that confidentiality protection.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the president and his top aides were fully aware of the massive flooding - and less concerned whether it was caused by levee breaches, overtoppings or failed pumps, all three of which were being reported at the time.

``We knew there was flooding and that's why the No. 1 effort in those early hours was on search and rescue, and saving life and limb,'' Duffy said.

Shortly after the disaster, Bush said, ``I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.'' He later said his comment was meant to suggest that there had been a false sense of relief that the levees had held when the storm passed, only to break a few hours later.

The Bush administration has said it knew definitively early Tuesday, Aug. 30, the day after the storm, that the levees had been breached, based on an Army Corps of Engineers assessment.

Democrats said the documents showed there was little excuse for the tardy federal response.

``The first communication came at 8:30 a.m.,'' said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., top Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. ``So it is inexplicable to me how those responsible for the federal response could have woken up Tuesday morning unaware of this obviously catastrophic situation.''

The first internal White House communication about levee failures came at 11:13 a.m. on Aug. 29 in a ``Katrina Spot Report'' by the White House Homeland Security Council.

``Flooding is significant throughout the region and a levee in New Orleans has reportedly been breached sending 6-8 feet of water throughout the 9th ward area of the city,'' the internal report said.
 
Underscore the real reason is because there is a Democratic Governor and a Democartic Mayor. Had it been a Republican state, it would have received a better response.
 
Reading the Main Stream media nowadays is like reading the Right Wing Kook stuff ten years ago. It's just relentless.

The question, does this stuff do anything? The press continues to beat these issues to death because they hate the Republicans. They report rumor as truth. But has it really hurt the Republican party?

Not really. It's an overload of nonsense. It turns into background noise.
Even I don't have the interest or energy to respond to it anymore.

So, what does it ultimately do? It just makes the already ill-informed public increasingly cynical regarding government. It makes them less likely to become involved or give a damn. It results in more people getting their news from the Daily Show only.

It's not a good thing for the country or our democracy.
 
Nor is it a good thing for the MSM's future health, which is, in fact, good for America.
 
Calabrio said:
The question, does this stuff do anything?
It does a hell of a lot of damage. Who are you kidding? It takes the 40% of our population that wanders around clueless and brainwashes them with these twisted tidbits.

Then you wind up with audiences similar to the King funeral where all you have to do is say Bush Lied and WMD stands for Weapons of Mass Distraction or Distortion or whatever and people stand up and cheer.

Our country is so stupid it is scary. If you don't think the liberal msm and all of its lies and distortions don't have an effect, your kidding yourself. Only the recent advent of the Internet has given people an alternative outlet to gather information in a unfiltered format so people can make informed decisions.

Let's face it. 35% of this country will NEVER get it. They are hard core Democrats and will always be. Sure the Republicans have a core of 35% also, but I would argue the Right is far more capable and willing to hold their party officials to a higher standard than the Left. The Left is all about winning. Period. They don't care who they trample, who they diss, who or what they lie about. There is no soul and no conscience within that party.

We are fighting over the people in the middle and so far the left has the edge because the media is still in their camp. I have been working with Republican groups to collaborate on attaining a stronger foothold within the mainstream press. A major newspaper, a major network, that would be willing to remove the cloak and expose themselves to be PRO conservative and spell out the conservative message on a day-to-day basis. Even SLANT the news conservative if necessary to offset the incessant distortions that are created hourly by the current MSM. As long as the New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, Reuters, Associated Press, (the list goes on and on) are allowed to spin the facts that reach the majority of Americans, these Americans will continue to be confused and will continue to side with the Democrats if for no other reason that they have not received a truthful opposing viewpoint

There will not be a uniting of the United States for a long time to come. Until the MSM has lost its grip, there will always be a divided America.
 
MonsterMark said:
Then you wind up with audiences similar to the King funeral where all you have to do is say Bush Lied and WMD stands for Weapons of Mass Distraction or Distortion or whatever and people stand up and cheer.

The Left is all about winning. Period. They don't care who they trample, who they diss, who or what they lie about. There is no soul and no conscience within that party.

As long as the New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, Reuters, Associated Press, (the list goes on and on) are allowed to spin the facts that reach the majority of Americans, these Americans will continue to be confused and will continue to side with the Democrats if for no other reason that they have not received a truthful opposing viewpoint

There will not be a uniting of the United States for a long time to come. Until the MSM has lost its grip, there will always be a divided America.

You said a mouthful.
1st)Its "Words of Mass Deception". lol:)
2nd) The Dem party is focused on winning, just like the Republicans were focused on winning in 2000 (Gore won the popular vote) Republicans stole it.
3rd) MSM is non-biased and just reports the spins that are focused as BIG news. Right, Wrong or indifferent, they report it.
4th) There will be a uniting of the U.S. when there is a President who is compsionate enough to stand up to the bigwigs on the extreme right and extreme left. There should not be one published spin, but a varity of view points. That's is the American way.
 
pbslmo said:
You said a mouthful.
1st)Its "Words of Mass Deception". lol:)
2nd) The Dem party is focused on winning, just like the Republicans were focused on winning in 2000 (Gore won the popular vote) Republicans stole it.
3rd) MSM is non-biased and just reports the spins that are focused as BIG news. Right, Wrong or indifferent, they report it.
4th) There will be a uniting of the U.S. when there is a President who is compsionate enough to stand up to the bigwigs on the extreme right and extreme left. There should not be one published spin, but a varity of view points. That's is the American way.

You forgot the part where Bush is actually in league with bin Laden, perpetrating deliberate attacks on the WTC.
 
MonsterMark said:
The Left is all about winning. Period. They don't care who they trample, who they diss, who or what they lie about.

I respect that you're a Republican and you're proud of your party, but the above quote can equally be applied to the Right. The Rights smear machine is just as vicious and dirty as the Lefts.
 
So? Is the White House in the levee repair business? Is the President supposed to hustle down and stuck his finger in the hole?

Where's all the finger pointing for those responsible? The residents of the area, the city officials of New Orleans, the Governor of Louisiana? They live with those levees every day and if they decide to party instead of keeping them in good shape they just learned a painful lesson from the School of Hard Knocks. Did you?

The safety of the area where you live is primarly YOUR responsibility, not the Federal Governments. Grow up, he's the President, not your nanny.
 
mach8 said:
...The safety of the area where you live is primarly YOUR responsibility, not the Federal Governments. Grow up, he's the President, not your nanny.

It does not get more accurate than that. Great statement.
 
95DevilleNS said:
I respect that you're a Republican and you're proud of your party, but the above quote can equally be applied to the Right. The Rights smear machine is just as vicious and dirty as the Lefts.

Can you give me daily examples like I can give you from the left?

No, I don't think so.

When's the last time the Republican Senators treated a Supreme Court nominee the way Alito was treated? Or Bork? Or Clarence Thomas? Hmmm?

Find me ONE EXAMPLE that measures up to that one. I won't be holding my breath.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top