Reporting on Bush pre-Katrina briefing, NY Times, Wash. Post, USA Today entirely forgot Bush claim that no one anticipated levee breaches
SUMMARY: On March 2, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today reported on newly released video footage and transcripts documenting how, on the day before Hurricane Katrina made landfall, President Bush was warned -- and expressed concern -- about the possibility that the levees in New Orleans would be breached by the storm. But none of these reports mentioned that these new tapes further contradict the claim Bush made on ABC's Good Morning America several days after the storm hit that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
On March 2, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today reported on newly released video footage and transcripts documenting how, on the day before Hurricane Katrina made landfall, President Bush was warned -- and expressed concern -- over the possibility that the levees in New Orleans would be breached by the storm. But none of the reports mentioned that these new accounts of government deliberations before the storm further contradict the claim Bush made on ABC's Good Morning America several days after the storm hit that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees," which was debunked even at the time.
By contrast, a March 2 Associated Press report noted that, contrary to Bush's claim that the levee breaches were completely unexpected, "the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility -- and Bush was worried too." A March 2 Los Angeles Times article also suggested that the new footage conflicts with Bush's claim that the levee breaches were unanticipated.
From the March 2 New York Times article, by reporters Scott Shane and David D. Kirkpatrick:
In the videoconference held at noon on Monday, Aug. 29, Michael D. Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, reported that he had spoken with President Bush twice in the morning and that the president was asking about reports that the levees had been breached.
But asked about the levees by Joe Hagin, the White House deputy chief of staff, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco of Louisiana said, "We have not breached the levee at this point in time." She said "that could change" and noted that the floodwaters in some areas in and around New Orleans were 8 to 10 feet deep. Later that night, FEMA notified the White House that the levees had been breached.
From the March 2 Washington Post report, by staff writers Spencer S. Hsu and Linton Weeks:
Then-Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael D. Brown, who joined the call from Washington, and Max Mayfield, head of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, briefed participating federal and state officials in explicit terms.
"This is, to put it mildly, the big one," Brown said. "Everyone within FEMA is now virtually on call."
[...]
"This hurricane is much larger than Hurricane Andrew ever was," Mayfield said. "I also want to make absolutely clear to everyone that the greatest potential for large loss of life is still in the coastal areas from the storm surge."
[...]
Duffy noted that a transcript of the Aug. 29 conference showed Hagin asking about the status of the Superdome and New Orleans levees. In the same conference, Brown said he spoke twice that morning with Bush, who he said was "very engaged" and asking those same questions and others about city hospitals.
From the March 2 USA Today report, by staff writer Mimi Hall:
On the day before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, the head of the National Hurricane Center told President Bush that the city's levees were "a very, very grave concern," a newly released videotape shows.
The video of hurricane center chief Max Mayfield's remarks, made Aug. 28 in a presidential videoconference briefing, was obtained and released by the Associated Press on Wednesday night [March 1]. The video was replayed on television news shows, cable channels and across the Internet.
It's possible that the video footage and transcripts released of the pre-hurricane meetings corroborate the AP account that Bush was warned of the potential breach of the levees. If so, I have been unable to find such evidence in the body of the AP story. To back up their claim, the AP story uses this quote from the released transcripts:
The National Hurricane Center's Mayfield told the final briefing before Katrina struck that storm models predicted minimal flooding inside New Orleans during the hurricane but he expressed concerns that counterclockwise winds and storm surges afterward could cause the levees at Lake Pontchartrain to be overrun.
"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.
Now, this quote is talking about the levees being "topped" or "overrun" but nothing on the levees being "breached". And that is an entirely different and far more serious matter.
If more conclusive evidence existsthat the actual breaching of the levees was talked about, then I suggest AP should have used it in their story.
Did it really matter at that time whether the levees had breached or topped. The mode of flooding is inconsequential for a drowning person. The city was in the process of flooding and some areas as I understand already had 8 feet of water and they knew that. I'll concede that a breach in the wall is far more dangerous and causes flooding to be deeper and more widespread, but at that point the city was flooding. I'm 5'4 and not a strong swimmer so whether the water was 8 feet or 20 feet it wouldn't have made a whole like of difference for my survival; and in the areas where the flooding was most intense the neighborhoods closer to the levee walls were a lot single story dwellings. They could only climb so high. That said everyone that got their hand on that ball fumbled, but the Federal government and ultimately the leader of the Federal government was responsible for the actions of FEMA. They F-Up anyway you look at it.
Say you work at a nuclear power plant, and you're the boss. You have a golf date set, but a minor earthquake occurs. Your experts tell you that your reactor might go a little over the brink and spill out some radioactivity, or it might just breach and go into a China Syndrome.
You, as the boss, consider this information. If it's just "a little over the brink", you'll make TEE-TIME and enjoy your golf game, whereas if you consider that your experts tell you it might be WORSE, you might stay on site and actually lend your leadership?
This is the difference BUSH is being defended by. "Topped" versus "BREACHED" ... with both being speculations in the face of the CERTAINTY of a huge storm, is how they say it's OK for the big boss to head for the golf course.
That the rightwing is hanging their hats on the idea that merely "topped" means Bush was off the hook for providing leadership, would be comical if it hadn't led to so much suffering and death.
There is good non-partisan coverage of this at Factcheck.org [link to factcheck.org]
Factcheck notes that Bush may have technically been correct because the Corps claimed not to have anticipated a breach; the Corps did, however, anticipate flooding.
There is also evidence provided that the Corps had anticipated a breach, although they considered it an unlikely scenario.
In addition, the levees were designed to protect against a "fast-moving Category 3 hurricane," and they hadn't even been brought up to that standard yet because the project hadn't been completed (Bush cut funding, but even if he hadn't the project would not have been finished before Katrina). The Corps thought Katrina was going to make landfall at Category 5, and it actually did make landfall as a strong Category 4 storm. The Corps knew it was going to be bad, and that's why evacuation was ordered, as a member of the Corps explained.
Considering all that, I think the Corps claiming later that they didn't think the levees would be breached is a great example of CYA, and that Bush's statement, even if technically correct, was very disingenuous.
Thanks for reminding me about the factcheck article. I had read it at the time but it slipped my mind. I agree with both you and Lynn, my above post was in no way intended to take Bushco off the hook for the aftermath of that disaster. But I do want the AP charges to be legitimate based on the evidence they are looking at.
MMFA names a conservative "misinformer" of the year, which went to Matthews last year. I would like to see another category called "misinformation statement of the year". For me, it was hands down Bush's "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job". comment that leaves me shaking my head in disbelief to this day.
This is old analysis from fact check. The AP and LA times article refer to newly released videotape: From LA times:
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.
Sounds like warning of a breach to me.... Everyone conveniently blames Brownie for the incompetence, when it is clear that multiple educated meteorolgists and engineers briefed the highest echelons of government about the potential for disaster, including catastrophic flooding. To say they were not forewarned was disingenuous.
I agree with you. I think there's too much focus on Bush's "breach of the levees" quote, because even if he was technically correct on that point, it really doesn't matter. The federal government had had plenty of warning about what would happen if a big hurricane hit N.O. I attended a conference in N.O. a month before the storm at which Walter Maestri, director of Jefferson Parish emergency management, described a potential hurricane scenario that turned out to be almost exactly what came to pass. The folks down there like Maestri who were knowledgeable about these things were almost literally BEGGING for action from the local, state and federal governments that would prepare N.O. for a storm like Katrina. The political will just wasn't there.
I saw Walter Maestri on NOVA a few weeks before the hurricane hit. We seemed very alarmed about the levees then. I got the impression from the show that he'd been warning different agencies for some time, but I guess like other warnings, they never got through. I mean, after all, the show was on PBS. And only us far-left wackos who dislike the president watch anything on PBS.
From what I've gathered, it wasn't Mayfield's job to assess the strength of the levees and whether they would be able to hold up- it was ONLY his job to inform them that they would be topped.
The semantic debate between "topped" and "breached" is reminiscent of "immediately" and "as fast as humanly possible"- only serves to distract and deflect from the real issue.
In the Hsu article they had a video attached to the web-based version. It not only showed Bush saying "Nobody could anticipate the levees" and within seconds says, "but that seems to be in direct contradiction to what the tape shows" and then it showed the meteorologist saying "Nobody knows if the levees will break, but it is a great concern to us." So while the actual newspaper article doesn't point it out, there is SOME semblance of showing people the ridiculous lie here.
Get ready for the word-parsing argument that Bush said "breach" and Mayfield said "top", which ignores the substance of Mayfield's comment: "...obviously a very, very grave concern."
Whether the flooding resulted from breaching or topping of the levees, here is Bush on videotape being told of a "very, very grave concern" regarding the safety of New Orleans, and Bush later asserts that he couldn't have seen this coming.
This is the substantive issue that must not be deflected by legalisms over which word Bush used.
There is a big difference in the amount of water that could be involved in the two. Topping would involve any water above the top of the levee, where breeching would drain the Lake down to the level of the bottom of the breech. It was a disaster, yes, but the magnitude of the disaster would have been minimal with a topping vs. the breeching. There is a good possibility that the pumping system in "Chocolate Town" could have handled a topping. I think a full investigation needs to be done, including how monies were actually spent over the last twenty or thirty years on levee repair, maintenance, etc. FEMA could have put a lot more resources on the ground earlier, but would they have been in danger due to the breeching? Why didn't local/state officials take a more proactive role in events leading up to the disaster? What was the role of faith based organizations and other relief agencies in the aftermath of the storm? Were they hindered or helped by various government agencies? What can we do in the future to alleviate some of the suffering in the aftermath of a similar situation?
max mayfield said a topping of the levees would be a very grave concern. this is all spinning to try and draw attention away from the statement of bush that no one anticipated a breaching of the levees. that statement is completely false on the face of it.
topping leads to the erosion of the levee especially when accompanied by hurricane winds. I understand this is the new rightwing talking point but it holds about as much water as most of them, that is very little
our part of the country was subject to a "100 year flood". At that time, levees in a couple of cities in the area were topped, but none of them were breached. Big difference between topping and breaching even though the property loss was still substantial. Topping DOES NOT always lead to breaching. A design flaw in the NO levees? Probably. Not enough $ over the years? Maybe. Appropriated $ not going to levee maintenance or repair, but rather to pad some cronies pockets? Probably. If the levees were constructed using local materials, we need to remember that a lot of that material washed down the Mississippi over the eons and is definitely not the best material to use to build a levee or dam with. Lets have a thorough investigation, going back 40 - 50 years if we have to in order to get to the bottom of this so that it doesn't happen again. In the meantime, I would urge each of you, in your own locales, know what the emergency plans are in the event of a like occurrence in your area. Do you have a 72 hour personal emergency kit? Do you know the evacuation plans, are you prepared to follow them? Or are you going to wait for something to strike and then start pointing fingers?
…to be precise, it's "Chocolate City" Many cities are Chocolate because Vanillas either don't like the city and prefer the burbs or they don't want to be too close to the chocolate; but one day I dream it's going to be one great big Chocolate-Vanilla swirl.
yes, a chocolate/vanilla combination is most delicious, both in ice cream and diversity. But what will the third major flavor be?
Isn't it a little bit incompetent if they were talking about how water might flow over the levees and not a single person asked "Well... is there any chance they wouldn't be able to withstand it?"
And I happen to think that Brownie got the shaft.
Brown called it, "It's the Big One."
Which big one, Brown?
This one, silly.
WHAT WOULD ONE EXPECT OF CHENEY-BUSH? COMPETENCE?