Thursday, March 02, 2006


Today, the AP has this story. I think it's significant for the obvious reasons. I wonder when the MSM will start saying Bush is a liar like they called Clinton a liar. Certainly Clinton's finger-wagging lie was a pretty clear cut lie, a totally false statement, but it was about a sexual encounter, not war or terrorism or natural disasters.

Pertinent bits:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- On the eve of Hurricane Katrina's fateful landfall, President Bush was confident. His homeland security chief appeared relaxed. And warnings of the coming destruction - breached or overrun levees, deaths at the New Orleans Superdome and overwhelming needs for post-storm rescues - were delivered in dramatic terms to all involved. All of it was captured on videotape.

The Associated Press obtained the confidential government video and made it public Wednesday, offering Americans their own inside glimpse into the government's fateful final Katrina preparations after months of fingerpointing and political recriminations.

"My gut tells me ... this is a bad one and a big one," then-federal disaster chief Michael Brown told the final government-wide briefing the day before Katrina struck the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29.

The president didn't ask a single question during the briefing but assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."


Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. He later clarified, saying officials believed, wrongly, after the storm passed that the levees had survived. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility even before the storm - and Bush was worried too.

Isn't that just a LIE? The WH has said we shouldn't take too much from this single briefing, but in the briefing the President was specifically informed that the levees could be breached. Doesn't the statement "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" directly contradict that? Perhaps I'm missing the subtle nuances of this scenario, but isn't this fundamentally dishonest? Didn't Bush vow to restore "honesty and integrity" to the White House?

More here.

No comments: