noone could have anticipated the levees would breech?

[remo williams]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KATRINA_VIDEO?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=customwire.htm

http://video.ap.org/vws/search/aspx/ap.aspx?t=s60&p=ENAPus_ENAPus&f=FLTAM&g=0301dv_katrina_bush:bash: :bash: ...so let's review..N.O. is fully rebuilt,everyone got a fair shake,michael bron didn't get hung out to dry,but really did a heckuva job,and bush had no idea the levees would/could breech....your thoughts

[Durandal]

I am tired of hearing about it.

A failure all around from the people that live there to the top of the Federal government. Everyone should hope that nothing like it happens

And, umm, can you edit your posts man? Not trying to be offensive, but it makes you appear to be a 4 year old child, bi-polar, or illiterate...or maybe a combination of all three.

[ronin2172]

I have to agree with Durandal on this it was a failure across the board, and Remo seriously your posts tend to be very hard to read...

[remo williams]

sorry typing fast,missing letters...humans make mistakes...but few fix and learn from them...my question is though..why 6mos later this is comming out?

[SeanAshi]

"I heard from a very reliable source who saw a 25 foot deep crater under the levee breach," Farrakhan explained. "It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry." - Louis Farrakhan. Damn Kanye West was right. It's the white mans fault.

[Frogg]

sorry typing fast,missing letters...humans make mistakes...but few fix and learn from them...my question is though..why 6mos later this is comming out?

Is what coming out? I didn't see/read anything that we didn't hear before, during and after the storm hit in the article/video.

[remo williams]

Is what coming out? I didn't see/read anything that we didn't hear before, during and after the storm hit in the article/video.
this news/article as it's been released now.on the news show i watched,it was said that the video of the briefing for the pres/m brown was available 24hrs after they were recorded.which would be the day katrina hit.it's somewhat coincidental that they're being aired now..i wonder if this isn't some political bs because of the unhappiness over the dubai port deal along with the slow reconstruction in N.O. there are alot of unhappy people between the two events.

[Frogg]

this news/article as it's been released now.on the news show i watched,it was said that the video of the briefing for the pres/m brown was available 24hrs after they were recorded.which would be the day katrina hit.it's somewhat coincidental that they're being aired now..i wonder if this isn't some political bs because of the unhappiness over the dubai port deal along with the slow reconstruction in N.O. there are alot of unhappy people between the two events.

I don't know. The article is more just a rehash (to me). Everyone was worried about Katrina, they tried to pre-position help and be prepared, but it wasn't enough (nor fast enough), and assistance organizations were overwhelmed and at times disorganized, etc. I don't see it helping or hurting politically. Aren't hearings still going on (I haven't even been paying attention because I think they are useless as far as solving our emergency response weaknesses). Maybe the article was written simply in response to current/recent hearings. That's all I see.

[remo williams]

it's all old news,but until today i wasn't aware that there were briefings on this until after the storm hit.and on it's face you've gotta admit it aggravates the situation for the pres right now,and gives a little more weight to brownie's recent arguements..

[ElHombre]

Is what coming out? I didn't see/read anything that we didn't hear before, during and after the storm hit in the article/video.

after the flood, bush said in an interview: 'i don't think anyone anticipated the levee's breaking' (or words to that effect). this tape shows a presidential briefing discussing the fact that the levees were likely to break, thus giving evidnece which contradicts the claim bush later made.

in short: he lied.

[Frogg]

after the flood, bush said in an interview: 'i don't think anyone anticipated the levee's breaking' (or words to that effect). this tape shows a presidential briefing discussing the fact that the levees were likely to break, thus giving evidnece which contradicts the claim bush later made.

in short: he lied.

Not at all. His statements were taken out of context. His statements were made after the brunt of the storm passed. Remember the next morning, everyone thought NO was saved and survived the storm without much damage -- and no levee break. The levee break occurred due to a barge ramming into it (or something like that) didn't it?---not from the hurricane. No one expected the levee to break after the storm passed. They thought it could break (or overflow, etc) during the storm.

[ogukuo72]

Of course, none of these addresses the issue of why other tax payers should pay for New Orleaners to continue to live under sea level, and to help to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to build and maintain the sea levees so that they could do that in a hurricance ****e part of the coast.

This "Who's to Blame?" game completely absolves the New Orleaners themselves from any responsibility. They are the "victims". But of course, they made a choice to live in a city that is below sea level in a hurricande ****e part of the coast behind sea levees that could only reasonably be built to a certain strength. They chose not to remove themselves from New Orleans when the storm was approaching. They chose not to move elsewhere even after Katrina had shown how vulnerable the city was.

From here, it seems to me that the rest of US should be angry with the New Orleaners, rather than the New Orleaners angry with the US government!

[Frogg]

it's all old news,but until today i wasn't aware that there were briefings on this until after the storm hit.and on it's face you've gotta admit it aggravates the situation for the pres right now,and gives a little more weight to brownie's recent arguements..

I saw video right before the storm (on FoxNews, I think) of Bush being briefed with a big video screen of the storm on the wall behind him). It looked like it may have been a portion of this very video (just a different part of it).

No, I don't think it affects Bush at all. It is a rehash of news that most people have heard enough on and moved on from. If anything, I think it shows Bush, Fema, etc were very, very concerned and engaged. But, still...old news.

[ronin2172]

Of course, none of these addresses the issue of why other tax payers should pay for New Orleaners to continue to live under sea level, and to help to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to build and maintain the sea levees so that they could do that in a hurricance ****e part of the coast.

This "Who's to Blame?" game completely absolves the New Orleaners themselves from any responsibility. They are the "victims". But of course, they made a choice to live in a city that is below sea level in a hurricande ****e part of the coast behind sea levees that could only reasonably be built to a certain strength. They chose not to remove themselves from New Orleans when the storm was approaching. They chose not to move elsewhere even after Katrina had shown how vulnerable the city was.

From here, it seems to me that the rest of US should be angry with the New Orleaners, rather than the New Orleaners angry with the US government!
Wow if that's the case, while your at it we should blame californians for living in a earthquake zone, oklahomans for living in a tornado zone, People along the mississippi for living along a river that floods. Floridians for living in Florida period. Hawaiins when a tsunami hits...

[ogukuo72]

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. If you choose to live there, buy insurance and make sure your state government and city government had the right contingency plans and capabilities to handle foreseeable disasters. And don't whine and sit back on your butt when disaster strikes - take responsibility for your choices.

[tyovan]

Some people had insurance and got screwed by their companies. Was watching a program about it on CNN a night or two ago. Also, some people didn't have the means to escape the city.

With your attitude, I'm almost hoping that your area gets hit with the next disaster and then that you receive no help what-so-ever because you 'had it coming by choosing to live there'. And you best not be 'whining or sitting on your butt' after it happens. ;-)

[chuckster]

Wow if that's the case, while your at it we should blame californians for living in a earthquake zone, oklahomans for living in a tornado zone, People along the mississippi for living along a river that floods. Floridians for living in Florida period. Hawaiins when a tsunami hits...


To an extent, I agree with you. Everyone has to live somewhere and some type of natural disaster can occur almost anywhere. However, some areas are much worse than others. It is to my understanding that the original settlement in N.O. was above sea level, if just barely. As the city grew, people drained nearby swamps, and the bottom of these swamps were below sea level. It's always foolish to live below sea level in a hurricane zone.

The early French settlers may not have been as advanced as us, but at least they had sense to live above sea level in a hurricane zone!

[Frogg]

Powerline Blog gives some interesting analysis of this article/video:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013290.php

[Miles.]

Wow if that's the case, while your at it we should blame californians for living in a earthquake zone, oklahomans for living in a tornado zone, People along the mississippi for living along a river that floods. Floridians for living in Florida period. Hawaiins when a tsunami hits...

What's funny is that "we" do blame Californians and Oklahomans!! They don't get the type and scale of compensation for natural disasters that these Katrina victims have recieved. Let's not even talk about New York and 9/11, that's the biggest load of horse manure ever...

By "we", do you mean the media at large? Because that's who's shaping this Katrina story... :)

[chuckster]

What's funny is that "we" do blame Californians and Oklahomans!! They don't get the type and scale of compensation for natural disasters that these Katrina victims have recieved.

You got me started. We had a couple of bad tornadoes in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago. No one around here got to post bail bonds or go to casinos on FEMA's money!

[Karmapolice]

We should let the Mississippi river flow where it wants to we should know by now that we can not control mother nature. They have known for sometime or at least geologists have that building homes and property on a river delta is a bad idea. I do feel for the people but I think it would be a mistake to continue on the path of trying to control the river with levies and the reason New Orleans keeps on sinking is because it is basically built on mud and since the river can't flow where it wants to there is no new sediment being deposited in that land area.

[remo williams]

sorta like blaming a rape victim because she was"attractive and looked really good in that black dress." :roll: people do have to live somewhere and they have to be aware of the risk for living in that area.Don't the dutch live below sea level? haven't they invested much time,brain power,and money in developing levee/dyke/pump systems in the event the sea level rises? for them to have skimped on that would be unheard of,but according to some of your arguements if they get flushed,the whole nation is to blame for having not been able to conquer liveable higher ground earlier in their history. Before you freak out,every administration has to date,shortchanged N.O. for levee spending mainly for the simple fact that noone had ever experienced a hurricane on par w/katrina in that area,in a looong time.just like noone ever had the imagination to envision 9/11.Gov't works based on fact(at least it used to).for someone to say there's gonna be a cat 5 hurricane hitting ,for sure, would get laughed at.Not too far from where i live a dam was built and it basically shyte the bed not even a yr after it was built.Why?because it wasn't properly inspected,and people signed off on it just to say it was done.the people whose homes were flooded/washed away didn't get squat until recently,and at that, didn't get nearly enough to compensate them.noone had flood ins because it dosen't usually flood in the mtns.

[ogukuo72]

OK, my reply was probably too extreme. Chuckster had the most balanced perspective here. There are different degrees of risk and different ways of managing them.

If you live in San Francisco - a major earthquake ****e area - then you are at risk from earthquakes. But at the same time, it could be managed by having good building codes to ensure that buildings could stand up to earthquakes.

If you live in Honolulu, there's ways of managing the risk from tsunami as well. When I was at Pearl for training, we were given an excellent lecture by the state government about their plans in all sort of contingencies - including tsunami - and the plans struck me as well thought out. Certainly no one was to be left in the path of a tsunami.

The common thing about these two scenarios are that most of the time, the earth would not quake, and the tsunami waves would not come.

But at New Orleans, the natural state of affairs was that the sea was higher than the city. Only the very expensive levees kept the sea back. Thus, instead of only being at risk, the city was actually constantly in danger. It is like building Pompeii next to Mount Versuvius!

[remo williams]

OK, my reply was probably too extreme. Chuckster had the most balanced perspective here. There are different degrees of risk and different ways of managing them.
such as the duch have in holland.
If you live in San Francisco - a major earthquake ****e area - then you are at risk from earthquakes. But at the same time, it could be managed by having good building codes to ensure that buildings could stand up to earthquakes.

right,but do they get their earthquake proof development funding cut as consistently as No. levee development has?i'm thinking no,since eq's are more than common there.just not to the point you could set your watch by them,but consistent enough.

If you live in Honolulu, there's ways of managing the risk from tsunami as well. When I was at Pearl for training, we were given an excellent lecture by the state government about their plans in all sort of contingencies - including tsunami - and the plans struck me as well thought out. Certainly no one was to be left in the path of a tsunami.

because they had respect for mom nature and have had such things occurr.they didn't let arrogance of "mainlanders" deter them from preparing for something they full well know could happen.

The common thing about these two scenarios are that most of the time, the earth would not quake, and the tsunami waves would not come.

But at New Orleans, the natural state of affairs was that the sea was higher than the city. Only the very expensive levees kept the sea back. Thus, instead of only being at risk, the city was actually constantly in danger. It is like building Pompeii next to Mount Versuvius!

how expensive could they have been if they hadn't been updated in x number of yrs?every admin(not just bush2,clinton,bush1)had cut finding simply because something like this hadn't happened ,at least in that part of the continent.Florida,yes alot more than NO,but to me,it was arrogant to think that a hurricane couldn't strike any costal city,above or below sea level.especially since the suv craze,in large part,has kicked global warming into high gear.at this point to think there won't ever be another cat5 cane' this comming season is fcuking crazy.I hate to say it,but i'll be willing to bet that there will not only be a few more of these,but one or two that surpass rita....hopefully i'm wrong.

[mi35d]

every administration has to date,shortchanged N.O. for levee spending

Actually, President Bush INCREASED funding to the Army Corp. of Engineers to work on levee strengthening. A fact that continually gets forgotten in the "blame Bush" shout fest.

Even if they knew 100% that the levees would break - what could have been done prior to the storm? No one knew the path of the Hurricane nor did they know that the storm surge would rupture the inland canals.

Meanwhile, millions of goverment dollar given to NO for levee and flood diversion projects over the years have been borrowed, lost and outright stolen with the politicians winking and saying, "Huh, huh, Mes Amis - It's the Big Easy." The last big shift of levee money was in the multi-millions; its went to research into Riverboat gambling.

This is a tired, tired argument. The President, within his FEDERAL powers pre-positioned Army, Navy and Air Force personnel to assist after the storm. The Governor of LA and Mayor Nagin did nearly nothing, failed to request help and turned away help when it was offered on several occasions. (Example: Red Cross, Amtrack, transfer to Federal control to allow Federal troops to be used.)

And YES. The people of the city must assume some of the blame for what occurred. Its a running gag that the city is corrupt. The people have had more than enough opportunity to vote out scumbags who misuse money earmarked for public work projects. Years ago when the Mississippi river flooded countless acres of farmland, there was little pity for the farmers because they had purchased the land for mere pennies because it was in FEMA certified flood plains and therefore couldn't be insured. As for California - unless you've got bucks flowing out the ass you can't afford "earthquake" insurance even if you can purchase it.

[ogukuo72]

Even if the money had been properly spent and accounted for, and the levees properly built and maintained up to mark (to withstand level 5 hurricanes, is it?), the greater question is - is it worth it?

It's federal money, so it means that other states are actually subsidising New Orleans to live in permanent danger. It just doesn't make sense to me.

There's another issue that can be discussed here. Hundreds of million of dollar had also been spent to irrigate California, again federal money paid for by others in the US. Does it make sense?

I think yes it does. The key is returns in investment. Because of irrigation and the power generated by projects like the Hoover Dam, California have a huge wine industry. Silicon Valley became possible. California fruits are exported all over the world etc.. There's a thriving economy in California that pumps money back into the US economy.

The same cannot be said about the levees defending New Orleans. What economic contribution does New Orleans actually make towards the rest of the US?

[Asheren]

"I heard from a very reliable source who saw a 25 foot deep crater under the levee breach," Farrakhan explained. "It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry." - Louis Farrakhan. Damn Kanye West was right. It's the white mans fault.

Lol why such kind of BS apear after every major disaster. We had witness that heard chopper that blowed hole in floodwall on polish side to prevent czech from being fooded during last flood of century.

[ViktorNavorski]

Shea Penland, director of the Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of New Orleans, said that was particularly surprising because the break was "along a section that was just upgraded."


Greg Breerword, deputy district engineer for project management with the Army Corps of Engineers:


We knew if it was going to be a Category 5, some levees and some flood walls would be overtopped. We never did think they would actually be [b]breeched.
The Corps themselves did not even anticipated a breech. Flooding was predicted, but from water washing over the levees, rather than breeching it, two completely different things.

[AmericanImperialist]

Its been known there was a danger of this happening for decades. Why did state and local officials fail to act to rectify the situation then? It was not the responsibility of the federal government to do so.

[ViktorNavorski]

Its been known there was a danger of this happening for decades. Why did state and local officials fail to act to rectify the situation then? It was not the responsibility of the federal government to do so.

It was a higher priority for them to spend millions building a new stadium for the Saints than doing anything for the levees.

[Durandal]

it's all old news,but until today i wasn't aware that there were briefings on this until after the storm hit.and on it's face you've gotta admit it aggravates the situation for the pres right now,and gives a little more weight to brownie's recent arguements..

No it doesn't, not at all.

Why is this? Well, for several reasons:

A) The people that blame Bush know, that as Presidennt he probably was briefed and simply dropped the ball.

B) No one cares about what Brown says. The dude is worthless and disliked by both sides of this battle. He FAILED and now he is bitter man trying to had out some of his hate.

C) Most people in the United States, after they have written a check to the Red Cross (or some other similar organization) simply do not care. Lets be honest, most Americans focus on their daily lives and care about as much for Katrina issues as much as they do for the number of dead Iraqis. Like it or not that's the truth.

D) Everybody "responsible" for the Katrina bull$hit has apologized and claimed responsibility for the problems. I have never understood what this means. Its like because they admit the screwed up it makes it better and somehow shifts the blame to some sort of void. It seems to work though, now everything is OK!

"Nothing to see here, please move on!"

[vryhpyammoadded]

I place the brunt of the blame on the people of New Orleans with a logarithmic dwindling responsibility all the way up to the president but, on a separate issue I will not forgive any politician for face saving bullsh*t lies. “No one had any idea” BS! Everyone on down to the locals knew the levees could break in a real hurricane. Worse yet federal money applied to reinforcing them got picked at by corruption.
Dipping into federal project money happens in every state. I’ve seen it happen all too often. If they could ever have a proper investigation, I’m certain it would be discovered that less than 40% of the funds even made it to the levees or vaporized into “cost overruns”.
Katrina’s effects are not mainly examples of Bush’s incompetence. He’s just another pinhead politician dodging misguided criticism from propaganda hacks (media) that should be aimed squarely at the public and there stupid acceptance/reliance of/on a badly corrupted local, state and federal political system. The mayor and the governor should be fed to gat…Dam, can’t say that publicly.
The locals reaped what the sowed and now my tax money has to fix there problem that could have been easily avoided if they simply cleaned up there local politics.
You know, I have no issue bailing out people in need but I do have issues with the fact this kind of commonplace laziness and corruption leave my hard earned tax dollars threatened by further voter incompetence.
But, back to Bush…
Like so many other politicians from the past and waiting in the wings today, his lack of character offends. If you screw up, admit it, don’t hide anything and take the PR hit, drive on and learn from the mistake.

[ogukuo72]

Everybody "responsible" for the Katrina bull$hit has apologized and claimed responsibility for the problems. I have never understood what this means. Its like because they admit the screwed up it makes it better and somehow shifts the blame to some sort of void. It seems to work though, now everything is OK!

Right ho. What does accepting responsibility mean if there are no consequences what-so-ever?