[update: via Allah, ABC News, p 16. Gov Blanco on video: levees weren’t breached; see also, Charlie in the comments.]
Patterico looks closely at the LA Times‘ portrayal of Bush’s actions in light of the “confidential” Katrina Tapes:
The L.A. Times web site is trumpeting a story titled “Bush Is Warned on Katrina in Video.” I suspect that this will be Page One in the print edition this morning. The story dishonestly reports the facts to try to make President Bush seem like a liar:
The edited video, released by Associated Press, shows Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, briefing state and federal officials  including Chertoff and Michael D. Brown, then director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency  on Aug. 28. Bush was at his Texas ranch and participated by videophone.
Mayfield tells the officials he wants “to make it absolutely clear to everyone that there is potential for large loss of life … in the coastal areas from the storm surge,†and emphasizes that there is a “very, very grave concern†about the ability of the levees that separated Lake Pontchartrain from New Orleans to stand up against the storm.
On Sept. 1, Bush said on ABC’s “Good Morning Americaâ€Â: “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.â€Â
The part of the quotation I have bolded is dishonest in the extreme. It is designed to suggest that Bush was warned beforehand that the levees might be breached  and therefore lied when he said that nobody anticipated the breach of the levees.
But the “very, very grave concern†referred to in the video is not whether the levees would “stand up against the storm†(i.e. whether or not they would be breached), but whether they would be topped. Let’s go to the transcript, which (inconveniently for The Times) dispels the dark suggestion that BushLied™. You can read what Mayfield actually said at page 6 of the transcript:
I don’t think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levies [sic] will be topped or not, but that’s obviously a very, very grave concern.
(My emphasis.)
Whether levees were going to “stand up against the storm† in other words, whether they are going to be breached  is a very different question from whether levees are going to be overtopped by flooding.
From the beginning, the major media rushed to sensationalize the carnage (which needed no help from them, incidentally) and to lay the blame at the foot of Buscho and the feds—essentially softpeddling the incompetence and dithering of a Democratic Governor (who later admitted she was confused about the procedures for requesting Guard troops).
Evidently, they are now trying to re-construct that narrative, which was weakened by articles like this one by Reason’s (and now, ironically, the LA Times’
Matt Welch, which pointed to media overreaction and the attendant dangers of such hyperventilating, emotion-based coverage (for my part, I focused my ire on Shep Smith of Fox and Rod Dreher of the Corner, among others).
And now, we’re beginning to find that “Brownie” may in fact have been scapegoated unfairly—which clashes with the “official” story the press is still trying to push—warning of potential problems with the Superdome, asking why more evacuations weren’t taking place, etc.
The tapes don’t lie. But rather than give “Brownie” his good name back and disturb the forging of the narrative of Republican-run federal failure, the LA Times goes with a story that, purposely or not, confuses two different phenomena.
Journalism.
Read the rest of Patterico’s dissection here.
****
update: Bill Sammon, appearing on “Special Report with Brit Hume,” characterizes the way this story was handled by the AP as “journalistic fraud”; not only was this videotape not “confidential,” as the AP claimed (FOX used it last year, and the transcript has been widely available for over a year), but remarks made by Max Mayfield were taken out of context: Mayfield was at best ambivalent toward the idea of New Orleans flooding—which the AP report does not make clear.
Further, Michael Brown—who at the time I suspected was being unfairly scapegoated—was, in fact, unfairly scapegoated (and in fact a CBS report today calls him just that). Reinforcing what actually happened: FEMA’s response—which fell victim to the red tape and confusion of any bureaucracy—was illuminated by the failure of the state response. And the fact remains that while improvements can and should be made to FEMA (and the way it interacts with local government), the real story here is that local governments must better prepare themselves rather than hope the feds can rush in to save them.
Does anyone expect that topped levees might breach?
Let’s see who wrote this particular piece of retarded claptrap…….actus, I should have known.
God love you buddy, but reading your comments is like watching a retard try to “solve” a Rubics Cube by first putting it in their mouth and then trying to shove it up their ass. Fundamental confusion about the point of the excersize. Thats you my friend……a retard with a Rubics Cube up your ass.
My dog’s water bucket sometimes overflows, but I don’t especially worry that the sides will bust out. Of course, if Bush plants explosives to BLOW the sides out, well that’s different. Then I’ll probably be forced to eat the corpses of my family members (after they’ve been raped and murdered repeatedly). And all of this before lunch.
T.W.: part, as in doing my part to keep the meme alive.
I would like to formally apologize to retards for comparing them to Actus. My bad.
Oh come now, Actus. Go back and reread all the Katrina posts here—in the comments to which appear testimony form ACOE and other experts on these questions.
The point is, if the transcript says “topping,” why characterize it as “breaching”?
Is this proper journalism? And don’t you have anything better to do than to disagree with every single post I write?
Aw Hell, Hermit. He’s just speaking truth to your power.
Jeff,
I have come to the conclusion that you are correct. Actus comes here to practice spouting bullshit for the day when he can take over Olbermans show on MSNBC and dazzle the moonbats with his superficial and glib commentary. It’s either that or he has some kind of rare dislexia that causes him to miss the point of everything he reads. Or could be both.
What I think you are going to start to see, Jeff, is the tale that indeed “Brownie” was scapegoated, but it was done so by the Bush Administration. Brown himself has had complaints about the lack of support Chertoff and Bush gave him after the disaster and the media demanded blood (and, it would seem, his indignation is fairly jsutified)…so therefore it was once again evil Chimpy scapegoating good guy Michael Brown. Can we start calling him a whistleblower, yet?
Nevermind the media ridicule Bush took for initially supporting Brown. Nevermind the congressional hearings that made it a point to not ask Blanco any real questions when she came to testify (when you can throw one of those filthy appointed bureaucrats under the bus), but accuse Brown of everything short of being actually without a brain. Really, that was all engineered by Bush. Really.
Because topped levees might breach. So when I tell you that its a grave concern that levees get topped, we are also to expect levees breaching.
Except for the idiots that think levees have anything to do with dog bowls. It could be that the president has no idea of this sort of stuff. In which case he can say “I had no idea that the levees might breech.” But not “no one had any idea.” At least he’d be just wrong.
Its not a disagreement. Its just that for me, when I hear levees being topped, I fear their breach due to erosion and other factors. That may not be what the expert bloggers or the president think, but its an expectation that I have.
Ah yes, Actus the ENGINEER. Do tell us, Actus, your credentials for claiming to be smarter in this area than the rest of us (and, no, the fact that you are “progressive” is not proof of your being smarter). For the record, I have a background in engineering (but only a background inasmuch as I know what I don’t know). Do topped levees run a greater risk of breaching? Makes sense to me. How much greater? Beats me, I’M NOT AN EXPERT! Was this the point of the Hermit’s post? Of course not! Keep the meme alive!!!!
Its not really that smart. I can’t tell you what the odds are. Just an expectation. Ever see a levee? Its just a pile of dirt, maybe some concrete, still set in dirt. That stuff moves when there’s water flowing over it.
There’s a difference between topped and breached. When speaking legally or scientifically, yes. To the general public, no, it makes no difference.
But keep repeating that he didn’t lie and maybe, just maybe this one of the numerous Bush lies will magically disappear into the aether.
But it won’t. The thing is, there are far too many Bush lies that fit exactly this pattern. Mission Accomplished meaning “their mission accomplished.” The sixteen words. Mushroom cloud. And so on. The pattern’s too obvious. Bush lied about all these things. And many more.
And if this isn’t a lie, then what kind of evidence would you need?
And yet you warned no one.
Asshole.
Actus, you’re struggling wildly to defend a ludicrous framing of the issue by the media. Clearly you don’t think the thought process you envision is what the article writers are trying to sell here, do you?
What about the idiots that think Presidents have anything to do with levees?
Anyway, nice playing with you, but I’ve got to go do adult things now. Just email me your C.V., Actus, and we can carry on this pissing contest over academic credentials in a forum that might be less embarrassing for you.
I do. I think we all knew of the dangers to NOLA, including that it is underwater and could thus end up that way after the hurricane.
BUSH LYING WAS THE ONLY DANGER
Turing word “efforts” as in, “AT LEAST THATS THE RESULT OF OUR BEST EFFORTS TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE”
That’s a very shiny ego you have there tristero, have you had it for long?
Bush didn’t ask a single question during the briefing.
Know why? He doesn’t have to. He knows everything already. He can look into a man’s heart and know his character. He can ask Jesus about levees and Jesus will explain how just because a levee is topped, there’s no reason to think it might be in danger of being breached.
He’s that good. It’s scary what a good president we have.
.
The difference is between several inches of water and several feet. While the general public might not understand this distinction I’m sure the Director of the National Hurricane Center does, though, so it seems were he fearing several feet of water in New Orleans he might’ve, you know, stated that.
Another important difference you seem to overlook in the transcript is that the Director is more concerned about storm surges than levees. I don’t know if you, a member of the general public, understand the difference between the two, so let me give it a whirl. For our discussion, storm surges are short term flooding ocurring over the whole of the hurricane zone, while levee failure causes long term, localized flooding. Now, if you can come up with a way to build a 500 mile sea wall in 36 hours to stop hurricanes, please do share it with the rest of the class.
I think we all knew of the dangers to NOLA, including that it is underwater and could thus end up that way after the hurricane.
So, then, why did so many residents decide to stay, and why did the mayor wait to evacuate the city?
Exactly. Presidents don’t know shit about them, and should butt out of giving opinions on them.
Who is pissing about academics?
Like Chuck Norris.
I see him calling both dangerous. And they do kind of go together.
Maybe because he was listening?
The pertinent questions about the threat to the Gulf Coast were answered by the other participants. Should he have taken the opportunity with the Director of the hurricane center to figure out why hurricanes have those eye thingies?
The levees were not topped! So a warning that they could be topped is mute. They gave way with water well below the top. No one warned of that.
The responses of the feds was adequate for what happened (level 1 or 2 hurricane force at NO). No one was predicting the levees would fail from that. And especially holding during the storm but failing well after it passed.
Yes, but while topping the levees would be a problem more in terms of property damage, the volume of water likely coming over wouldn’t have caused mass casualties. A storm surge anywhere along the coast can cause massive casualties, and have in previous hurricanes. So, when you are confronting a storm that stretches from Texas to Florida, and whose landfall location is a mere guess until it happens, are you supposed to be chiefly concerned about several inches of water in one city, or several feet along the entire coast? The answer, unless your worldview is constructed entirely around hatred for one man, is obvious.
I had seen an estimate a year before of about 50K if NOLA got hit by a cat 5.
Who the hell expected ‘several inches’ in NOLA?
Famous Katrina myths:
1. No levees in NO were breached.
2. No levees in NO were topped.
We’re talking about the levees surrounding the Mississippi and Lake Ponchartrain; that is what Bush and Brown are talking about in the video (mainly the Ponchartrain levees) and it is what is “predicted” in the (2000?) Times-Picayune scenarios and all of the other scenarios. WHAT HAPPENED IN NEW ORLEANS WAS NEVER PREDICTED BY ANYONE.
What happened in New Orleans was the failure of several inland canal walls, the most consequential being the 17th Street Canal (Lakeview), the Intercostal Waterway (9th Ward) and the New London Canal (CBD, Mid-City, Lower Garden District).
This isn’t nit-picking. It’s widely believed that Katrina was essentially CAT3 when it hit NO and all of the doomsday scenarios are simply not what happened. And everyone seems to forget that immediately after the storm everyone thought NO was essentially okay; it wasn’t until the following afternoon that water began to rise throughout the city.
Regards/
Peter.
Well I fucked that up. The top line should read “Corrections to Famous Katrina Myths.” Jesus. This topic is very personal to me as I actually lost family in the storm and has made me sloppier than I normally am.
:peter.
That’s redundant.
The industrial canal broke during the storm, flooding the 9th ward. But we can ignore them.
You mean the people the Coast Guard pulled out of their houses? You can ignore them. The Coast Guard didn’t.
Ever notice that the “we” actus refers to never seems to include him?
Curious, that.
Can you one time sit down and explain to me your valuation logic that you used in the thread about the naming/shaming? The part that said that avoiding having female children is because I *value* women?
Actus, your attempt to misrepresent what Peter said in order to cast Peter as a racist is typical of your dishonest flatulence. You remains a despicable human being.
(First, Peter, I am very sorry for your loss and apologize if this is incorrect or insensitive.
I just don’t get it: Concerning NO’s peril, I believe National Geographic warned of that danger years ago; probably there were others, certainly at the local level. It seems that local authorities don’t seem to have had enough preparation in place but today everyone automatically assumes Washington will take care of everything in real time as disasters occur. Bewildering.)
Anyway, well yes, actuse, because technically Galveston moves when there’s water flowing over it. It’s called A Big Problem. Hence, levee-ratings and various other human foibles and attempts to make stuff perfect.
Probably people should get out of Orlando when it rains feet of water too, actuse. Ditto: Problem. The street lights might all fall down. Or, maybe not!
God > the universe> life > oceans of rain > serious problem > uncontrollable variables. That’s all fine.
actuse, please don’t kneejerk then into assuming a complete breakdown of Republican omniscience because, after all, that’s what government’s for > bogus Socratic posing in first comments here at PW > implied demand for socialist reform/POTUS head on platter > dumbass follow-on statements—you get the picture.
Stuff breaks. What really counts is what you think Bushco owes federalism, levee design, and shabby mayors and governors he doesn’t owe, say, humans getting gassed. And how he, personally, should best circumvent state’s rights and laws in order to deliver it. He was reading a kid a book when the planes hit; God help us if he was taking a nap when Blanco was getting her florist on the phone instead of seeing to pouring 32 more feet of Krypton-enforced concrete entirely around the city.
Because if government owes, well, it owes perfect levees if it can’t control the weather. Preferably from the federal level. I don’t get it.
I have no idea about what structure is proper for levee design and care. Although I was shocked to hear that some levees were even privately owned and managed, and that the levees that keep a nations port and major navigable waters going are managed by localities. If I had to design a national system of navigable waters, I wouldn’t leave the levees to the locals.
I’m more concerned with the idea that ‘nobody expected’ levee failure.
The problem is that we also all know that it’s not within the federal government’s power to march people out of NOLA at gunpoint, nor to make the Governor call out the National Guard, nor to get the mayor to announce a mandatory evacuation and order out buses under his control. We also know that Bush, in a nearly unprecendented step, declared the Gulf Coast a disaster area two days before the hurricane arrived, jawboned the Governor to no effect about allowing the NG and Federal government to act, and even went so far as to personally get on the radio and urge people to evacuate.
We know that Nagin ordered a mandatory evacuation with less than half the time their emergency plan said was required — just 20 hours.
We know that an Amtrak train left the city empty because offers to evacuate people on the train were ignored.
We know that a day after Nagin was saying the federal government should “get off their asses”
and help, they were refusing the Red Cross permission to enter the city with food and releif supplies.
And we know that the facts can be found by anyone who cares what actually happened.
Fuck you.
Sorry to hear about your loss Peter.
Everybody expects levee failure in the Sacramento River basin, and yet greenies have enjoined needed repairs and drastically increased the cost of permitted levee repairs with their absurd and mostly silly injunctions. Had the Corps of Engineers been allowed to install flood gates in several locations, the failure of any one levee system would have done much less damage. Greenie deaths are rapidly nearing the death toll of communism, Which may well warm their Malthusian hearts.
Hey 6Gun, Thanks for the kind words.
Concerns regarding “The Big Oneâ„¢” have always revolved around storm surge overwhelming the levees surrounding the Lake, which were upgraded to withstand a CAT3 storm I believe following Betsy in 1965.
If their were any concerns regarding canals in the various scenarios, they were secondary to this primary concern. The truth isâ€â€in 20/20 hindsite a half-dozen relatively inexpensive storm gates would have prevented the catastrophe. Did anyone hear any talk of the canals in the run-up to the storm? I didn’t.
:peter
Engineer actus:
Engineer, US Army Corps of:
Just for argument’s sake, let’s stipulate that everyone in the Federal Gov’t from the top down knew that levee failure was a possibility. Then what? What was not done that should have been? What was not done in as timely a manner as was possible given the logistical contraints of post-Katrina Southern Louisiana and Coastal Mississippi (anyone remember Mississippi?)? Please, I would like for folks such as actus to provide something practical and concrete that does not fall squarely in the lap of the state and local officials. I’ve heard all the vacation and guitar playing comments ad nauseum. But lets face it, that’s merely harping about image and PR, and offers nothing of substance to the debate.
Well, back to my old standby: What is it you’re driving at, actuse?
Here’s what it looks like; you tell me:
Breach = top = breach > Bushco
Levee breached > Bushco
Levee topped > Bushco
Nagin incompetent > Bushco
Blanco incompetent > Bushco
Unanticipated levee issues > Bushco
Variable levee ethics > actuse > attention, bandwidth
Goldstein post > actuse > attention, bandwidth
Because topped levees might breach. So when I tell you that its a grave concern that levees get topped, we are also to expect levees breaching.
Actus, you need to stop with the common sense. It’s wasted on this crowd.
Why don’t liberals understand that Bush was on vacation at the time all of this Katrina stuff was happening. He was doing the best he could given the amount of brush clearing and firewood chopping that he needed to get done.
“e”, your attempt to play with the adults has ended in your embarrassment again. Next year, its back to the kids table for Thanksgiving.
if by “common sense” you mean ignorant rambling, then you may have a point.
So, let me get this straight, it is the President’s fault that the corrupt local authorities and the ACOE didn’t build levees properly. ANd that’s why I got to spend September and October in New Orleans with my Guard unit – ah, thanks actus and Kathy for clearing that up. I was under the impression that the Third World like Louisiana government (how many governors and insurance commissioners in the Federal pen?) might actually have done something wrong. But I forget, they are Democrats and God wants their city Chocolate and Bush hates all balck people, blah blah blah.
Oh, and OT – how many of younoticed that the recent influx of the actus-brigade has pushed Jeff over the 4,000,000 mark. Bravo! I hope his ad revenues are climbing as a result.
Then they wouldn’t say ‘no one expected the levees to be breached.’ That’s it. I don’t expect the government to do anything, of course. But I was surprised to find out that we leave these levees up to localities.
Hmmm.
It would appear that not only did Bush not anticipate the levees being breached, he believed Blanco when she said they hadn’t been.
Actually, it’s more complicated than that, since the Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction but has to contract with private firms and work through the state governments.
What we do know, hoever, is that Louisiana got the most flood control money of any state, but allocated it through earmarks to a collection of massive boondoggles that had little or nothing to do with the levees.
I work in quality control in the civil engineering field, and have worked with the Corps of Engineers on several projects. I have read everything I can find about the Katrina fiasco and the only thing I have learned is the people who really know what they are talking about still don’t know for sure what happened. So to actus and all the other assholes who keep spewing total bullshit for their own political gain I must second Peter Jackson:
Fuck You.
I was surprised to find out that we leave these levees up to localities.
I think actus is surprised that anything is left up to the local-yokels… I’m sure he’s all in favor of a Federal Department of Baked Goods to wrest control of poppyseed bagels and sour-dough baguettes from laissez-faire, private bakeries in order to ensure that wherever actus may go he may not be confronted with the possibility of stale or flat bread.
TW: breast as in isn’t it a distinct possibility that actus was breast-fed up to at least 4years old and was very disappointed when his mommy finally said “enough”?
If you want to get an accurate idea of what actually happened in New Orleans, read this relatively shortarticle.
yours/
peter.
I couldn’t help noticing that Actus and his little sycophant kathy ignored lynxx’s post of 8:19.
I supect Charlie’s post of 9:51 will likewise be ignored.
To clarify a few things, people did predict that a breach of the levees was a possibility. Here’s one example:
The LA Times engaged in sloppy journalism, linking the topping quotes by Mayfield with the breaching quote by Bush. Separate from that article, Bush was wrong in the first place to say that no one anticipated the breach of the levees.
Llama School- do you think Bush meant NOBODY EVER anticipted a breach of the levees? Or do you think its possible he meant, after the storm passed and it didn’t hit as hard as they thought it might, it wasn’t anticipated that the levees would breach.
How important is this utterance, anyway?
Except for the fact Governor Blanco specifically told him the levees were intact. Something that also happened to be in the AP’s tapes, but which the AP and the LA Times both didn’t see the need to highlight. That’s more than just sloppy LS.
Notice actus doesn’t even acknowledge having been caught on his racist smear.
Go ahead and ignore it, actus. I’m going to link your little racist smear in every thread you pollute in the future.
Oh, and Major John:
Thank you. Really. Thank you very much.
I just got back home at midnight last night from the Mardi Gras. At the parades I saw, whenever any military band or color guard or rifle corp marched by, everyone would stop whatever they were doing, put down whatever they were holding, then applaud and cheer as loud as they could!
yours/
peter.
T/W: effort
Then you don’t know our dear friend actuse, our very own collectivist-extraordinaire. I’m sure the actard is all in favor of a Federal Department of Baked Goods in order to ensure that wherever he ventures he absolutely will be confronted with very expensive, very late and very stale or flat bread.
That’s okay, jeff noticed when Allah pointed it out ….
First, Peter Jackson: my condolences.
Second: actus said….
I’m going to come clean here. I deal with levees. Professionally. actus, you are an arrogant jerk who is babbling in some bizarre attempt to gain attention. You have absolutely <i>NO CLUE</i> as to what you say.
None. The closest you’ve come to being right is that flowing water erodes soil. I learned that playing with a hose and a pile of dirt when I was but 6 years old.
We now clear evidence of your professional credentials.
The simple fact is that the vast majority of levees in this country are either privately owned, or they are maintained by a local agency or special purpose districts. Rarely, a state agency. There are not that many Federally maintained levee systems; I personally know of maybe a dozen or so, although they tend to be large. This is by multiple acts of Congress and bureaucratic decrees.
That. Is. How. Things. Work. In. Flood. Control.
For that matter, that’s how things in other areas. Do you think all of the interstate systems are owned by the Federal government? The airports? Sea ports? Think again!
As to the “topped versus breached” argument…..
Levees fail because they are either overwhelmed when the water elevation rises above the levee, or the water punches through the levee (for any number of reasons, including those totally unrelated to poor design or lack of maintenance).
I’ve seen it both ways. But it’s very difficult to identify which one caused the problem because the end results are identical: You get a big effing hole in the levee.
This erases virtually of the evidence. Piecing evidence together would try the patience of Sherlock Holmes.
Peter Jackson said it best: no one is sure what caused the flood wall (not levee) failure in New Orleans. There are theories. But I’ve read nothing conclusive on the matter. And your self-proclaimed ignorance simply puts the matter to rest.
You can try to BS your way through legalese doubletalk, but your latest here just confirms what I’ve always suspected: you are a hollow shell of a human being, more interested in being the center of attention than in knowing what you talk about.
You simply have no clue as to what you do. What compulsions force you to pound on your keyboard in a vain attempt to sound intelligent I will never understand. But the best thing you can do is throw away your computer and return to the days of the IBM Selectric typewritter and slide rule.
That way, you can limit your exposure to the rational population to the absolute minimum.
TW: The INTERNET clearly has a downside.
Ow.
Charlie —
Allah sent me an email, which I read before your comment. Sorry for not giving you credit.
For what it’s worth, I probably covered this before myself. I did so much on Katrina that it’s all a blur at this point.
Notwithstanding the remarks of Greg Breerwood (I guess COE has at least one ignorant optimist), cited above, anyone with a clue knew that overtopping would lead to complete failure. A lot of righty bloggers (including Jeff — both of them) are simply revealing how ignorant they are.
Civil engineer/hydrologist egbooth has posted this: “most of the levee and floodwall failures were caused by overtopping, as the storm surge rose over the tops of the levees and/or their floodwalls and produced erosion/scour that subsequently led to failures and breaches.” (For some reason I had trouble embedding that link. It’s here: http://wizbangblog.com/2006/03/02/rewriting-katrina-history-ap-style.php#161859 )
The longer version of this argument, with extensive documentation, is here (3/2, 1:42 pm).
Someone please tell me what the hell the idiot boy-bands are hueing and crying over now?
Are you libtards mad that NOLA was flooded in the first place? Well, jackasses, that’s about ~300 years too late to blame Bush. New Orleans has been there a long time, and even the Cajuns recieved ‘sand-bag’ technology some time ago.
Please tell me you’re mad that Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Mayor Nagin (pbuh) somehow misplaced 100,000 of his fellow citizens during ‘eh-you-can-leave-if-you-wanna-but-whatever’ mass [trouser] evacuation. Even if Bush had mobilized the entire National Guard, Army, Air Force, my beloved Corps, the Peace Corps, the Boy Scouts, Shriners, and the Salvation Army, those Cannibalist Humanoid new Orleans Dwellers (CHODs) are still screwed. It takes a few days to move a 100K people, especially when the press breathlessly reports that they are shooting at people, or that the water has become Agent Orange.
What the hell are the moonbats talking about? Can’t we just fumigate their nests and be done with it?
No huhu, I was just giving you hell.
rumsonesquire—WTF?
Emphasis is mine.
From the executive summary of the testimony of Dr. Ivor Ll. van Heerden, 2 November 2005:
Emphasis is mine. Kindly reconcile these two contrasting statements in bold, would you? Sounds like overtopping is not a primary candidate to me. Remember that the second quote is from Congressional testimony.
From your second link (to Captain’s Quarters, no less) has this little tidbit:
Gee, does this guy sound biased or what?
Good night.
No really, who here didn’t know way back in 1995 that one of the big dangers facing the country was a storm hitting New Orleans head on, what with it being below sea level and everythign and the levees not being up to it?
Come on douchebags, did 9/11 change even that piece of your memory?
Oh, and before I forget—the report that the Louisiana Forensic Data Gathering Team put together is excellent. I’d forgotten about it, actus pissed me off that much.
But this is not a simple subject. That’s not the final report, not by any means, even if it is an important one. I’m not saying the team is wrong. But emotions are hot and heavy right now, largely due in part to shoddy and fraudulent journalism. I’m simply not accepting any theory or study as final just yet. On a professional basis, my level of expertise is not on a par with this team….but that doesn’t mean I can’t view a problem objectively.
And all of you friggin’ moonbats need to STFU, and let the grown ups deal with this problem.
Again, good night!
It’s pretty simple to me: Brown is scum. No one who looks seriously at this can dispute that it was entirely the fault of Brown, Blanco, and Nagin. No one except the librul MSM. But they don’t look seriously.
-Heh… I distinctly recall Blanco on camera a few days after the storm. The day she “stalled†the Pres. in knowing what to tell him about the general situation (she didn’t have a clue), or asking for federal help (she kept insisting they had it under control and it was a state leadership thing anyway).
– The reporter asked her what she was doing to get the required emergency aid to the stranded prople still in the city and she said quote:
…â€ÂWell the governor will…Oh…. that would be me…..ummmmmmâ€Â
– Right on top of things *chuckle*
– BTW…I have no doubt that if Bush would have declared Marshall law and a state of emergency and asked for special Congressional powers to go in and take over, the moonbats and MSM would have been screaming within 24 hours that he was acting like a king again, and overstepping his Constitutional powers. See how it works folks. Sort of a permenent state of damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
No true “progressive” is ever part of anything, you should know that by now. They are never associated with with the people they march or post with, never concerned with the kind of people who spout the same nonsense they do, never responsible if anyone happens to listen to their crap and tries to act on it.
They’re not on the wrong side of history, they’re outside it…
Oh, and the word is “toppled.” TopPLed. But Bush had Rove go back and pull that one syllable out of every videotape, blog and newspaper article in existence, because he’s just that evil…
Think of how much worse it could have been had Kerry still been president. Saddam would have still been in power and he could have used the disaster as occasion for attack. He could have launched a huge chemical attack on the water as it flooded New Orleans. Casualties could have been in the millions.
He believed an unconfirmed report? Sounds pretty presidemential.
However while she said it had not been breached, she did say it could happen:
We can ignore the 9th ward cuz of their poverty. No need to get all identity politics on me.
And it would be easier to blame everybody since they’d all be democrats!
democrats=maroons
We could just blame their incompetence, but I would just be obvious there
Hmmm.
@ actus
Only if it’s a significant amount of water. If you’re talking a couple feet for a few hours then no there shouldn’t be any worry about a breach.
But if you’re talking several feet of fast moving water overtopping the levees for several hours to a day, then yes there would be some worry because of soemthing called “scour”. Scour is the effect of fast moving, or fast *swirling*, water on soil and gravel. Water overtopping the levees could potentially weaken the levees by effecting scour on the other side of the levee. This would weaken the supporting soil behind the levee and cause the levee to breach.
The same sort of thing can happen to dams. The swirling water can cause the soil behind the dam to be shifted away and so it can cause the dam to weaken. A number of dams have failed throughout history due to, at least in part, scour.
… however …
Nobody should have been worried about scour in New Orleans because the amount of water overtopping the levees wasn’t all that much and the major portion of the storm didn’t last that long. Additionally Katrina had weakened to a Category 3 storm when it hit New Orleans.
real jeff: “Kindly reconcile these two contrasting statements in bold”
What is there to “reconcile?” There were a variety of factors, such as “unstable soil conditions and a lack of foundation support and water percolation seals, given the soft, porous and highly organic nature of the soils.” These multiple factors are not mutually exclusive and therefore do not need to be “reconciled.”
You’ve placed yourself in the impossible position of trying to argue that overtopping was not a major factor in causing levees to fail. I’ve cited ample evidence proving this. Nothing in the testimony you cited proves otherwise, although you make a fine attempt at cherry-picking in the way you find one little “may” to highlight.
The same expert you cited also makes statements such as these: “In eastern New Orleans levee failure accompanied a surge overtopping event … While the ADCIRC data indicate the failure of these Industrial canal levees occurred at the time overtopping had just started to occur; overtopping would have helped to weaken the soil embankment behind the levees. … surge overtopping no doubt enhanced their collapse.”
Nevertheless, we have people like Patterico (who our host quotes approvingly) making a statement like this: “Whether levees were going to ‘stand up against the storm’  in other words, whether they are going to be breached  is a very different question from whether levees are going to be overtopped by flooding.”
It’s “a very different question” only if one ignores the very plain fact, which I’ve documented extensively, that once a levee is overtopped, it’s well on its way to complete failure (and that’s exactly why Mayfield described overtopping as a “very, very grave concern”).
This is what needs to be reconciled: why people like Patterico are pretending otherwise.
Your witness is suggesting that a levee can fail even if it’s not overtopped. True. But this does not deny what is more relevant: a levee, once overtopped, is not likely to survive very long. This is precisely why Mayfield told Bush that levee overtopping was a matter of “very, very grave concern.”
“Sounds like overtopping is not a primary candidate to me.”
Then I guess you should talk to the witness who offered this testimony: “most of the levee and floodwall failures were caused by overtopping.”
“Remember that the second quote is from Congressional testimony.”
Remember that the quote I just offered (and did earlier, also, in case you didn’t notice) is from “ Congressional testimony.”
“does this guy sound biased or what”
I think those who deny plain facts (like various righty bloggers, on this issue) have earned the right to be described as “knee-jerk Bush apologists.” This isn’t a question of being “biased;” it’s simply a question of telling it like it is.
I’ll be waiting patiently while you find some “Congressional testimony” to prove otherwise.
Ed: “Nobody should have been worried about scour in New Orleans”
Then please explain why Mayfield told Bush that levee overtopping was a matter of “very, very grave concern.” And also please explain why an expert witness told Congress that “most of the levee and floodwall failures were caused by overtopping.”
rumsonesquire, I really don’t get what the argument is supposed to be? Bush said no one expected a breach, and the record shows that they didn’t. Whereas horton60 seems to be arguing they should have known. The NYT article supports the idea that officials did not, in fact, expect a breach:
I don’t understand why you dismiss the deputy district engineer for project management at the Army Corps of Engineers as an “ignorant optimist”. His words:
He’s describing what officials thought would happen, and they “never did think they would actually be breached.” Meanwhile, the sole “smoking gun” that Bush knew and lied about being warned about a breach doesn’t contains the word “breach”. What exactly is your argument, that once Bush heard the word “topped” he should have asked questions on the particularities of levee design? The briefing discussed how it was a Cat 5 hurricane, bigger than Andrew, “this hurricane is so large that wherever it hits it’s going to have an impact over a very, very, large area”, “I also want to make absolutely clear to everyone that the greatest potential for large loss of life is still in the coastal areas of the storm surge”. It’s clear the briefing is making clear the severity of the hurricane, discussions of breaching would have been academic. The only importance of finding a mention of breaching in there is to prove Bush a liar. But there’s no proof there, and there’s evidence to the contrary in the NYT article.
I just don’t understand why you take horton60’s speculation over the word of the deputy district engineer for project management at the Army Corps of Engineers about what the officials expected? Because from where I’m sitting it looks like you’ve got comments from officials involved on the one hand, and on the other you have… a commenter at Captain’s Quarters trying to divine what those officials expected.
The Congressional testimony is after the fact. With hindsight they figured out what happened. It may even have been a failure that officials should have expected. But if, at the time, they did not expect a breach, then Bush was not lying when he said nobody expected a breach. And the NYT article makes it clear that officials did not expect a breach. And there is no evidence that they expected a breach at the time.
If it was so obvious that overtopping is the immediate precursor to a breach, why is it that the deputy district engineer for project management at the Army Corps of Engineers say they expected “some flood walls would be overtopped” but ”We never did think they would actually be breached.” Why did unnamed “disaster experts and frustrated officials” say “a crucial shortcoming may have been the failure to predict that the levees keeping Lake Pontchartrain out of the city would be breached, not just overflow.” The relevant officials obviously didn’t think an overflow=breach.
There’s a big difference between “overtopping did cause a breach” and “overtopping was expected to cause a breach”.
dork: “Bush said no one expected a breach, and the record shows that they didn’t.”
You have pointed out that some experts did not expect a breach. I have no problem with that; I have never claimed that every expert expected a breach. On the other hand, Bush’s problem does not go away when we realize that some experts did not expect a breach. He didn’t say “some anticipated, and some didn’t.” That would have been a true statement. Trouble is, he said “no one” anticipated. That’s a false statement. Big difference. You have to deal with what he actually said, not what you wish he had said.
“I don’t understand why you dismiss the deputy district engineer for project management at the Army Corps of Engineers as an “ignorant optimist†“
I dismiss Breerwood as an “ignorant optimist” because his views are contrary to the views of many other experts who have been cited, including Baumy, also from COE. (The following is from a pdf, 9/9/05, here: http://www.usace.army.mil/transcripts/rndtble0908.pdf )
“Q: … Could you explain a little bit more about the actual mechanics of the original breach of the levees. I know the water overtops the wall and then it began to erode something. What did it erode? MR. BAUMY: … If you look at a typical levee in the city of New Orleans … they’re generally constructed of earthen material … we build these around the perimeter … [explanation of how in some places the levee isn’t high enough, so it’s topped with a flood wall] … So you try to come in with a flood wall type solution. So that flood wall is embedded into the levee section and what happens was when that water overtops, it starts washing over the wall itself. So you’re gonna get some erosion behind the wall which, in turn, reduces some a your lateral support of the wall. Q: Would it have been possible, at some point, to put a concrete apron over the earthen part, to guard against that, or is that just not an engineering possibility? MR. BAUMY: There’s a lotta things that are possible, I guess, looking back, but the authorized project was to protect to a certain grade, a specified design grade. The way this system has been designed, since the mid ‘60s, the design grade is determined and then we add freeboard above that. So, in essence, what we’re doing is we’re adding insurance by moving the top of the wall higher than the design storm. … And so the intent was that the water would never overtop that wall.” (Emphasis added.)
In other words, the design is based on the assumption that the water will never reach the top of the wall, because it’s understood that once water floods over the top of the wall, it will quickly erode the unprotected earth on the downriver side, which in turn will quickly lead to the wall falling over.
By the way, one reason that Baumy’s words impress me more than Breerwood’s is that in the former case, I have a complete transcript, so I can see for myself the context of the relevant statements. In the latter case, I have a few snippets of text quoted by a reporter, and I have to deal with the possibility that those snippets are somehow taken out of context.
“The NYT article supports the idea that officials did not, in fact, expect a breach”
Some did and some didn’t. As I’ve explained, that’s at odds with what Bush claimed: “no one.”
Aside from that, the NYT article needs to be taken with a grain of salt. For example, it mentions the Pam exercise, and it says “Neither exercise expected the levees to fail.” What it doesn’t tell you is that FEMA issued a report on 8/27 indicating that Katrina could be worse than Pam, and therefore “could greatly overtop levees and protective systems.”
The incompleteness of the NYT report, which you cited, is to be forgiven, since that report was written on 9/2. The extra information I just mentioned is from WaPo, 1/23/06.
“the sole ‘smoking gun’ that Bush knew and lied about being warned about a breach doesn’t contains the word ‘breach’. “
“Overtop” and “breach” are not precisely the same thing. However, the latter inevitably follows the former.
Jumping off a building, and striking the ground at high speed, are not precisely the same thing (the former doesn’t hurt at all, while the latter hurts a lot). However, the latter inevitably follows the former.
Imagine if I interrupt John Hinderaker’s 5-week vacation to tell him that his pal Scott Johnson is about to jump off the roof. Hinderaker yawns and resumes his vacation. Later, Hinderaker tries to gloss over the warning I gave him. He tells Diane Sawyer “no one anticipated that Johnson was going to strike the ground at high speed, ending his life.”
I then speak up to let people know that I warned Hinderaker. People then understand that Hinderaker’s statement (“no one anticipated that Johnson was going to strike the ground at high speed, ending his life”) is simply a big fat stinking lie.
But then dork chimes in, defending Hinderaker. Dork says this: “the sole ‘smoking gun’ that Hinderaker knew and lied about being warned that ‘Johnson was going to strike the ground at high speed, ending his life,’ does not contain the sentence ‘Johnson was going to strike the ground at high speed, ending his life.’ “
Now in addition to understanding that Hinderaker is a liar, everyone understands that dork has an irrational inclination to defend a liar.
By the way, the video is far from the “sole ‘smoking gun’ .” If you look at the resources I’ve cited, you’ll see that there are a variety of memos, reports, emails and presentation slides, also carrying the same message that Mayfield was trying to deliver. So the video is not the “sole ‘smoking gun’ .” It’s just the only ‘smoking gun’ that appears in the form of a video. This makes it a little harder to bury, although certain folks are making a bold effort.
“What exactly is your argument, that once Bush heard the word ‘topped’ he should have asked questions on the particularities of levee design?”
It’s perhaps understandable why Bush kept snoring while Mayfield said the word “topped.” it’s less understandable that Bush apparently slept through these words: “very, very grave concern.” Those latter words are easily graspable even by folks who are not civil engineers.
Aside from that, my main focus is not what Bush did, or didn’t do, on Sunday (sleep through Mayfield’s presentation, apparently, as if it were another My Pet Goat moment). My main focus is what Bush did on Thursday: lie.
“It’s clear the briefing is making clear the severity of the hurricane, discussions of breaching would have been academic.”
Really? “Academic?” Are you sure that’s the right word? Imagine these two scenarios:
A) a severe hurricane which causes levees to be breached
B) a severe hurricane that does not cause levees to be breached
I don’t know too many people who are inclined to describe the difference between A and B as “academic.”
“I just don’t understand why you take horton60’s speculation”
If you can see any “speculation” in his comment, I would appreciate you letting me know where it is. As far as I can tell, all his statements are backed up by multiple, credible citations.
“over the word of the deputy district engineer for project management at the Army Corps of Engineers”
It’s not that horton rejects what Breerwood said. It’s that Baumy, and many other experts, reject what Breerwood said.
(For anyone tuning in late: see here, 3/2, 1:42 pm).
“Because from where I’m sitting it looks like you’ve got comments from officials involved on the one hand, and on the other you have… a commenter at Captain’s Quarters trying to divine what those officials expected.”
It’s not that horton was “trying to divine” anything. He listed many examples of clear proof. If you’d like to make any substantive and specific rebuttal to any or all of the proof he offered, I would welcome that. But you’ve hardly done that, and neither has anyone else.
“There’s a big difference between ‘overtopping did cause a breach’ and ‘overtopping was expected to cause a breach’.”
True. Trouble is, if you follow the links I’ve cited (and/or you read my messages upthread), you’ll find proof that both those statements are true.
Bush lied. There are so many of these heavily parsable statements in so many different contexts that there is no reasonable doubt that the intent of them all is to deceive.
Take the 16 words. British sources said… That’s true. But the impression created is a lie, an impression that was reinforced by others in the Bush administration who assured the world they knew where the WMD were, that the evidence was beyond doubt.
In this case, you’re arguing over the subtle difference between topped and breached. I recall hearing before Katrina of levees being “breached,” but don’t recall the term “topped.” “Breached” simply is the more common popular term referring to a levee being overwhelmed and that’s probably why Bush used it. He may have been briefed to use that term, in which case the lie is even more cynical. To parse a comment like this is just legalistic niggling and word-splitting, wishful thinking that the president of the United States isn’t a cheap, sleazy, bald-faced liar.
But Bush lied. He lies often, about things large and small, and the “breach” comment illustrates just one of the numerous ways he lies. And amazingly, there still are people so anxious to bow down deep to a far rightwing authority, they will go to any lengths to find ways to believe these, and many other, lies.
But Bush lied. He lies often, about things large and small, and the “breach†comment illustrates just one of the numerous ways he lies. And amazingly, there still are people so anxious to bow down deep to a far rightwing authority, they will go to any lengths to find ways to believe these, and many other, lies.
What’s that, Mr. Moore? I suppose Clinton never lied. I suppose Blanco never lied about Katrina.
A Kerry presidency would have left this company wide open to attack from Saddam. A nuclear or chemical attack would have made Katrina look like a picnic. If Kerry were president, we would not be talking about Katrina right now, because we’d still be collecting the bodies from something infinitely more horrible.
Hey tristero, I read in your blog that you predicted it was even money that Michael Totten would be murdered in Beirut. Why would you make such a prediction, unless you were jealous that Totten has balls and you have a tiny mind?
OK, fine. Let’s then stipulate that everyone knew, with no doubts, that the levees would break. OK. Bush lied, yaddayaddayadda. Then what? Its still up to the city of New Orleans, and the state of Louisiana to plan and execute the evacuation, and be the first responders to the ensuing disaster. If their first responders can’t handle the situation, and require assistance above and beyone FEMA’s current mandate, LEGALLY they must request such assistance, and there is a formal process codified in the laws of the land that must be followed. And the locals and staties never did for the most cynical and useless of all reasons, politics. Seriously, what are you folks getting at here? What’s the point of a discussion of who expected what and when? It has no bearing on how the events played out, unless one of you can point out to us what was not done at the Federal level that should have been, or even could have been once the scope of the devestation became clear. What Federal assistance did not arrive in the fastest manner that was logistically possible due to that lyin’ ass Bush?
marianna: “I suppose Clinton never lied”
All I need to know about the shape Bush is in, is to notice the defenses his sheeple sink to: “ostensibly no more dishonest than Clinton.” A ringing endorsement, that.
“A Kerry presidency would have left this company wide open to attack from Saddam.”
Your Freudian slip is quite vivid, since a core feature of the Bushist outlook is that the USA is indeed a company, not a country. And it is a company that is being chopped up and sold. One of the deepest principles of Bushism is that there is no part of America that shouldn’t be sold off, as quickly as possible, to the highest bidder. Major port operations in 21 cities is simply one current example. The way Abramoff helped the Republican Party sell Congress to the highest bidder is another example. The list goes on and on.
nawoods: “what was not done at the Federal level that should have been”
Here something that “was not done at the Federal level that should have been:” telling the truth.
I don’t do business with people who lie to me. I don’t employ people who lie to me. I don’t tolerate a president who lies to me. You do, and it’s up to you to explain why, because there’s no good reason.
rumsonesquire, part of your complaint seems to stem from the idea that when Bush made his comment he said “no one”. Do you think he was speaking is if he believed no one ever at any time or place could have predicted a levee failure after a major hurricane, or perhaps was he simply noting that during the briefings a number of local, state, and national officials did not take such a concern as a serious possibility to this event (as, at the time of the briefing, they were still uncertain of the actual landfall position of katrina and the impending severity)? I mean, if we are going to offer such absurd interpretations, perhaps he meant to say even more- that not only did nobody ever predict a levee failure due to a hurricane, but that Bush believes Levees are indestructible, immovable objects…that they have perhaps even the property of god-hood. If we take that as his assertion President Bush is clearly insane- but it’s obvious that isn’t what he was saying.
esquirerumson looks to be an actus-in-training. Apparently like does attract like.
TW: child. Heh!
Here something that “was not done at the Federal level that should have been:†telling the truth.
Oh, that’s rich, coming from the party that doesn’t know what the meaning of the word “is” is. Save it for the next George Looney movie, moonbat.
marianna- I remember you from JOM. Someone accused you of being a DougJ, right? Anyway, have you started a blog with Leonidas?
esquire, if it helps, I rolled my eyes, muttered “high school student pseudo-intellectual” and skipped on by after the phrase “Freudian slip”
That is one of the dumbest fucking things I have ever read. Congratulations.
Set a 30 gal trash can in your living room. Fill it with 30 gal and 1 pint of water. That is an overtopping. Now kick the can over. That is a breach. Still think the difference is subtle?
OK, then what effect did this “lack of truth-telling” have on said rescue and recovery efforts? Again, I ask:
Are you idiots actually bitching that the levees were breached to begin with? Well, I’m sorry the Bushies didn’t erect forty years of construction in the afternoon.
Seriously, sorry that New Orleans had not requested the thousands of tonnes of spare levies Washington selfishly guards in Idaho. Now, next…