PDA

View Full Version : "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees"



d'Anconia
03-08-2006, 10:19 PM
You get where I am going with this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4765058.stm

For starters, I don't quite take our President to be exactly representation of the right side of the spectrum.
Anyway, I could understand the President dealing with larger issues instead of smaller and more specific issues but the fact of the matter is that the broken levees caused a.) lots of damage, b.) lost lives of U.S. citizens, and c.) a lot of money to be spent on stuff that it did not need to be spent on.
I don't even like the idea that the citizens of NO were living there in the first place and want the rest of us to foot the bill for the damage BUT I don't see much of a way for anyone to defend the President on this one.

As President of the United States it is his sworn duty to help protect the American people and he absolutely failed this time to do it. Has the integrity of the office of the President gotten so low that it's okay for them to just blatantly lie to the public about this sort of thing? Where is his responsibility? As far as I'm concerned, a lot of those deaths and wasted money and property are on his hands.

MixmasterNash
03-08-2006, 10:28 PM
Give me a break. It was only the 3rd most critical, identified national vulnerabilty, not the first or second.

But seriously, NO is a pretty vital port for trade and energy (like, for the entire mid-west), to say nothing of culture and the inherent value of a half-million people. And people in So. Cal will cry for help when the big earthquake hits and people in NYC want help when terrorists attack and Iowans want help when it floods. And we give it, gladly, because that's what a country does for itself; otherwise, there is no reason for that country to exist.

estropes
03-09-2006, 07:26 PM
I don’t know, maybe if the local government would have used the federal funds to upgrade the levy’s like they were supposed to instead of pissing the money away it wouldn’t have been breeched…just a thought!

BigCorey75
03-09-2006, 09:07 PM
Everything that happened in NO, no matter how you look at it is ****ed up, yeah the storm was very unfortunate (and i want to slap every single individual who blames Bush for the Hurricane, and im not even a fan of Buch)


but even worse that the storm was the slow response, and now we see that they had the info that the levees would be breached, then on top of that the slow response, alot of people died and didnt have to.


I really hop to see NO back up on its feet once again

Tryska
03-10-2006, 07:51 AM
i have jsut one question....

would things have gone down the same way if it were a terrorist attack?

if yes, then what the hell happenned to all that money that went to homeland security?

if no, then why not?

ArchAngel777
03-10-2006, 11:00 AM
It is all Bush's fault! I heard he was testing his nuclear weapons out in the gulf and caused a shift in the plates that caused this storm! I heard he did it without authorization and the CIA and government is covering this up for him. He wanted to test out to see if he could wipe nations out with natural disasters! He succeeded is wiping out NO! ZOMG! ZOMG! ZOMG! He forgot that NO was actually a part of the USA!

This is the biggest cover up in the history of anything in the entire world and only I know of it and I am passing on this information! Remember, you heard it from me first.

d'Anconia
03-10-2006, 12:22 PM
It's not even that I think it's Bush's fault that Katrina happened. It's that he blatantly lied to the public to try to save his own ass and easily had the power to save a lot of damage and deaths from occuring. It's his responsibility to protect the American people and he failed to do that.

Patz
03-10-2006, 12:28 PM
I would blame Ray Nagin before I blame Bush.

Patz
03-10-2006, 12:29 PM
And let's not pretend ANYONE was prepared to deal with a flooded metropolis...

MixmasterNash
03-10-2006, 12:33 PM
And let's not pretend ANYONE was prepared to deal with a flooded metropolis...

Why not? What have we been doing for the past 5 years? Why have we spent hundreds of billions of dollars on "homeland security," and yet we are unable to prevent the single most likely catastrophic issue that was completely predicted?

Also: Why are you making excuses for the failures of government?

Patz
03-10-2006, 12:45 PM
Why not? What have we been doing for the past 5 years? Why have we spent hundreds of billions of dollars on "homeland security," and yet we are unable to prevent the single most likely catastrophic issue that was completely predicted?

Also: Why are you making excuses for the failures of government?

I didn't say they shouldn't have been preparing for it--which goes back to Nagin. It's his city..it's his responsibility.

I can't help making excuses for the stupid..

BilltheButcher
03-10-2006, 12:48 PM
Why not? What have we been doing for the past 5 years? Why have we spent hundreds of billions of dollars on "homeland security," and yet we are unable to prevent the single most likely catastrophic issue that was completely predicted?

Also: Why are you making excuses for the failures of government?

What happened to the federal money New Orleans has been getting? I understand the buck stops with the President, but how can he micromanage every little thing. You have to depend on the local and state governments, they are the ones that see the levees everyday, they have to know the conditions better then anyone. Instead of screaming racism and crying on TV, maybe they should have taken some responsibility for their shortcomings. Ooops thats right the media can't comprehend anyone beside evil Bush, don't you think it is getting old that the news can't do anything but bash Bush. If he was against the Port deal, he would have been seen as a racist and not building bridges w/ our arab friends. However, since he is for it, he isn't worried about national security. The media has made such a huge deal about this, that everyone jumped ship to protect their own asses.

Is Bush perfect no, is he a good president, not really, is he to blame for every F-ing thing that goes wrong in teh world, acording to Newsweek, the NY times and CCN yes. Why isn't anyone bashing the media darling Clinton for trying to help the Port deal go through? You hear it once and catch it on the fourth page of the news paper.

MixmasterNash
03-10-2006, 01:34 PM
I didn't say they shouldn't have been preparing for it--which goes back to Nagin. It's his city..it's his responsibility.

I can't help making excuses for the stupid..

Indeed, the city is primarily the responsibility of the city. However, I am not a citizen of New Orleans, so I can't force change at the local (or state level). The only level of government that was involved that is accountable to me is the federal government, so I concentrate all of my complaints there. All citizens of the area must hold their local governments accountable, but I am in no position to do so.

However, you overlook a significant fator: The hurricane was much too large to be handled at the local or even state level. This is why the federal government exists: to deal with signficant issues such as national security that a state cannot handle. Furthermore, the federal incompetence was spread across a number of states as well.

And forget the "blame Bush" strawman. No one is blaming Bush for the hurricane. We are blaming him for messing up the federal response, for which he is ENTIRELY responsible as the head of the executive branch of government, and both Bush and Congress for the poor preparation and structures, for which they are entirely responsible. And given that the Republicans control both branches and have been for a number of years, they are ENTIRELY responsible for the piss poor federal response.

Genacide
03-10-2006, 01:50 PM
... Bush is to blame for the mistake to my taxes this year because he is the head of the executive branch of government, and both Bush and Congress for the poor preparation and structures, for which they are entirely responsible. And given that the Republicans control both branches and have been for a number of years, they are ENTIRELY responsible for the piss poor federal response.

- you know, as long as he is micromanaging

Patz
03-10-2006, 02:02 PM
Indeed, the city is primarily the responsibility of the city. However, I am not a citizen of New Orleans, so I can't force change at the local (or state level). The only level of government that was involved that is accountable to me is the federal government, so I concentrate all of my complaints there. All citizens of the area must hold their local governments accountable, but I am in no position to do so.

However, you overlook a significant fator: The hurricane was much too large to be handled at the local or even state level. This is why the federal government exists: to deal with signficant issues such as national security that a state cannot handle. Furthermore, the federal incompetence was spread across a number of states as well.

And forget the "blame Bush" strawman. No one is blaming Bush for the hurricane. We are blaming him for messing up the federal response, for which he is ENTIRELY responsible as the head of the executive branch of government, and both Bush and Congress for the poor preparation and structures, for which they are entirely responsible. And given that the Republicans control both branches and have been for a number of years, they are ENTIRELY responsible for the piss poor federal response.

The only way to truly learn, is to fail..

You need a hobby.

MixmasterNash
03-10-2006, 02:13 PM
you know, as long as he is micromanaging

What do you not get about the chain of command?

MixmasterNash
03-10-2006, 02:15 PM
The only way to truly learn, is to fail..

You need a hobby.

Well, Bush should be a learned genius by now, then.

My hobby is not being happy with incompetence. The rest of the country seems to be catching on, albeit 4-5 years too late.

Genacide
03-10-2006, 02:24 PM
What do you not get about the chain of command?

Surely I can't blame the local government, or even the state government, I want to go right to the top with my blame. .. and look who is at the top.. It just happens to be President Bush.

The levees failing... Bush's fault
The response afterwards... Bush's fault
The response to people complaining about the response... Bush's fault
Some people just want to pass the Buck (Nagin, and the governor)

I frankly blame Bush for the high price of Beef. After all he is from Texas!



- even a insane man can make a good point in his ramblings

MixmasterNash
03-10-2006, 02:33 PM
Surely I can't blame the local government, or even the state government, I want to go right to the top with my blame. .. and look who is at the top.. It just happens to be President Bush.

The levees failing... Bush's fault
The response afterwards... Bush's fault
The response to people complaining about the response... Bush's fault
Some people just want to pass the Buck (Nagin, and the governor)

I frankly blame Bush for the high price of Beef. After all he is from Texas!



- even a insane man can make a good point in his ramblings
Oh geez, you're right! I blame Osama for DHS's crappy performance. And Saddam is responsible for putting an incompetent horse trader in charge of FEMA. Bush is entirely blameless, and surely has neither the authority nor responsibility for anything in the executive branch of government.

Genacide
03-10-2006, 02:37 PM
Oh geez, you're right! I blame Osama for DHS's crappy performance. And Saddam is responsible for putting an incompetent horse trader in charge of FEMA. Bush is entirely blameless, and surely has neither the authority nor responsibility for anything in the executive branch of government.

Ahh, now who is forgetting the chain of command. Saddam doesn't work for Bush, or Bush for Saddam.

.... it also sounds like someone has issues with horse traders, lets explore this further...

MixmasterNash
03-10-2006, 02:38 PM
Ahh, now who is forgetting the chain of command. Saddam doesn't work for Bush, or Bush for Saddam.

They heck they don't. What kind of conspiracy theorist are you???

Genacide
03-10-2006, 02:41 PM
In my conspiracy theory Hilary Rodam Clinton is actually Hilary "Rod like a man" Clinton. Also John Kerry is actully Frankenstein, I swear I saw the bolts in his neck once.

ArchAngel777
03-10-2006, 02:53 PM
In my conspiracy theory Hilary Rodam Clinton is actually Hilary "Rod like a man" Clinton. Also John Kerry is actully Frankenstein, I swear I saw the bolts in his neck once.

LOL

Patz
03-10-2006, 03:06 PM
Well, Bush should be a learned genius by now, then.


I won't disagree with this one for a second.

d'Anconia
03-10-2006, 04:16 PM
I don't even care *that* much about the response to the hurricane except for the warning about the levees. He was warned by several people that the levees could cause a major problem and they were all looking up to him just waiting for him to say something, just anything. All he had to say was like "Ok well let's do something about it", but instead he doesn't say a thing except "we are fully prepared...". Obviously he was wrong.

All he had to do was take responsibility for his miscalculation but instead he decided to go the spineless and irresponsible route and deny that he even made a mistake. I'm pretty sure that's what us people like to call a "coward".

I don't even care about the other mistakes right now, I just don't want a coward and liar in the oval office and it looks like his approval rating is showing that others agree with me on this one.

BilltheButcher
03-10-2006, 09:38 PM
He was warned by several people that the levees could cause a major problem and they were all looking up to him just waiting for him to say something, just anything.

Anyone who lived in that area knows that New Orleans has been below sea level for years, its slowly sinking into the Gulf. Has been for the last hundred years. The levees have sucked for how many years? Through how many administrations?

The response sucked. All around from Bush on down, but giving everyone else a free pass is a joke.

Songsangnim
03-10-2006, 09:59 PM
I don't even care *that* much about the response to the hurricane except for the warning about the levees. He was warned by several people that the levees could cause a major problem and they were all looking up to him just waiting for him to say something, just anything. All he had to say was like "Ok well let's do something about it", but instead he doesn't say a thing except "we are fully prepared...". Obviously he was wrong.

.

No he wasn't. In fact he was told (hours after the leeves were breached) that they were holding. He was given wrong information.

Here's a link that shows clearly who is responsible for what

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/12/210912.shtml

Especially read the first few sentences. Then the first page.

In fact the federal government had earmarked $600 million for vital repairs..but the locals complained about noise and went to court to stop it.

MixmasterNash
03-10-2006, 10:02 PM
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/12/210912.shtml

Tee hee. Newsmax. Ha ha.

Songsangnim
03-10-2006, 10:10 PM
Tee hee. Newsmax. Ha ha.


If you had bothered to read the article, you would have seen that they were referencing the Wall Street Journal.

d'Anconia
03-10-2006, 10:14 PM
No he wasn't. In fact he was told (hours after the leeves were breached) that they were holding. He was given wrong information.


LOL, bro just click on that link in the original post. It shows him being briefed by officials and all that. I don't even know how you can argue against it. I'm not saying that others aren't responsible but what evidence you need to realize that he screwed up and lied about it.

I'm sorry but I just went to the home page for NewsMax and a lot of the stuff there looked pretty ridiculous.

But hey at least we got the Iran issue now to take the spotlight off the Prez. How convenient...

Songsangnim
03-10-2006, 10:19 PM
LOL, bro just click on that link in the original post. It shows him being briefed by officials and all that. I don't even know how you can argue against it. I'm not saying that others aren't responsible but what evidence you need to realize that he screwed up and lied about it.

(1) I'm sorry but I just went to the home page for NewsMax and a lot of the stuff there looked pretty ridiculous.

(2) But hey at least we got the Iran issue now to take the spotlight off the Prez. How convenient...

1. As I said they were referencing the Wall Street Journal. A steel barge crashed through one of the leeves and the others were overflooded. Again nothing ties that to Bush or is his fault. If anything the residents of the Ninth Ward were at fault for stopping the repairs.


2. If the president of Iran had been less of a wack-job then maybe the spotlight would still be on Bush.

Patz
03-10-2006, 10:22 PM
1. As I said they were referencing the Wall Street Journal. A steel barge crashed through one of the leeves and the others were overflooded. Again nothing ties that to Bush or is his fault. If anything the residents of the Ninth Ward were at fault for stopping the repairs.


2. If the president of Iran had been less of a wack-job then maybe the spotlight would still be on Bush.


lol...you forgot "numbers are mine"

Canadian Crippler
03-10-2006, 10:26 PM
Haha, I was thinking the same thing.

Songsangnim
03-10-2006, 10:27 PM
You get where I am going with this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4765058.stm

For starters, I don't quite take our President to be exactly representation of the right side of the spectrum.
Anyway, I could understand the President dealing with larger issues instead of smaller and more specific issues but the fact of the matter is that the broken levees caused a.) lots of damage, b.) lost lives of U.S. citizens, and c.) a lot of money to be spent on stuff that it did not need to be spent on.
I don't even like the idea that the citizens of NO were living there in the first place and want the rest of us to foot the bill for the damage BUT I don't see much of a way for anyone to defend the President on this one.

As President of the United States it is his sworn duty to help protect the American people and he absolutely failed this time to do it. Has the integrity of the office of the President gotten so low that it's okay for them to just blatantly lie to the public about this sort of thing? Where is his responsibility? As far as I'm concerned, a lot of those deaths and wasted money and property are on his hands.

Fine, we'll use your link. It makes my case as well.


Your own link says that the President was warned that water could OVERRUN the leeves NOT breach them. And the final briefing predicted MINIMAL flooding.

So given that the people responsible for briefing him gave him wrong information, I'd say the responsibility is on their heads. Obviously if anybody had even thought that Katrina could have caused a tenth of the damage it did, there would have been a lot more readiness.

Songsangnim
03-10-2006, 10:30 PM
lol...you forgot "numbers are mine"

LOL...I think I've said it enough times for people to remember that, as your post proves. No need to keep repeating myself.:cool:

d'Anconia
03-10-2006, 11:08 PM
Okay I read your article and it's pretty convenient how the eyewitness was a.) un-named and b.) they didn't know who the barge belonged to even though it was supposedly found later. I'm sorry but I find that suspicious.
Your article keeps talking about what 'supposedly' happened without any true evidence or support for the claims. Your article talks as if tons of people had been watching the events of the flooding take place but everyone had either evacuated or were in the dome by that point if i remember correctly.

I mean "barge broke from its moorings" but there's no quotes on anyone who witnessed that happen. The "flooding was instantaneous" but the eyewitness I guess was in a safe place(?). But again the article also just seems to be shifting the blame, which we've all seen enough of already.

BTW strangely enough, in the video in my link it shows the (assuming there was only one point where the levee failed) place where the levee failed and I didn't see any barge lying in the gap as your article stated.

Songsangnim
03-11-2006, 04:20 AM
Okay I read your article and it's pretty convenient how the eyewitness was a.) un-named and b.) they didn't know who the barge belonged to even though it was supposedly found later. I'm sorry but I find that suspicious.
Your article keeps talking about what 'supposedly' happened without any true evidence or support for the claims. Your article talks as if tons of people had been watching the events of the flooding take place but everyone had either evacuated or were in the dome by that point if i remember correctly.

(1) I mean "barge broke from its moorings" but there's no quotes on anyone who witnessed that happen. The "flooding was instantaneous" but the eyewitness I guess was in a safe place(?). But again the article also just seems to be shifting the blame, which we've all seen enough of already.

(2) BTW strangely enough, in the video in my link it shows the (assuming there was only one point where the levee failed) place where the levee failed and I didn't see any barge lying in the gap as your article stated.


1. Well if a barge smashed through the levee, it's a pretty safe bet to say that it broke loose from its moorings. Come on now, barges aren't just left drifting about a river. As for the flooding, if you open up a 500 ft gap, again it's a pretty safe bet to say that, given the height of the river and the size of the gap.


2. I doubt that your video and my article were made at the same time. Your video was likely made later after the barge had been removed.

If that's all you've got those are VERY weak objections. As for the source, the article is using the Wall Street Journal's article as its source.

d'Anconia
03-11-2006, 12:29 PM
Hmmm actually I did a search and it looks like you're actually right on this one. I'm wondering why it hasn't gotten more publicity though. In a USAToday article they were saying that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against the owner of the barge and they also had a pic of the barge still halfway in water and all. There was one engineering professor that said the barge may have come in after the levee was already broken but... he's a professor at Berkely LOL.

I just wonder why Bush and his admin haven't brought this up. He certainly doesn't seem to be good at defending himself.

Tryska
03-13-2006, 08:30 AM
And let's not pretend ANYONE was prepared to deal with a flooded metropolis...


but the things is - those assfaces HAD been preparing for just this scenario:

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease_print.fema?id=13051

so what the hell happenned?

BCC
03-13-2006, 09:21 AM
i have jsut one question....

would things have gone down the same way if it were a terrorist attack?



Where I'm from terrorists can't make hurricanes, only GW.

BilltheButcher
03-13-2006, 10:22 AM
Hmmm actually I did a search and it looks like you're actually right on this one. I'm wondering why it hasn't gotten more publicity though. In a USAToday article they were saying that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against the owner of the barge and they also had a pic of the barge still halfway in water and all. There was one engineering professor that said the barge may have come in after the levee was already broken but... he's a professor at Berkely LOL.

I just wonder why Bush and his admin haven't brought this up. He certainly doesn't seem to be good at defending himself.

Why didn't the beheadings get more publicity, why doesn't the economy and unemployment rate get more press, etc.etc. Because it isn't anti-bush. Its just sad that the two best of best were Bush and Kerry. Any other vote not for either of those two was a throw away vote.

trunksy
03-28-2006, 07:38 PM
Where I'm from terrorists can't make hurricanes, only GW.

I think he's talking about something else. I can't speak for him but I think he's being critical of Bush's single-thought will fit in his head at a time, mentality. And right now, he has terrorist on the brain and can't seem to think of anything else. He's saying that because it didn't fit into his all encompassing "you're either with us or against us" mentality (mother nature is neutral), it wasn't important enough for Bush to get his hands dirty with. I'm so done with Bush's Axis of Evil religious bullcrap. Then again, I'm agnostic.

For the folks that are critical of just Bush or just the local government, the Presidential Report on Katrina seems to think that there's more than enough blame to go around:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/reports/katrina-lessons-learned/

I hate when people read a snippet on something, believe all the connotations of that article and instantly become experts on the subject without actually going out and researching the subject even a little. I don't claim to know the answers but at least I look for somewhat comprehensive perspective and not just a single snippet of information. As the report linked above states, blame can be placed at all levels of government to the localities all the way up to Bush. Specifically, toward Bush in terms of the creation of a "fog of war" that created all kinds of problems for FEMA long before Katrina. From the increased beaurocracy and confusion of DHS between the White House and FEMA to funding and personnel(knowledge) that had been diverted to DHS to the point where 7 out of 10 FEMA regions had acting directors that were pulling double duty as deputy directors and acting directors and 3 out of 4 divisions in FEMA HQ having acting directors that were pulling double duty as deputy directors and acting directors like the regional offices. It's all in the report. You're welcome to read the report in the link above if you're really interested on knowing about the government's response to Katrina. There's also lots more stuff that you can look up through Google if you so desire.