Defending the Truth

Dylan · 03-05-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan

I'm not necissarily opposed to having a strong federal government, as long as it stays out of my private life.

I don't see getting bailed out of a flood/hurricaine/tornado/whatever as part of my private life.

Isn't it part of your "private life" if a Federal Agent - FEMA or otherwise - comes into your house and says, "You ARE leaving, and you're leaving RIGHT NOW - whether you like it or not."?

Again... I'm not defending FEMA, nor excusing their ineptitude in the New Orleans debacle. But what most people expect them to have done would have been micromanagement. And that is NOT building on the principles of the Constitution.

FEMA wasn't supposed to do that. I was under the impression that most of the disaster was the result of the federal government not paying to fix the levies, and then no one paying for buses so the poor people who don't own cars could get out of town.

I also don't think it's time to quibble about the principles of the Constitution when your home and all of your posessions may be swept away.

My point about the constitution was ONLY that it is there to help protect state's rights.

As for New Orleans... The busses were available to evacuate the people would couldn't get out of the city. The city has how many Transit bus drivers?

Nagin COULD HAVE, and SHOULD HAVE used those busses to evacuate people. Period.

Had Nagin done that, FEMA would STILL have screwed up. But people wouldn't have died, because they would have been out of the flood.

I think a hurricaine counts as "clear and present danger," and justifies federal intervention in a state's business.

ZX3 · 03-05-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Jefferson, you are arguing something very much off topic. The point is Bush was informed before Katrina that the levees would not withstand a CAT 5 hurricane. Yet after the fact Bush speaks to the media and says he didn't know that the levees would break.

Flat out lie. He was informed to the contrary and the lie was caught on tape.

No. He was told that Lake Ponchitrane might spill over the top of levee, not that they would fail. And the tape shows Max Mayfield saying nobody knows exactly what would happen- which is what Bush said.

ZX3 · 03-05-2006, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Jefferson, you are arguing something very much off topic. The point is Bush was informed before Katrina that the levees would not withstand a CAT 5 hurricane. Yet after the fact Bush speaks to the media and says he didn't know that the levees would break.

Flat out lie. He was informed to the contrary and the lie was caught on tape.

No. He was told that Lake Ponchitrane might spill over the top of levee, not that they would fail. And the tape shows Max Mayfield saying nobody knows exactly what would happen- which is what Bush said. Because the levees were not designed to protect from a direct hit from a Category 5, and Katrina did not directly strike New Orleans, and that had been forecast when Bush received the briefing.

Jefferson · 03-05-2006, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Jefferson, you are arguing something very much off topic. The point is Bush was informed before Katrina that the levees would not withstand a CAT 5 hurricane. Yet after the fact Bush speaks to the media and says he didn't know that the levees would break.

Flat out lie. He was informed to the contrary and the lie was caught on tape.

You're just full of it!

Bush was informed - by the Civil Engineers - that a Category 5 MIGHT cause a hole in a levee and/or spill over one.

Note the word "MIGHT".

And Bush was correct in saying that nobody knew the levees WOULD break.

But it really doesn't matter. In your tiny little mind, Bush is the scapegoat for literally everything that is wrong in the world - past, present and future. Enjoy the pie.

Jefferson · 03-05-2006, 02:06 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...01.shtml?s=icp

Bush Didn’t Lie About Levee Breaching

Friday, March 3, 2006 11:54 a.m. EST

News sources have reported that President Bush lied when he said he wasn't warned that the levees in New Orleans could be breached during Hurricane Katrina. But a videotape of a key meeting between Bush and hurricane officials supports the president’s contention that the breaching of the levees was unanticipated.

On September 1, four days after Katrina struck, Bush said: "I don't think anybody anticipated a breach of the levees."

The Associated Press on Wednesday claimed that "federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees."

The Democratic National Committee attempted to make political hay out of the AP report, stating that "during the briefing, National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield told the president that the integrity of the levees was 'a very, very grave concern' that the president appears to have ignored."

However, the tape shows that what Mayfield actually told Bush was: "I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not, but that's obviously a very, very grave concern."

Mayfield told NBC News on Thursday that he warned only that the levees might be topped – that is, the storm surge could push water over the top of the levees – not breached, and that on the many conference calls he monitored, "Nobody talked about the possibility of a levee breach or failure until after it happened."

Mayfield even told Bush: "The forecast now suggests that there will be minimal flooding in the City of New Orleans itself."

The Washington Times, commenting on what it called a "hit job" on the president, opined: "If it were true that Mr. Bush heard predictions of levee breaches before the storm hit, then that makes a despicable and costly lie of his statement four days after the hurricane.

"The truth, instead, is that no adviser warned the president of the possibility that the levees could fail. Of course, it makes a juicier story to suggest that the president was warned."

Dylan · 03-05-2006, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/3/120101.shtml?s=icp

Bush Didn’t Lie About Levee Breaching

Friday, March 3, 2006 11:54 a.m. EST

News sources have reported that President Bush lied when he said he wasn't warned that the levees in New Orleans could be breached during Hurricane Katrina. But a videotape of a key meeting between Bush and hurricane officials supports the president’s contention that the breaching of the levees was unanticipated.

On September 1, four days after Katrina struck, Bush said: "I don't think anybody anticipated a breach of the levees."

The Associated Press on Wednesday claimed that "federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees."

The Democratic National Committee attempted to make political hay out of the AP report, stating that "during the briefing, National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield told the president that the integrity of the levees was 'a very, very grave concern' that the president appears to have ignored."

However, the tape shows that what Mayfield actually told Bush was: "I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not, but that's obviously a very, very grave concern."

Mayfield told NBC News on Thursday that he warned only that the levees might be topped – that is, the storm surge could push water over the top of the levees – not breached, and that on the many conference calls he monitored, "Nobody talked about the possibility of a levee breach or failure until after it happened."

Mayfield even told Bush: "The forecast now suggests that there will be minimal flooding in the City of New Orleans itself."

The Washington Times, commenting on what it called a "hit job" on the president, opined: "If it were true that Mr. Bush heard predictions of levee breaches before the storm hit, then that makes a despicable and costly lie of his statement four days after the hurricane.

"The truth, instead, is that no adviser warned the president of the possibility that the levees could fail. Of course, it makes a juicier story to suggest that the president was warned."

So... Newsmax is unbiased, while the Washington Post is unreliable?

Oookay.

Jefferson · 03-05-2006, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan

So... Newsmax is unbiased, while the Washington Post is unreliable?

Oookay.

Didn't say that, did I?

But it might do people well to actually read several sources - from both "sides of the aisle".

foundit66 · 03-05-2006, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Jefferson, you are arguing something very much off topic. The point is Bush was informed before Katrina that the levees would not withstand a CAT 5 hurricane. Yet after the fact Bush speaks to the media and says he didn't know that the levees would break.
Flat out lie. He was informed to the contrary and the lie was caught on tape.

You're just full of it!
Bush was informed - by the Civil Engineers - that a Category 5 MIGHT cause a hole in a levee and/or spill over one.
Note the word "MIGHT".
And Bush was correct in saying that nobody knew the levees WOULD break.

That's NOT what Bush said.
Quit rewriting history.
THIS is what he said...
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

They said it was a possibility, so OBVIOUSLY it was anticipated...

Jefferson · 03-05-2006, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Quote:

Originally Posted by hevusa

Jefferson, you are arguing something very much off topic. The point is Bush was informed before Katrina that the levees would not withstand a CAT 5 hurricane. Yet after the fact Bush speaks to the media and says he didn't know that the levees would break.
Flat out lie. He was informed to the contrary and the lie was caught on tape.

You're just full of it!
Bush was informed - by the Civil Engineers - that a Category 5 MIGHT cause a hole in a levee and/or spill over one.
Note the word "MIGHT".
And Bush was correct in saying that nobody knew the levees WOULD break.

That's NOT what Bush said.
Quit rewriting history.
THIS is what he said...
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

They said it was a possibility, so OBVIOUSLY it was anticipated...

It is a possibility that we're going to have a down-pour tonight in my city. But we aren't anticipating it.

Two totally different words and meanings.

Dylan · 03-05-2006, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan

So... Newsmax is unbiased, while the Washington Post is unreliable?

Oookay.

Didn't say that, did I?

But it might do people well to actually read several sources - from both "sides of the aisle".

At least the Washington Post is a real newspaper, with accountability.

You shouldn't question other people's sources, and then present your own as untarnished fact, when they're obviously biased.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode