Warnings of 9/11, they ignored it. And again with Katrina
In the 48 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit, the White House received detailed warnings about the storm’s likely impact, including eerily prescient predictions of breached levees, massive flooding, and major losses of life and property, documents show.
A 41-page assessment by the Department of Homeland Security’s National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), was delivered by e-mail to the White House’s “situation room,” the nerve center where crises are handled, at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, the day the storm hit, according to an e-mail cover sheet accompanying the document.
You people aren’t thinking clearly. If Bush had warning of Katrina and its potential danger why would he bother to go out there and dynamite those dykes as documented by BET’s man of the year? You Bush haters need to to have only one playbook and stick to it.
Dynomite Jimmy Dugger
They probably thought it was historical information based on old reporting.
Why can’t they make sure these important briefings take place between 9 and 5 on weekdays? Don’t they know that there’s no presidentin’ done except for then while Chimpy’s on the stick?
At least they could have put in a mention of some brain-dead christian hooked up to a life support machine. That way Putsch might have considered it worth his attention…
Levees, Dugger, not dykes. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if he was accused of blowing them up too. At Gitmo, maybe?
Dugger, SF,
Care to address the issue? Or are you just going to continue to have fun at the expense of Katrina victims?
have ignored = has ignored
Interesting. What are the federal government’s responsibilities two days before a hurricane hits when it receives a warning that terrible flooding may occur? Please compare those responsibilities to those of the state and local governments.
No one of sound mind is suggesting anyone wanted the events
subsequent to Katrina to occur.
It’s a little like the parent who left underage children at home
without supervision while he/she went out bar-hopping.
When fire broke out in the house and the children died, a charge of
murder would not be appropriate. Mom/Dad did not want the
children to die. But some consequences for negligence needs to
be considered.
They didn’t care enough to prevent what could happen.
You Bush haters need to to have only one playbook and stick to it.
Other than he’s an incompetent boob who, along with his entire administration, have ignored countless warnings for a multitude of likely avoidable disasters?
(ie: Aug. 6th, PDB, No WMD/Al Qaeda in Iraq, If you’re going to go in – you’ll need more troops (Shinseki), You’d better secure the weapons dumps, Cat 4 storm will likely breach levees (NOAA), People are trapped in N.O. …and on, and on)
JWG, you didn’t know that President Bush has the power to prevent hurricanes?
I sure as hell didn’t know that in Oliver’s world, local and state officials are immune from any criticism as long as they had a D by their name.
Levees- thanks Save.
Now. Anyone. We’ve got two days before Katrina. We do not know where it will hit or how strong it will be. What exactly could/should Bushco have REALISTICALLY done, that was within their area of responsibility – at that point. Keep in mind that it is not the job of the Feds to evacuate local residents. That would be the job of the mayor of “chocolate city”, and Gov Blanco (long reknown for her quick, decisive actions) who believed it was all heavenly pre-ordained anyway. Also keep in mind that the failure mode of the levees was not known until after the failure wherein very old, hidden flaws going way back were revealed by the failures, themselves.
BTW, anybody on the left embarrassed by the paranoid, McKinney-esque mind set evidenced by the heading of this item (that Bush had prior warnings of 9-11 and did nothing to prevent it), don’t bother.
Dugger, Sober Up, Drop and Give Me Twenty, Maggots! Smok’em if you got’em’.
“What are the federal government s responsibilities two days before a hurricane hits when it receives a warning that terrible flooding may occur?”
JWG –
I think the question is not what could the White House have done before (although it probably could have done more than it did) but why did Bush lie about the information they had after the fact?
“I don’t think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees,” Mr. Bush said in a television interview on Sept. 1. “Now we’re having to deal with it, and will.”
Now either Bush is lying here or he genuinely didn’t know about the DHS report. If he didn’t know about the DHS report, what does that tell you about his leadership ability? Some might say he’s a total incompetent. I’d love to hear what you have to say about a President who doesn’t have access to such important information about public safety during a time of crisis.
How about TELL SOMEONE?
Didn’t Bush personally ask Gov. Blanco to require a mandatory evacuation? This isn’t something that is normally done.
I don’t know what Bush knew, and I don’t know what information gets passed up the chain. This disaster certainly demonstrates that much more work needs to be done on the federal level to prepare for major catastrophies. A third possibility exists, BTW, though it might just be Bush trying to backpedal (from MSNBC):
If ya’ll wanna view the Katrina affair in the microcosm of the 48 hours
prior as though subsequent events are not contained in the discussion,
the arguments posted here might have some merit. As the response to
Katrina is inseparable from the 48 hour preliminaries, your comments
lack any real context.
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2005/08/bush-interrupted-vacation-for-schiavo.html
How exactly could Bush, or anyone for that matter, “prevent what happened” 48 hours beforehand? Issue UN Sanctions against the storm? Take a “global test”? Denounce it as a “Vast Weather Conspiracy”? Mandate school uniforms?
What?!?
In a real emergency, like the Terry Schiavo matter, it seems everything
(including vacations) is subordinate to the will of the Wingnut Nation.
With a 2nd level matter like Katrina, the second and third string of
government is sufficient. No need to interrupt the ‘veg time’ of the
Prez.
I can’t honestly think of a single instance of criticism of Bill Clinton, in response to a disaster, such that Bush has recieved. Granted, New Orleans is unprecedented, but so was Oklahoma City, at the time.
In fact, under Clinton, FEMA was run by James Lee Witt. Probably FEMA’s best director, who had a long-standing relationship with Clinton. Bubba knew he was up to the challenge of leading the agency.
People like Dugger will always make excuses. That is what they do. The fact that he uses humor to try to make the case is disturbing, but not surprising.
Dugger makes me nervous. That’s all.
It’s fair to be critical of Bush’s handling of national crises. It’s fair to compare his style of leadership to Bill Clinton, or Bush’s slighlty less incompetent Father. On so many levels, Bush’s failure to “lead” has been questioned not only be Democrats, but even by members of his own party.
These are all fair criticisms.
Frankly, I think Bush ought to be removed from office based on incompetence alone. If this were a Fortune 500 company, or if Bush were the General Manager of the Texas Rangers after 7 consecutive losing seasons, he’d be fired.
But this isn’t Canada, or the U.K., and we can’t just vote “no confidence” and boot his incompetent butt out.
He’s a weak, ineffectual President who never had any real interest in understanding the complexities of governing. In understanding policy. God will tell him what to do, remember?
That’s why the ball is being dropped on so many levels…NSA, Katrina, Iraq…I could go on and on. We just don’t have a very good President, or a strong leader, in office.
JK
“A third possibility exists, BTW, though it might just be Bush trying to backpedal”
I think the phrase you were looking for is “cover his ass.” And seriously, you buy that? Bush said no one could have anticipated that the levees would break but that’s exactly what the DHS report anticipated.
JK, what you say about FEMA under Clinton may very well be correct. There is one difference, however. Then, FEMA was a Cabinet-level agency who reported directly to the President, rather than being part of the Dept. of Homeland Security. While it might not have made a difference in Katrina given the lack of local and state response, FEMA should be returned to Cabinet-level status (as Sen. Clinton has proposed) to give it more freedom and authority to act.
I think “anticipated” is the wrong word. Without reading the report I suspect it was a possibility among several outcomes.
And though it doesn’t change the fact that no government agency seemed prepared for the worst case senario, I will point out that the “anticipated” prediction was actually wrong in several ways.
1) The levees were not overtopped.
2) Given that the storm surge never overtopped the levees, the levees would have held if they had been built correctly.
However, the storm was predicted to be worse and likely would have caused similar problems had it been stronger even with correct levee construction…and no one was adequately prepared to deal with it.
Who?
Clearly you’re not familiar with the history of the Texas Rangers. We’ve only had 3 playoff appearances in 30+ years. A 7 year losing streak would be met with “At least it’s not 10 yet…”
The governor of Hawaii was obviously responsible for Pearl Harbor guys, President Roosevelt had no involvement in the matter whatsoever.
Yeah. Because, as you’re no doubt aware, incompetence at lower levels of government is sufficient justification for incompetence at the highest levels.
JK
Gonna make you more nervous. Just because you can’t think of something – doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Might mean the means by which you would hear of something, chose not want to make a big deal out of criticizing somebody they like – Bubba. But check out Jesse Jackson’s criticism of FEMA under Clinton (following Floyd floods) and keep in mind JJ and all the big media loved Clinton.
It is telling that no one hear has been able to cite anything other than media criticisms of Bush. What could/should he have done better given the realities of the timing and the realities of separation of power – bfore or after. BTW, Bush was in New Orleans before Bubba was in OK City.
But if you believe that Bush had warning of 9-11 and did nothing to prevent it, as the heading of this item suggests, then I suppose you will believe Katrina criticisms uncritically also.
Dugger
“But if you believe that Bush had warning of 9-11 and did nothing to prevent it, as the heading of this item suggests, then I suppose you will believe Katrina criticisms uncritically also.”
Is that what’s derailing you?
Semantics is key to communication. If “believe Bush had warning” means
Bush the Anti-Christ was fully informed of the methods and attacker’s
identities, but wanted 3000 people to die in a hellish inferno because he
is evil incarnate; I would say that is ridiculous.
If “believe Bush had warning” means there was intel available in daily
briefings to surmise the danger of imminent attack; I would say it is
possible.
Dug;
Warnings of 9/11, they ignored it.
We speak in sound bytes, hence the problem of semantics.
It’s in the eye of the beholder
What’s your point, peedro? Do you think that Hawaii didn’t have governors before that? Think again.
Semant,
Don’t see how you can argue semantics with a straight face. The post lead-in said ” Warnings of 9/11, they ignored it. ” Not warnings of an ‘attack’, but ‘warnings of 9-11′. World of difference. That seems like fruitcakery of the highest order to me. But, perhaps he misspoke. Often happens when you write a lot of borderline stuff.
Dugger
Ollie,
Hawaii was made a state in 1959. Go to school much?
Hope that attack isn’t too personal, leading to my comment being wiped down the lefties memory hole….
Your rhetorical carelessness is tongue-in-cheek (most of the time)
And would let you get by with what I would not allow pedro, because
he is a demogogue, not a serious thinker.
http://www.hawaii.gov/gov/office/pastgovernors.html
Joseph B. Poindexter was Hawai`i s eighth governor. A former federal judge, he served from 1934 to 1942. Poindexter spent the first four years in office dealing with the Depression. Also while Poindexter was in office, Congress passed the Jones-Costigan Sugar Control Act to limit the overproduction of sugar.
Or the amount of taffy distributed when somebody said George Bush was AWOL?
Semant, Ok but I don’t think you or Quaker would let me get away with such rhetorical carelessness (remember the ration of sh*t Pedro got for saying Clinton committed perjury when he actually just lied?)
Dugger
These “governors” were appointed. They are not “governors” in the same sense we typically use the word.
dang! Quaker.
foiled again!!!
Ooh! Ooh! Let me do it!
This “president” was appointed. He is not a “president” in the same sense we typically use the word.
The Wingnut Nation MUST be right, at all costs.
pedro -
Innocent unless proven guilty. I know how much Bush supporters enjoy subverting the Constitution, but surely you remember that.
By the way, you’re still boring. I dare you to go a week without including the word “lefties” in one of your mouth-frothing rants.
Actually Dugger, Clenis DID commit perjury, he just wasn’t CONVICTED of it.
Since everyone is all excited about semantics and all..
Hedley..that’s correct. With a caveat. Bush gutted FEMA when it was consolidated under HS.
Dugger, no I do not believe that Bush knew about 9-11. Not in the specific.
The thing is, I don’t believe Bush knows much about anything, either before it happens, or afterwards. And once it happens, he doesn’t have the desire, or capacity to understand why it happened, and what to do about it. He’s just a guy who does what people who he thinks are smarter than him (pretty much half the population) tell him to do.
Hey…it wasn’t me who called him a “Frat Boy,” in 2000. That was George Will.
You guys elected him. We have right to ridicule you for doing that.
JK
Jk,
I voted for Bush twice, but have never been enthusiastic about doing so. I believe he is a below average speaker, not charismatic at all, of average intelligence for pres.s, but strong willed, loyal and consistent. I don’t think he is nearly as bad as you describe him and I believe the left in general is unable to be rational concerning Bush. By and large, I think we will have to regard his presidency as a succesful one: no terrorist attacks on home soil after 9-11, Afghanistan, two supreme court judges, and a good (no techno bubble) economy. Iraq could go either way: make him a great president or stand out as a negative (we may not know for four or five years).
I’m sure you disagree, but I say that as no Bush enthusisast. Whats telling to me are the so-called ‘issues’ the opposition uses against him. Not the economy – he’s won that battle. Not Afghan – he won that. Iraq – yes, but they use not the overall war (except a few) or the the present conduct of the war, but the ‘paper trail’ as to how we got into the war as the major issue (Bush lied!). Think about it. Those may be life and death to you or the left, but for a president and the passing of history – noise level stuff.
Dugger