Patterico's Pontifications

3/4/2006

A.P. Corrects Clarifies Levee Story — How About the L.A. Times?

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 12:37 am



Mickey Kaus reports that the AP has issued a “clarification” to its story about the levees:

WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn’t until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.

If this is accurate, it’s an embarrassing little bit of egg on the face for the AP, which made a big stinking deal out of nothing.

Is the quote accurate? I’m not sure yet. It comes from Drudge, and it always makes me a bit nervous to run with Drudge as an exclusive source for anything. If he told me I’m Patterico, I’d try to find a second source to back it up. But I can’t find a second source for this, so (as we bloggers say): what the hell. As Kaus says of Drudge: “80% true. Close enough!”

In all seriousness, I find it very likely that Drudge’s quotation of the clarification is genuine, and this blogger claims to have seen it on Nexis. I think we can safely take it as accurate.

Power Line takes credit for the clarification, and I think that’s right. Power Line is the first place I saw the point made, and I linked Power Line in my post on the issue, which focused on a related claim made by the L.A. Times.

Now, if the L.A. Times would just issue a “clarification” (dare we hope for a correction?) of its claim that Bush was warned of a “very, very grave concern . . . about the ability of the levees that separated Lake Pontchartrain from New Orleans to stand up against the storm.” As I noted a couple of days ago, that sounds like a claim that Bush was warned the levees would be breached — no? If you read it that way — and how else can you read it? — then the L.A. Times owes readers a clarification as well. Maybe even a correction!

Don’t hold your breath.

33 Responses to “A.P. Corrects Clarifies Levee Story — How About the L.A. Times?”

  1. Patterico:

    Power Line takes credit for the clarification, and I think that’s right. Power Line is the first place I saw the point made, and I linked Power Line in my post on the issue, which focused on a related claim made by the L.A. Times.

    Ditto. That’s where I first saw it (and linked it). Score another hit for John Hinderaker, Paul Mierengoff, and Scott “Ringo” Johnson!

    Not as big a deal as when they busted Dan Rather (with the help of Buckhead and TankerKC) — but every such victory is a blow against the empire.

    Dafydd

    Dafydd (6e94cd)

  2. […] Patterico’s Pontifications: A.P. Corrects, Clarifies Levee Story –… […]

    Common Sense Junction » Blog Archive » Who Corrects The Correction? (9f4d0e)

  3. This is ridiculous Patterico – either way, the point is that Bush was warned about the impending disaster and did nothing about it although he said that it was under control. This is a difference that makes no difference. You can’t see the forest for the trees sometimes.

    Psyberian (9eb2a7)

  4. Psyberian,

    It’s not ridiculous. There’s a big difference between the 2. Again, I have to wonder what the feds were supposed to do? Round up everybody in NO and force them to leave? That smacks of totalitarianism, and I doubt the media would have made that look compassionate.

    As for the correction, I always find it hilarious the way media outlets twist themselves into pretzels so they don’t have to use the “C” word (correction). Every mistake in the paper wasn’t TECHNICALLY a mistake, you see. It’s always, somehow, the source’s fault.

    sharon (fecb65)

  5. Belated Correction

    You have got to be kidding me. The original story ran on March 1. It took two days of a media frenzy about these videos before the AP finally corrected and clarified the timeframes and situations involved. Whereas the bloggers found the problem immed…

    A Blog For All (59ce3a)

  6. I thought Powerline’s grab for ‘credit’ on the correction was a bit over the top – it raised my eyebrows when I saw it this morning. Those guys need to rein it in a bit, this isn’t exactly a Dan Rather moment.

    The LATimes version is close enough to the truth that I wouldn’t wait breathlessly for a correction from them. This story is more about the media’s continuing attempts to spin everything in an anti-Bush light. I seriously doubt they knew or care about the difference between a breach and over-topping. Is it an anti-Bush light they are spinning, or are they simply fanning flames for excitement and Bush happens to be the one sitting there, making it a two-fer? The media just love something to screech about after all, no matter what that may be.

    As you can see from your lefty commenters and psyberian above the idea that the Federal Government is supposed to protect us from even something as remarkable as a hurricane has become firmly rooted with some in the general public. Bush is, in their minds, responsible for everything from hurricanes, to traffic lights, to mudslides, to drought, to the heartbreak of psoriasis.

    The guy that lives 2 houses down from me is a NO evacuee (oh, did you know it is politically incorrect to call them refugees? We got that correction early on). His house was flooded about 4′ up the walls. He signed up for flood insurance the week of the storm and is upset he can’t collect due to the 30-day waiting period. Upset with Bush that is. FEMA offered him a $14k SBA loan to repair his property but to him it should be a grant. “Its just something the government should do” is an exact quote from him.

    Now, I understand how flood insurance works, so I am in no way surprised that you cannot collect if you don’t establish the policy well in advance of risk (anything else, after all, wouldn’t be “insurance”), and to me the FEMA loan offer seemed quite generous. It gives him the opportunity to repair his home and get back on his feet.

    But for my neighbor, its all about Bush, injustice, and his victimhood. The idea that there are things we are responsible for individually, that there are things the government cannot control or do much about, just doesn’t register. It is a very immature and illogical sort of thinking IMO.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  7. Dwilkers, Bush is not responsible for the hurricane. I didn’t say that. He is responsible for at least acting like he cares in a timely manner when hundreds of people are dying in our country. Is that too much to ask?

    Psyberian (9eb2a7)

  8. Acting like he cares? Come on psyberian, I’d say he acted like he cared. I’d even go way out on a limb and say he actually does care. If he didn’t care why do we have all these tapes of meetings he attended, what was he doing in them?

    That isn’t what he’s being criticised for and you know it. He’s being lambasted for not being able to somehow mitigate the consequences of a hurricane – in a coastal city below sea level – in a way that suits the media and the left.

    Let’s back up for a minute, OK? The story that is being told by the media this week is that Bush was warned 24 hours in advance of the storm’s landfall that the levees were going to fail, correct? Let’s go even farther and say he knew for an absolute certainty that they were going to fail.

    Just what in the hell was he supposed to do about that? Stand before the levees like Moses and part the waters?

    This is about how an enormous national disaster can be spun politically and to sell newspapers. This is politics, not reality.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  9. If President Bush, arguably the most powerful man on the planet, is impotent to do anything about the situation, then he is truly pathetic, isn’t he? I’m not talking about preventing the hurricane either, which is absurd. I’m talking about using his power to get on national TV and encourage people to get involved and help, if nothing else. No, it wasn’t timely either. What is this – the “incompetence defense” for Bush?

    Psyberian (9eb2a7)

  10. I find your reasoning completely bizarre, Psyberian. It wasn’t enough that the Weather Channel and every news outlet was telling people to evacuate? The POTUS has to get on TV and tell people and that was going to get them to evacuate?

    And as for “acting like he cares,” wth does THAT mean? Crying for the cameras? Tearing his shirt? It was 3 days before a federal response to the hurricane. That is STANDARD. People need to quit thinking the feds are omnipotent and all powerful and could have prevented the breaching of the levees or the hurricane. At least you are admitting Bush wasn’t responsible for the hurricane. How about admitting that he wasn’t responsible for the breaching of the levees, as well? It’s not like there hadn’t been federal money for the levees, and state and local officials assumed that they wouldn’t be seeing anything above a category 3 hurricane (which is why the levees were designed for cat 3 hurricanes).

    Bush was not “impotent” regarding Katrina. It’s just idiots and whiners expect him to be the parent that fixes everything for them before the bad stuff happens.

    sharon (e51965)

  11. Oops, I read “impotence” for “incompetence,” but it really doesn’t change the answer, does it? Bush was no more “incompetent” than any other POTUS would have been under the circumstances.

    sharon (e51965)

  12. Psyberian…tell me you didn’t really write that, that it was a post by someone using your tag, because it would have been difficult for me to write a better parody illustrating my precise point.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  13. Psyberian… I have a link included with this comment that sheds a light on some very nice info about what happened in the immediate aftermath (i.e., as soon as the storm abate and people could move about). I also posted the following comment about responses and associated issues on another thread. It still applies and when added to the info at the link, things were doing fairly well considering the breadth of the storm. Here’s that post: The order of business (response to events) goes from local to federal, and the feds are there to provide assistance, not provide command and control of the situation. That responsibility belongs at local levels (includes state). The President did in fact declare disaster area early (NOLA), even though Katrina did divert from original predicted path (landfall west of NOLA, for example). Second, the President cannot simply (in peacetime or for peacetime activities – this event falls into that category) activate the National Guards from the states. In these type events, that responsibility belongs to each governor, which is fully in line with the US Constitution. That The respective governors can then offer their forces up for assistance. However, in the case of the LA ARNG, Gov Blanco (not the Pres) had full responsibility to activate and chose to delay that effort. Once other states’ governors offer up the assistance, it is still up to the affected locale to determine when and where to use these assets. They canb request that the Pres federalize their troops, and then all can fall under the same chain of command. However, they are still going to look for direction from someone such as Gov Blanco. Of course, they – military – can and will make recommendations for appropriate stationing and use.

    As to logistics/stationing, it would have likely proven fruitless for units, personnel, FEMA organizational assets, etc. to be placed in the direct path and at the immediate coastal area as those asses would have faced destruction and or other manner of loss. While the storm is moving and after the storm passed it would then be appropriate to evaluate and ascertain where best to move support elements. Some of the issues associated with that include cleared routes, washed out bridges, unstable bridges, etc, especially for heavy vehicles. That simply doesn’t happen in the blink of an eye; it takes time and physical efforts (including use of air assets). Safe routes of travel/march are critical for effective support. Again, so much of the priority of effort for this has to come from the local level (states in this case), and it will be based on available or lack of available communications means. Maybe one lesson to learn from this is to have available cell phones and other communications means capable of satellite coverage. Those won’t rely on cell towers that may have been lost in affected areas. Also, movement of supplies into affected areas (and that means ALL of the affected area) after an event of this magnitude will take more time than many believe would be the case. That is one of the reasons that taking personal responsibility to ensure you can be self sufficient for 72-96 hours (as is always recommended under every disaster plan recommendations I have seen) is paramount. AND New Orleans was not the only place affected, as others have pointed out. In fact, the National Guard was in NOLA in significant #s within 3 days, as opposed to 5 days for Hurricane Andrew in Homestead area in FL in 1992 (which didn’t have the significant flooding problems as NOLA did). So there was some progress there.

    Also, it would have been great to be able to use air assets to drop in supplies, etc. but the air assets were being used (in a very busy and potentially very dangerous air space control environment) to rescue people. A good many people personally decided to remain in their homes, despite warnings. That is their fault, even though good people worked very hard to work as quickly as possible to bring relief.

    I think that blame does exist on all levels, but when looking at this we must all be very aware that this was the worst natural disaster to hit this ountry and over a very large area. That means that it will take time – and a lot of it – to get things back to a real semblance of normalcy. The key now is to look at what we can glean from this as real lessons learned and work as quickly as possible to incorporate/implement changes into our operating environments. There will be tough roads ahead on doing that, unfortunately.

    Now, given that all of these assets (see link) were dedicated to NOLA, that means that they were not availble for other areas that were hit as hard as, if not harder than, NOLA. Truthfully, the media almost exclusively on MOLA, because (my opinion) of how it could play the race card, etc. Even now, after the passing of time, we still hear almost exclusively about NOLA. Why? They continue to whine about not getting enough assistance in the time frame suitable to them. The real interesting thing is that the other states (Miss, Ala) are pressing on and getting things done while working to get fed assistance – and without whimpering and simpering and playing victim mentality, etc. Anyway, for what it’s worth….

    Here’s that link.

    http://dolinar.com/column/politics/katrina.html

    MikeW (71415b)

  14. A general observation:

    Every time there is a natural disaster, there is a human desire to blame someone for the suffering. Something could have been done, should have been done to help those unfortunate people. We Americans can’t accept that sometimes we are powerless.

    There will always be things that, in hindsight, could have been done better. This goes for everyone – national, state, local, Red Cross, etc. I think those involved should be given the benefit of the doubt because of this effect, unless there is overwhelming evidence of gross and deliberate irresponsibility or corruption (such as with the UN). Otherwise, no one will be willing to help. The helpers will be blamed no matter what – they couldn’t do the impossible that was expected of them. They fell short of Superman.

    Amphipolis (346a88)

  15. I think we now know that Nagin and Blanco are more or less incompetent. A more engaged, concerned president would have made sure that they were part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. And, a more engaged, concerned president would have made sure that his underlings were taking care of things like the FEMA buses:

    http://katrinacoverage.com/2005/12/09/aug-31-blanco-stopped-looking-for-buses.html

    In fact, I’m pretty sure that Clinton’s response – once you took all the fake emotionalism away – would be seen as more competent and effective.

    I don’t think Bush or the administration really cares. It’s not because of racism, it’s because those in NO aren’t GOP and don’t have much money to donate to the GOP, and also because the Bush administration isn’t too very American.

    KC (095f55)

  16. Another example of Bush dodging responsibility for the disasters he either creates of fails to prepare for.

    But why am I surprised? His only interest is in creating photo ops and issuing empty platitudes in front of prearrainged audiences of loyal supporters who willingly send their kids off to fight and die for a lost cause… and mortage their future as well, because they think he has restored integrity to the White House!” Ha!!

    He clearly neglected his duties in this instance in that his rampant cronyism lead to the appointment of incompetent officials. Now you want to mince words to cover his sorry butt? But if he can start a war for false reasons and get away with it, why not this?
    This president is like Professor Marvel in the Wizard of Oz….an empty, blowhard, snake oil salesman but even with the waters of Katrina closing in over their heads, some refuse to realize the Captain is an idiot and ship of state is sinking.

    ps: Will someone tell him Pakistan is not an Arab country?? That is what he told the Pakistanis although I am sure the error was not his fault..nothing ever is.

    Charlie (8ea405)

  17. I woke up early this morning and tuned on LA’s channel 7. The news was on so I watched it. To my utter amazement the newreader was saying that President Bush was informed the levees could be overtopped, not breached. They actually showed footage of the conference call where this happened and even the sound level was good enough to hear the person giving the update to the president tell him they expected the levees to hold.
    The newsreader then read the report that the President made phonecalls to those concerned asking about the damage and expressing real concern about the area.
    WHAT!!! Could I still be asleep? Did I actually hear what was just read? Did a news organization actually just say their earlier stories were incorrect and were just now reporting the truth? I glanced at the clock. 5AM. I wonder if it will be re-reported on the 6PM news?

    Joe (d6f550)

  18. “Oy vey”, to posts #14&15. Anyone caring to go any further into them has my deepest admiration, and sympathies.

    J. Peden (54ddb8)

  19. DWilkers says:

    The LATimes version is close enough to the truth that I wouldn’t wait breathlessly for a correction from them.

    Huh? While I agree that a correction is probably not forthcoming, I am puzzled by your assertion that the L.A. Times version is “close enough to the truth.” They said Bush was warned that the levees might not “stand up” to the storm — an obvious reference to a possible breach — and immediately followed that with Bush’s quote that nobody expected the breach of the levees. In other words, the paper claimed that Bush was warned about a possible breach and then claimed that he wasn’t.

    The paper distorted the contents of the tape to make Bush appear dishonest.

    And you want to give them a pass because it’s “close enough”??

    Patterico (8ccd07)

  20. Yet to be disclosed by AP:

    Overtopping would have resulted in a few inches to a foot of water in New Orleans. The city’s existing pumping system could remove this water in a few hours and would not be a disaster.

    A breach would result in New Orleans becoming an extension of the lake and result in 15 to 20 foot deep water. No amount of pumping could remove the water from a breach until the breach was repaired.

    Perfect Sense (e55418)

  21. #17: I’ll provide more information on request. For starters, look into the Bush administration’s handling of the flu vaccine in 2004:

    http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/016197.html

    And, look into their handling of illegal immigration (hundreds of posts at the link below).

    The Bush administration doesn’t really represent America so much as American corporations, the GOP leadership, and globalism.

    Feel free to disagree, just provide content next time.

    TLB (52ca38)

  22. Yep, Clinton would have responded better…if there’d been an intern convention in NO.

    sharon (e51965)

  23. TLB: I might not have been clear. I’m not going there, OK? I’ve also learned to not grab high voltage electric lines.

    J. Peden (54ddb8)

  24. Click on the link offered in #12 if you want to know about the things which went right after Katrina hit NOLA. The full article takes only a few minutes to read and appeared in abbreviated form on Real Clear Politics 9/15. Well worth the time and effort.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  25. Patterico, I’m not giving them a pass.

    I’m saying that (probably by dumb luck) they managed to dodge the whole breach versus over-topped thing due to their wording, and I’m guessing they’re sighing with relief having decided they have nothing to correct. I’ll bet they’re patting themselves on the back.

    [I don’t think they*did* dodge it with the “stand up” language. (A levee that stands up to a storm can still be overtopped.) And if you think they did, just read my latest post. They printed a letter saying Bush was warned of a “breach.” That’s untrue — and it shows that readers were fooled by the “stand up” formulation. — Patterico]

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  26. JAYsus, again with the “he lied us into an illegal war.

    Patterico, the quality of your trolls is dropping … they are still babbling stale, repudiated Leftist cult cant.

    Darleen (f20213)

  27. Regarding the link in #12, let’s look at two implicit claims right at the start.

    First, he says “fewer than 1,000 bodies have been found in all of Louisiana”. Patterico should recognize that language: it’s lawyerspeak!

    They’re still finding bodies, there are a large number of people missing for whatever reason, and no one is reporting on the large number of gunshot victims that a mortician who worked at St. Gabriel claimed to have seen. In fact, we’re told that there were only four murders during Katrina.

    Then, the link says, “local communication was wiped out by the storm”. Why is that? What was the status of federal communication systems? Did the feds have the proper comm equipment? I don’t think so.

    I’m putting Dolinar’s article in the “explain away” rather than “explain” column.

    TLB (df5fc9)

  28. […] Patrick Frey, the Los Angeles blogger who runs Patterico’s Pontifications, has been all over the non-story of the video which purports to show President Bush in a bad light over how much warning he received about the possible damage from Hurricane Katrina, here, here, here and here. Mr. Frey’s primary concern has been the reporting of The Los Angeles Times on this story. Sister Toldjah thanked those who want to demagogue the issue (those people would be the Democratic leaders). […]

    Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » Ridiculous (819604)

  29. Patterico: “They said Bush was warned that the levees might not “stand up” to the storm — an obvious reference to a possible breach — and immediately followed that with Bush’s quote that nobody expected the breach of the levees. In other words, the paper claimed that Bush was warned about a possible breach and then claimed that he wasn’t.”

    Via CNN:

    MESERVE: In the transcripts of the 29th briefing, you talk about conversations you had that morning with the president. This is the day of landfall…How did the president know to ask about breaches of the levees? Did he have reports in hand at that time already that that had happened in New Orleans?

    BROWN: There’s no question in my mind he probably had those reports, because we were feeding in the Homeland Security Operations Center, into the White House sit room, all of the information that we were getting. So he had to have had that information. Plus, I think the president knew from our earlier conversations that that was one of my concerns, that the levees could actually breach.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/02/sitroom.03.html

    [And from later in the interview, Brown says: “But I think the president was speaking honestly at that point that he didn’t really anticipate that they would be breached because of all this conflicting information.” So we have Brown saying the president was being honest, and an AP tape that doesn’t contradict what the president says. — Patterico]

    m.croche (85f703)

  30. TLB,

    First, I will repeat what I said in my post. I know that you only commented on the linked article, but there is blame at all levels for some shortfalls. That being said, I don’t think the article and its points should be overlooked. As to your query/comment concerning the feds not having the proper equipment, I would put this into the category (my opinion and without knowing you, btw) of trying to explain away not judiciously reading the article and accepting it at face value. I can’t see the article any other way than pointing out that a hell of a lot of good things happened during that time of devastation. Whether the feds had proper equipment is something that has to be looked at along with other lessons (I mentioned this kind of thing in my post) to learn. However, even if the feds had proper equipment to communicate to each other, that wouldn’t necessarily help at all local levels if those local government agencies didn’t have compatible systems. That is simple fact. The feds aren’t responsible to purchase such equipment for local areas, nor should they be. Each are has to determine what is feasible or viable to support whatever emergencies that may hit and then buy appropriate equipment/systems. Some, but not full, assistance is available from the fed level.

    Again, the author is simply pointing out that a lot of positive things happened as aresult of people pulling efforts together at local and federal levels (USCG is a part of Homeland Security now), while in many cases putting themselves in danger. His assertion about the less than 1000 dead is simply based on what has been reported, and he is a reporter, not a lawyer. If the numbers are underreported, that can be due to many issues. As to missing persons, again many reasons may pertain. For example, moved wih no further contact with the region, not knowin that others seek them, and yes killed as a result of the storm (but not necessarily by levee breaches and ensuing floods). Regardless of how well prepared anybody may have been for this hurricane, deaths were going to occur. Goal of course should always be to minimize that number, and by all accounts and supposition, we were porbably blessed that it wasn’t so much more. If you look very hard at the top of the article, the author recognizes that much has been said about all the negativity surrounding Katrina. His goal was, I think, to give due credit to all the good that happened. Rebuilding the area (the ENTIRE area, not just NOLA) will take years for sure.

    None of us can fully prepare or anticipate these events or the effects from them, but I don’t believe it is the federal gvernment’s responsibility (regardless of who is in the White House) to bail out everybody, and most especially in those areas that are clearly identified as prone to such vagaries. There is a great article also in the current “Popular Mechanics” that says a lot about the levees, who is responsible for their upkeep, maintenance, etc, as well as efforts concerning the restoration of wetlands/marshes and storm barrier systems that has been ongoing and still in the works – funded in great part by the federal government. Lots of good information in that article.

    MikeW (71415b)

  31. TLB, I believe Dolinar’s article is a fair treatment of the facts. For example, the following is clearly not an attempt to “explain away” but a realistic admission that we don’t yet know the full story.

    The death toll in New Orleans will rise, but it will never come close to the ghoulish early estimates. That doesn’t absolve authorities from responsibility for some of the deaths; King says that his committee will be looking at the city and state role in failed evacuations and the breakdown of supply to survivors.

    You consider the “fewer than 1,000 bodies …” comment to be “lawyerspeak” but in the full context of the article it clearly isn’t at all. It’s a simple statement of fact, that as I quoted above, the author agrees will inevitably increase, just not to the levels previously estimated.

    But the narrative of Katrina needs wholesale revision, and mainstream news organizations are starting to work on it. There were not 200 murders at the Superdome; there appear to have been exactly zero. Local authorities did not lose control there or at the Convention Center. The more than 30,000 residents at emergency shelters during the first week of Katrina were tired, hungry, miserable, and without proper sanitary facilities — but were in no danger of dying. As for the rest of the city, help was rarely late, delayed, or inadequate. That’s the true story — and there are tens of thousands of rescued people who will testify to it.

    That there were mistakes is freely admitted by the author. I honestly don’t see the attempt to “explain away” failures. That there were numerous successful rescues in the very earliest hours after Katrina’s passing and immediately after the flooding caused by the breached levees is just as true. That there were literally hundreds of brave men and women engaged in the rescue effort is a story arguably yet to be fully explored.

    The lack of accurate news reporting is now readily apparent. We were treated to 24 hour reporting yet much of the information is now clearly shown to be completely wrong as the author indicated in the citation above. Much of the reporting also cast the people of NO in an extremely bad light, yet there is story after story of brave citizens coordinating rescues and selflessly staying behind while the sick, injured, elderly and women and children were airlifted to safety ahead of them. It now turns out that there was much more bravery from the citizens of the city and much less lawlessness than we were led to believe.

    Not only was the federal communications system inadequate to the task, the local and state responders had deficient equipment and plans as well. One of the officials testifying before congress indicated that the state and local first responders were deficient in effective communication because the cost of the equipment was $24 million. Yet something on the order of $56 million of DHS money available to the state remained unspent. Clearly, adequate resources were available but not employed.

    The article clearly accepts the bad with good. I believe the author’s intent was simple to indicate that we’ve only heard part of the story. It is not all that bad that we have focused somewhat on the failures. After all, it is the failures from which we learn and it is those lessons that will improve the next response. However, to focus solely on the failures, especially when they are shown to have been overstated, is to ignore the lessons in the successes.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  32. In my KC persona, I’ve seen several articles trying to explain that Katrina wasn’t as bad as first portrayed. They all have a whiff of propaganda about them. The Dolinar article is no different, and that impression is helped mightily by the link from Insty.

    TLB (956867)

  33. TLB…what about Nagin’s claim – that was reported over and over again by MSM – that there were 10,000 dead? Are we there yet? What about the reports about racism by the administration? Why is it that more affluent whites died? Hmmmm?

    Are you an expert in emergency planning? Where do you live? Does your state have “emergency preparedness drills?” Why do you think the state handles those and not the feds? Who is the responsible party for “first response”? In emergency disaster planning, how do locales handle thing when their resources are overwhelmed? How big an area does such an emergency plan encompass? Is it based at city level? county? state? multi-state? How are all those local plans interact when a disaster covers tens of thousands of square miles? Isn’t it just possible that the time for the Society of Subversion to stop pointing fingers and to pitch in on figuring out how to do things better? To respond more quickly?

    Specter (466680)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1032 secs.