Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 98
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Seriously. Why waste your time? The kool-aid is strong in this one.
    What kind of kool-aid are you drinking?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #62  
    Okay, I will bite on the whole Katrina thing in the terrorist Internet thread....I think it is pretty clear:

    • Local / State / Fed Gov had reports years ahead of time warning of this possibility and other concerns.....and did nothing.
    • Local officials did a horrible job in utilizing immediate resources, communication to the public, executing emergency plans, providing evacuation options, etc...
    • State Gov took WAY too long to in responding and request Fed aide and assistance.
    • Fed Gov didn't do enough to prepare for the state to finally ask
    • All levels failed during the follow up....everything from monitoring insurance companies, processing loans & grants & federal aide, providing shelter for the now homeless, etc...


    The bottom line the local Dem govs failed the population. The Rep Fed gov failed the local population. This is not a party line issue but one with plenty of blame to spread liberally around. To say otherwise I feel would be playing politics and passing the buck with ignoring half of the responsibility.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/17/2007 at 11:23 PM.
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #63  
    "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."
    President Bush, ABC's "Good Morning America" Thursday September 1, 2005


    Oh, really?



    http://www.nd.edu/%7Eadcirc/pam.htm

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/securi...ricane-pam.htm

    Simply calling something wrong because you say it is is irresponsible and foolish. Now taking bets on this one with odds at 1.5:1!
  4. #64  
    One of the Hurricane Pam links mentions overtopping of levees. Is there anything that shows they anticipated a breach of the levees?

    daT's link is more relevant. Van Heerden is asked, "Did you expect the levee failures?" And he says that they were all lulled into a sense of security by assurances from the Army Corps of Engineers that the levees would never fail. I think that's a "No."
  5. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    One of the Hurricane Pam links mentions overtopping of levees. Is there anything that shows they anticipated a breach of the levees?
    You're being lulled into the same legal word-smithing that Toby/Army Corps of Engineers wants. Because breaches occured, the Corps is legally liable.

    daT's link is more relevant. Van Heerden is asked, "Did you expect the levee failures?" And he says that they were all lulled into a sense of security by assurances from the Army Corps of Engineers that the levees would never fail. I think that's a "No."
    Thanks for the selective part you quote, but the complete answer to the question of "Did you [Dr. van Heerden] expect the levee failures?", the answer is that Dr. van Heerden had reasonable suspicion that levees could fail.

    Quote:

    NOVA: Did you expect the levee failures?

    VAN HEERDEN: You know, I think all of us had been lulled into a sense of security by the continual assurance by the Corps of Engineers that the levees were never going to fail. Obviously, this was not the case.

    Before Katrina arrived I had looked at just about every single levee in the Greater New Orleans area, and I definitely had some concerns about some of the designs. The Louisiana soils, when they get waterlogged, get very, very soft, and I was worried that some of the earthen levees might not stand the pressure.
    Case closed, although I'm still taking bets, now at 1:1 odds.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    You're being lulled into the same legal word-smithing that Toby/Army Corps of Engineers wants. Because breaches occured, the Corps is legally liable.
    It's tough that we have to use words as they're defined. You have a good point that if you change the meaning of the word, then Bush was absolutely wrong.


    Thanks for the selective part you quote, but the complete answer to the question of "Did you [Dr. van Heerden] expect the levee failures?", the answer is that Dr. van Heerden had reasonable suspicion that levees could fail.
    He makes it clear that there was a consensus that the levees wouldn't fail. Then he says he had concerns. Do you have any information on whether he ever shared those concerns with anyone? Thanks.
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    It's tough that we have to use words as they're defined. You have a good point that if you change the meaning of the word, then Bush was absolutely wrong.
    Who defines them is the question. Not you. Not Toby. Not Merriam-Webster. Be as dismissive as you'd like, but the legal standard has been met.

    He makes it clear that there was a consensus that the levees wouldn't fail. Then he says he had concerns.
    No concensus existed, nor does Dr. van Heerden make any such suggestion. One entity had responsibility for the levees design/contruction/maintenence, that being the Army Corps of Engineers. The same and only entity with the responsibility to report on the integrity of the levee system to all other entities involved in hurricane preparedness.

    NOVA: Whose fault is it?

    VAN HEERDEN: Those levees were designed and owned and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They chose and supervised and inspected the contractors who built them, so the failure is the responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    [...]The bottom line the local Dem govs failed the population. The Fed failed the local population. This is not a party line issue but one with plenty of blame to spread liberally around. To say otherwise I feel would be playing politics and passing the buck with ignoring half of the responsibility.
    Egad! Someone that actually gets it. The only issue I'd take with your assessment is pointing out 'Dem govs'. Being a registered Democrat in this state has never meant that one necessarily follows the platform of the DNC.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    You're being lulled into the same legal word-smithing that Toby/Army Corps of Engineers wants.
    Are you truly that dense? This has nothing to do with legal word-smithing. It has to do with how the word is used where it happened.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #70  
    ^ Anecdotal definitions from the boys in the bayou don't count.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Who defines them is the question. Not you. Not Toby. Not Merriam-Webster. Be as dismissive as you'd like, but the legal standard has been met.
    So you're arguing that since the legal standard for breaches has been met, the levees were breached? Is that your point? No one is arguing whether or not the levees were breached.


    No concensus existed, nor does Dr. van Heerden make any such suggestion. One entity had responsibility for the levees design/contruction/maintenence, that being the Army Corps of Engineers. The same and only entity with the responsibility to report on the integrity of the levee system to all other entities involved in hurricane preparedness.
    He says the Army Corps of Engineers said the levees would never fail, and that they all believed them. But you can believe what you want to believe.
  12. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    So you're arguing that since the legal standard for breaches has been met, the levees were breached? Is that your point?
    No.

    He says the Army Corps of Engineers said the levees would never fail, and that they all believed them. But you can believe what you want to believe.
    con·sen·sus (kən-sĕn'səs) n.

    1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.


    Once again:

    NOVA: Whose fault is it?

    VAN HEERDEN: Those levees were designed and owned and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They chose and supervised and inspected the contractors who built them, so the failure is the responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    If believing an ***** created a concensus, then you and I are responsible for this nation's demise post-9/11.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    So you're arguing that since the legal standard for breaches has been met, the levees were breached? Is that your point?
    The only legal standard that has been met is that the Corps can be sued for damages in certain parts of New Orleans since damages resulting from surge that can be tied to the MRGO do not fall under the 1928 Flood Control Act, which unfortunately means that suing them for some of the more major breaches could be a higher legal hurdle.
    No one is arguing whether or not the levees were breached.
    That should have been clear from the start.
    He says the Army Corps of Engineers said the levees would never fail, and that they all believed them.
    That could be a bit of hyperbole on his part or in the way Nova edited it (after all their title of the show was hyperbole). The levees were only supposed to be able to withstand a Category 3 storm surge. Natural subsidence and lack of proper maintenance would have put it a little worse than that, but still should not have failed as they did:
    Quote Originally Posted by VAN HEERDEN
    Hurricane Katrina was a weak 4 and it may have only been a Category 3. But the London Avenue and 17th Street canals did not experience Category 3 conditions. They experienced conditions of a Category 1 or Category 2 storm, because they were on the left-hand side of the eye—the side that gets the least surge and the least wind.
    Note that this is the key differentiation between the models used in Pam and the reality of Katrina. Pam's track put it driving up roughly through Lafourche Parish, which would have put New Orleans in the worst possible position (on the northeast side of the eye) with the worst wind, the worst rain, and driving the full brunt of the storm surge into Lake Pontchatrain. Katrina came ashore further east at Buras, at a different angle, was a faster moving storm, and was dropping strength rapidly (having gone from one of the strongest storms ever recorded to a category 3 and dropping at landfall). Find a track on Betsy from 1965 if you want a graphical representation of the differences. Differences in projected storm surges were also significant:

    equals
    ?
    Quote Originally Posted by VAN HEERDEN
    So the design criteria weren't exceeded. What is now very obvious is that these walls were underengineered. And as a consequence, there was a catastrophic structural failure.
    This pretty much proves he didn't anticipate that the levees would fail as they did under the conditions in which they did. OTOH, I suppose it's possible that he's just trying to save himself from potential liability.
    Last edited by Toby; 04/18/2007 at 07:32 PM.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    This pretty much proves he didn't anticipate that the levees would fail as they did under the conditions in which they did. OTOH, I suppose it's possible that he's just trying to save himself from potential liability.
    Your 2nd reference graphic does not portend what you say it does. As shown, your graphic is only an advisory which Dr. van Heerden issued August 27. The graphic is a projection, not a record of Katrina's storm surge. Moreso, landfall did not occur for another 7 hours after that projection's representation, therefore, this image hardly represents the storm surge as it was recorded. Why the need to misrepresent? Seriously.



    Van Heerden's team began issuing advisories like this one—showing how Katrina's storm surge would drown the city—the evening of Saturday, August 27. Katrina made landfall around 6 am on Monday, August 29.
    Furthermore, no one here has stated that Pam was identical to Katrina, but have you produced a model (created prior to Katrina) which more closely resembles Katrina. Ummmm ... No! Why? Because one doesn't exist and we all know it. Are the 2 different in representing exactly where landfall takes place? Yes. Would it have been more destructive if Katrina entered where Pam did? Yes. That, however, is not the issue.

    Who was it who informed Gov. Blanco that the levees could be breached, as she expressed to Joe Hagin, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, on Aug. 29? Who was it within FEMA who directly informed Bush, later that same night, Aug. 29, that levees had been breached? And, of course, this is all framed by Bush's Sept. 1 statement of "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees" which rings extremely hollow in light of the record, even though it had been widely reported that local disaster planners were well aware that New Orleans could be flooded by the combined effects of a hurricane and broken levees. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/op...erland&emc=rss

    Don't get me wrong. There are no saints here (although some may be closer than others). It's about what price must be paid for a responsible government.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Your 2nd reference graphic does not portend what you say it does.
    It is a projected storm surge using the best information available before Katrina. That's all I said it was.
    As shown, your graphic is only an advisory which Dr. van Heerden issued August 27. The graphic is a projection, not a record of Katrina's storm surge.
    If you try reading my post, I said clearly it was a projection. The closest you'll find to Katrina's actual storm surge is readily available, however the model was in hindsight with the breaches in the levees factored in, so that advisory is as close as you'll see to what people actually anticipated.
    Moreso, landfall did not occur for another 7 hours after that projection's representation, therefore, this image hardly represents the storm surge as it was recorded. Why the need to misrepresent? Seriously.
    What am I misrepresenting? People seem to be using the Pam exercise to justify that people should have expected the levees to break under Katrina conditions. I'm simply saying that given the information available, no one seriously anticipated the levees failing. That they did fail under the conditions encountered was obviously some serious incompetence/negligence on the part of the Corps of Engineers (which I could have sworn was where this all started). Are you still operating under the delusion that I have ever been defending Bush here?
    Furthermore, no one here has stated that Pam was identical to Katrina,
    People are using the Pam model in an attempt to discredit a statement by Bush which was made in the context of Katrina. I think it's fair to say that people were trying to compare the two. The projections were obviously quite different. I think it's more than fair to say that no one anticipated those projected storm surges to breach the levees.
    but have you produced a model (created prior to Katrina) which more closely resembles Katrina. Ummmm ... No!
    That advisory certainly resembles Katrina more closely than the Pam graphics.
    Why? Because one doesn't exist and we all know it.
    Yes, just like 'we' all 'know' the Corps owns the levees.
    Are the 2 different in representing exactly where landfall takes place? Yes. Would it have been more destructive if Katrina entered where Pam did? Yes. That, however, is not the issue.
    Yes, the issue is whether or not someone would have seriously expected the storm surge produced by Katrina to breach the levees. I've yet to see you produce anything to support that position. The best you've offered are graphics from Pam.
    Who was it who informed Gov. Blanco that the levees could be breached, as she expressed to Joe Hagin, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, on Aug. 29?
    On Aug 29th, 'could be breached' means 'may have been breached'. She wasn't sure yet whether there had been breaches.
    Who was it within FEMA who directly informed Bush, later that same night, Aug. 29, that levees had been breached?
    And this is relevant to whether anyone anticipated that Katrina would breach the levees how? On August 29th, what anyone anticipated is irrelevant in this context.
    And, of course, this is all framed by Bush's Sept. 1 statement of "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees" which rings extremely hollow in light of the record,
    It rings hollow because it was a weak excuse. He and Me-Maw were playing political games with people's lives, and everyone was excusing her and indicting him. It doesn't change the accuracy of the statement, though.
    even though it had been widely reported that local disaster planners were well aware that New Orleans could be flooded by the combined effects of a hurricane and broken levees. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/op...erland&emc=rss
    Knowing that New Orleans could be flooded under the 'right' circumstances does not mean that anyone expected it to happen in this case. We*'ve been lobbying for better federal response to the coast for quite a while. Times have been pretty hard on that front for a while now, but I think Ken Starr and Larry Flynt probably have just as much culpability as Bush. It's pathetic that it's taken something like Katrina to get some attention to it, but that was also somewhat expected (although most expected something like Pam to be what it would take).

    * We is both literal and figurative in this case. A former coworker and business partner of mine's still fighting the good fight, even though I've been out of that field of work for quite a while.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Who was it who informed Gov. Blanco that the levees could be breached, as she expressed to Joe Hagin, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, on Aug. 29? Who was it within FEMA who directly informed Bush, later that same night, Aug. 29, that levees had been breached? And, of course, this is all framed by Bush's Sept. 1 statement of "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees" which rings extremely hollow in light of the record, even though it had been widely reported that local disaster planners were well aware that New Orleans could be flooded by the combined effects of a hurricane and broken levees. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/op...erland&emc=rss
    For those who understand why they have 2 ears and one mouth ... I repeat.

    What don't you understand about this chronology?

    Try validating your assumptions prior to outing yourself. Read the transcript of 8/29 [DO THE GOOGLE] to understand clearly that Gov. Blanco advised Joe Hagin, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, that the levees had not been breached, "but that could change" . Why is it that Gov. Blanco was aware that the levees could break? Why? Because she was advised so. By whom is my question. Do you have the answer? No! And misguided assumptions are unnecessary and unwelcome.

    FEMA advised Bush later in the same night of 8/29 that the levees had been breached? Then, and only then after you understand the chronology, will you understand why Bush's words of Sept. 1 are without merit. Am I holding my breath for your little lightbulb to turn on? Hardly!

    Furthmore, the reason you presented the 2 graphics was to illustrate that they are dissimilar, but you vainly attempt to insult anyone's intelligence who bothers to read your screed or follow the facts by trying to get away with presenting graphic 2 as the worst of Katrina VS PAM in storm surge. Apples VS Mangos. And doing so is somehow beyond your ability to comprehend and take responsibility for.

    Have you no shame?
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    For those who understand why they have 2 ears and one mouth ... I repeat.
    For someone who claims to 'know' so much, you seem to resort to ad hominem far too often. I'm open to new information. The only sources I paid attention to immediately before Katrina were the local media outlets. My only sources of real time information during Katrina were the local radio stations. It's possible the national news offered you guys much better real time info. I'm still waiting to see it, though.
    What don't you understand about this chronology?
    What don't you understand about the English language? You're playing games and doing your own 'word-smithing' so hard to try and avoid admitting you might be mistaken. You try and put off proving your points and assumptions by casting aspersions and telling others to 'try the google' instead of just providing a source in your original statement. Why?
    Try validating your assumptions prior to outing yourself.
    What 'assumptions' have I made? The closest to an assumption I've made is that if anyone really anticipated Katrina doing what happened, they'd have made more effort to get people out before it occurred. Or, do Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin 'hate black people' too?
    Read the transcript of 8/29 [DO THE GOOGLE]
    Why don't you post a link to the specific source? Are you that concerned about outing your source for possible bias?
    to understand clearly that Gov. Blanco advised Joe Hagin, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, that the levees had not been breached, "but that could change" .
    "We keep getting reports in some places that maybe water is coming over the levees," Blanco said. "I think we have not breached the levee. We have not breached the levee at this point in time. That could change, but in some places we have floodwaters coming in New Orleans East and the line at St. Bernard Parish where we have waters that are 8- to 10-feet deep, and we have people swimming in there, that's got a considerable amount of water."
    Why is it that Gov. Blanco was aware that the levees could break?
    There were radio reports as early as that morning that there had been levee breaches (and the ever present rumors of dynamiting the levees). At that point in the day, they were not yet confirmed as to whether there were overtoppings or breaches. Again, no one ever said that no one ever anticpated that levees were capable of being breached, but rather that no one realistically anticipated Katrina breaching the levees.
    Why? Because she was advised so. By whom is my question. Do you have the answer? No!
    Um...yeah. There were radio reports and even reports by the National Weather Service that there had possibly been breaches (the 17th canal in particular may have breached at 9am). If the local media is good at one thing, it is relaying information in time of crisis.
    And misguided assumptions are unnecessary and unwelcome.
    Then why do you persist on offering them?
    FEMA advised Bush later in the same night of 8/29 that the levees had been breached?
    You tell me. And please provide a source other than "do the google".
    Then, and only then after you understand the chronology, will you understand why Bush's words of Sept. 1 are without merit.
    I understand the chronology quite well. I also understand the difference between anticipate and discover.
    Am I holding my breath for your little lightbulb to turn on? Hardly!
    Great. The feeling is mutual.
    Furthmore, the reason you presented the 2 graphics was to illustrate that they are dissimilar,
    Really? You're an excellent mind reader to root out my hidden agenda and motives. Here I am trying to defend Bush and the Corps by calling them incompetent, and you expose me for what I am.
    but you vainly attempt to insult anyone's intelligence who bothers to read your screed or follow the facts by trying to get away with presenting graphic 2 as the worst of Katrina VS PAM in storm surge.
    Graphic 2 was the projection by the source which you seem to hold in high esteem for anticipating disaster, so it seemed to be a reliable source for illustrating the differences in what could be reasonably be anticipated before Katrina made landfall. After landfall, anticipation goes out the window, and the feds wait for requests from the state officials for assistance.
    Apples VS Mangos.
    I'm not the one who cited Pam in the first place.
    And doing so is somehow beyond your ability to comprehend and take responsibility for.
    You're right. I am a hidden agent of the Yakuza. I dynamited the levees to flood Lakeview.
    Have you no shame?
    I didn't realize your real name was Pot.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #78  
    I love it when bb puts his shades on, thinking he's saId something relevant. Keep it up!
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    I love it when bb puts his shades on, thinking he's saId something relevant. Keep it up!
    Dude, the possibilty that Bush offered his weak excuse in an effort to avoid further outing Me-maw as not having being capable of requesting assistance hasn't even entered his mind. The buffoon may have been playing games, but sadly he's better at them than Coach's wife (or at least his advisors are).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #80  
    ^ Your refusal to treat this matter with integrity is duly noted as my source is the United States federal government teleconference public record. No big whoop.

    and 'sblanter', you can go Cheney yourself ... again.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions