AP's clarification on Katrina levee breaches ignored key facts
SUMMARY: An Associated Press clarification of a previous story about video footage showing President Bush being briefed about Hurricane Katrina not only echoed the Bush administration's explanation of why the AP videos do not contradict Bush's claim about not anticipating a breach of the levees, it omitted key facts that undermine the administration's explanation.
On March 1, the Associated Press reported that videos and transcripts of briefings obtained by the AP indicated that "federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees." This evidence appears to prove false Bush's assertion, made days after the storm hit, that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." On March 3, the AP issued a clarification to the March 1 article which read, in part: "The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking." However, the AP's clarification, which echoed the Bush administration's explanation of why the AP videos do not contradict Bush's claim about not anticipating a breach of the levees, ignored key facts that undermine the administration's explanation.
The AP noted in its clarification:
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 Katrina, Bush was told there were grave concerns the levees could be overrun.
It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm made landfall, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had asked about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.
The AP failed to note, however, that in the early morning of August 29, 2005, just before Katrina hit land, the Department of Homeland Security warned the White House that, based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) July 2004 "Hurricane Pam" planning exercise, Katrina could cause levees breaching as well as overtopping, as Media Matters for America noted. The fact that the administration concluded from a 2004 exercise that there was a serious threat of levees breaching in the event of a Category 3 hurricane in New Orleans starkly contradicts Bush's assertion two days after Katrina made landfall that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." In fact, many people in the administration anticipated the breach of the levees, including, apparently Bush himself. As the AP noted in its clarification, former FEMA head Michael D. Brown said in an August 29, 2005, briefing, even as the hurricane was pounding the Gulf Coast, that Bush asked whether the levees had been breached. But instead of noting that this fact appears to contradict the administration's explanation, the AP instead reported that its March 1 article "should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking."
Also, preliminary engineering findings from the National Science Foundation, Louisiana State University, and the American Society of Civil Engineers have stated that erosion from overtopping in fact caused many of the levee breaches.
Fox News' Washington managing editor Brit Hume seized upon the AP's flawed clarification to claim that "we learned next to nothing" from the Katrina briefing videos originally brought to light by the AP, that Bush "received no such warning" about New Orleans' levees breaching, and that the "frenzy" over the videos "ended up turning out to be totally bogus."
From the March 5 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
CHRIS WALLACE (host): So, Brit, what, if anything, did we learn this week from these government video conferences about what went wrong on Hurricane Katrina?
HUME: I would say we learned next to nothing. And what the Associated Press, which got all of this started, said we learned turned out not to be true, as the AP in itself finally acknowledged on Friday evening in a very grudging three-paragraph, quote, "clarification." Basically, the story line that came out of this video, by the way, of an event -- by the way -- which was open, at least in all relevant portions, open to the press, attended by Fox News and other news organizations -- in fact, when you look at the tape of this supposedly confidential video, you see news cameras in the background in a number of the shots.
Well, there were news cameras there most -- much of the time, and what the AP claimed we learned was that the president had been warned a day ahead of time that the levees stood a good chance of being breached. What, in fact, he was warned was that the levees could be topped, and the briefing on that, by the way, also said that all the models predicted that while this was a possibility, that they were predicting that New Orleans would get very little flooding, relatively speaking. Topping a levee means the water flows over the top. You get some flooding out of that. Breaching a levee means the whole levee gives way and water just comes pouring in, which is what happened in New Orleans.
So, he received no such warning. The AP couldn't tell the difference between topping and breaching. Much of the rest of the media fell for it hook, line, and sinker, forgetting the fact that they -- you know -- it had been covered at the time, and we had, you know, a two or three-day frenzy over something that ended up turning out to be totally bogus.

















max mayfield called topping a grave concern during that meeting. what was the grave concern if topping means only a little water flowing over the top. grave is a rather serious description. now six months later, it wasn't so serious. war is peace, the world of orwell.
I posted on the other thread that the AP article was in error with regard to their conclusion. IMO they were correct to issue a clarification on this subject. Factcheck analyzed this whole thing back in September and the exerpt on Bush's quote is here:
"Nobody anticipated breach of the levees?
In an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on September 1, President Bush said:
Bush: I don’t think anyone anticipated breach of the levees …Now we’re having to deal with it, and will.
Bush is technically correct that a "breach" wasn't anticipated by the Corps, but that's doesn't mean the flooding wasn't forseen. It was. But the Corps thought it would happen differently, from water washing over the levees, rather than cutting wide breaks in them.
Greg Breerword, a deputy district engineer for project management with the Army Corps of Engineers, told the New York Times:
Breerword: We knew if it was going to be a Category 5, some levees and some flood walls would be overtopped. We never did think they would actually be breached.
And while Bush is also technically correct that the Corps did not "anticipate" a breach – in the sense that they believed it was a likely event – at least some in the Corps thought a breach was a possibility worth examining."
The people in New Orleans were just as screwed whether the water came over the levees or through the levees, it seems to me. It amazed me when Bush said this about the breaching of the levees...my thought was that maybe he should listen to NPR. I do, and for the week or so before the hurricane hit, the possibility of a flooded New Orleans was mentioned several times. I'm not sure it matters how the water got in.
When a levee overruns it often leads to a structural failure, a breach. Water poring over the top can erode the base and structure of the leeward side of the levee, even well maintained levees. It is amazingly deceitful for Hume to minimize the event.
If no one could have foreseen the levees breaching, then why is the administration pounding state and local officials for not evacuating sooner?
Boris
When is the MSM going to ask: "When did the Coast Guard report the Levees were breached?" Debating apples and oranges i.e.: topping and breaching is and always has been beside the point. During exercise Pam, the levees were breached. Fema and DHS knew what would happen if a cat 4/5 hurricane hit, the levees would be breached, period, end of discussion. The Coast Guard, their Onscene commanders, the Rescue Coordination Centers reported those breaches, and I'm sure those reports went to the Department of Homeland Securities Operations Center (HSOC) . Again, The Coast Guard is the only federal entity that had their ducks in a row, carried out more than 30,000 rescues, and their heliocopter pilots certainly reported those breaches! Many Situation Reports (SITREPS) were sent up the chain of command. When is the MSM going to ask the correct questions. Yes, spending 22 years in CG communications, I'm very partial, but besides the point, I'm sure those reports went out in a timely fashion, probably every 3 to 6 hours. Watching the chain of command from Brown to Chertoff to the President only compounds their incompetence. MCPO, USCG (ret) P.S. God Bless our Coast Guard
I thought the AP actually simply could not<\b> issue clarifications or corrections. It sure seemed that way.
But yay! The White House leads the way!
Now there should be no trouble getting the AP to retract, clarify, and correct: Democrats do want to eavesdrop on terrorists; Reid voted against the anti-minimum-wage provision Abramoff was pushing; Republicans do not support the troops; etc.
Try 202 776 9400.
Since we are parsing words here, how about this: Since the water flowed over the levies after they were breached, then they were overtopped. No, that would just be silly!
MMFA once again ignores key facts.
"Some have twisted the facts to fit a story line," McClellan said. "He was not there to participate in the full briefing. He was there for that purpose: to lift their spirits."
McClellan also said that referring to Bush's statement four days after the storm that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees," ignores the explanations given by the White House and Bush himself about what he meant.
"What the president was referring to was the sense that, after the storm had initially passed, that there was a sense that that worst-case scenario had not happened," McClellan said. "Some have taken it out of context to suggest he was referring to any predictions before the hurricane hit."
Once again Media Matters beats a dead horse.
so bush was not there to participate in the meeting? he was there to "lift their spirits"? thanks for the quotes. you could not have provided any better evidence about what an uninvolved, detatched, gladhanding incompetent bush is. harry truman: the buck stops here. bush: is it time for me to clear brush.
Now I have heard it all. The media headquarters for the right is making up excuses for the Republicans. It is not enough that the bias we have in the media is truly planted in Conservative ideology, but now, they have taken an active, almost leading, roll in what the spin sounds like.
"Toping" and "breaking way" could mean the something when the end result is major flooding, so it makes no different what term is used. The fact is Bush maybe indirectly responsible for the lost of many lives: red blooded American lives. This tape, along with many other factors, should be used to impeach this President.
The rate in which we are exposed to the shocking revelations of this President's actions and policies has a hidden advantage; it allows the President to avoid damaging focus for any one issue by the constant shock and shifting of the many. The Democrats are in need of a serious focus group directed at making this President account for the many wrongs one issue at a time.
Joseph
Let's see. And now?