Howard Elicits a "YEEARRGH!"

I have read numerous articles using the word "breached" to describe what Max Mayfield told Bush. These articles continue to publish this distortion despite the widely publicized reports about what was actually said.

Dean has a history of overstating his case. However this does at least partially exonerate Browne who stated that his superiors had been informed of the risks.

What really bothers me about the tapes is that they were initially, according to several public sources, classified. This White House has taken the process of document classification to a new level. While they always state the reason is national security the real reason seems to be personal embarrassment. National Security should not be synonymous with covering blunders and the criteria for releasing documents: that any document that can be released without direct harm to national security should be.

The media blowing something out of proportion to fit their own political allegiances and commercial aspirations?? Never....

Peter: yes, Dean certainly does have a history of overstatement (which is actually understating the case a bit!) I expect it from him, but this time I felt it was so outrageous that it was beyond the pale--for me at least.

As far as the tapes being classified, I don't know that I would be that concerned about it. Yes, it does seem excessive, but I'm not so sure that it isn't somewhat regular for such presidential material to be classified. You also need to understand there are different levels of classification, and a "mere secret" classification is quite common. To be cleared for secret-level security is common also (I was when I was in the Army--every radio guy is). I doubt (but don't know for sure) that the classification of this sort of material started with Bush, for what it's worth.

I can see our conservative apologists for the Bush cult need a little lesson in civil engineering.

No, overtopping is not exactly the same as breaching. But breaching will, absent some other cause, be caused by overtopping. Overtopping has several causes; one is greater than anticipated rainfall which may cause overtopping. That is a relatively benign problem; there are pumps to mitigate some of the overtopping and usually the rainfall is so gradual, additional methods can be employed to prevent or lessen overtopping.

A hurricane is not so benign; it causes a storm surge which constantly and continuously batters a levee. When the storm surge goes over the levee--overtopping--with such force and frequency, the levees will eventually breach. This is because a levee is essentially a wall that is buttressed with a pile of earth behind it. When that earth erodes or is washed away--that wall isn't strong enough to hold.

This is why when the meteorologist in the video talked of storm surges some 8 to 20 feet above the levees--he described it using very grave terms. Why? Because he knows a storm surge of that magnitude would destroy some levees.

Those trying to protect Dear Leader by pretending there's some difference between overtopping and breaching in this case are delusional.

Overtopping vs. breaching... Basically just semantics, in my opinion. If Bush didn't know that there was a serious danger of N.O. being inundated, then he, or any one of the myriad individuals whose job it is to advise him should have taken a few minutes to tune into ANY of the mainstream news channels, as that's ALL they were screaming about for at least the 36 hours prior to landfall.

All of the argument on this point, however, distracts from the fact that the President stated (on video) that the full resources of the government were poised to respond to whatever degree of disaster came to pass. THIS clearly was not the case. Trucks full of supplies should have been poised hours away. The Navy should have been steaming up the Gulf just behind the storm. The argument that the president didn't "anticipate the breach of the levees," or that he was recieving conflicting information, or that the storm was weaking, are all irrelevant.

When responding to a disaster, you prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. Best case scenario, this administration was prepared for the 'best', and just hoping that the worst didn't happen. They were inadequately prepared for a storm for which they had about 5 days warning, and all of the initial data was indicating could have actually been much WORSE than it turned out to be. This is inexcusable, and a lot of people died as a result.

Lying or incompetent; I don't really care which it is, because it doesn't matter in the end. We just need to get somebody into those positions of power that can actually handle the responsibilities inherent in the job.

"Lying or incompetent; I don't really care which it is, because it doesn't matter in the end."

oh, but it does if, like all the other major issues of this administration - actions and inactions were deliberate, with a sinister outcome expected.

the wtc attack, wmds, the insurgency, katrina - ALL of these things were exactly the same in that they KNEW but told us that they DIDN'T know.

and why should they stop? who's stopping them?

Donald insightfully raises a very good point; Bush's only comment in the video was that the Federal Government was fully prepared and poised to help affected areas. That clearly was false.

And when Bush said that nobody anticipated the levees being breached--that too was false.

Yet, what do Bush cultists like Seth and Peter worry about? Whether Howard Dean said 'overtopping' or 'breaching.'

This tragedy killed some 1500 Americans; there are tens of thousands of other US citizens who had their lives deeply uprooted. Yet, the Bush cultists can only worry about protecting one man.

I am now thoroughly convinced that Jade does not read the articles and comments she coments on. BUSH CULTIST...where the hell did that come from. Balance, Jade, balance...ever hear the word? When have I ever written a document supporting the Bush administration. Nobody does all things right and all things wrong. Yet consistantly you bring up disconnected facts and use them to support your contention that all Bush supporters are stupid and conservatives have no redeaming value.

Interestingly, you only comment on conservative articles and comments (well 90% of the time), with the majority of the time making personally disparaging remarks about the writers. The only reasonable conclusion is that you are a contrarian looking only to stir the pot and move the readers away from reasonable debate.

Overtopping vs. breaching... Basically just semantics

Donald, it was not Bush that got caught with his pants down by this video, it was the liberal press and liberal politicians who miscued because their knees jerked faster than their comprehension of the English language.

We have an interesting study in partisan politics here. On one hand we have a statement by Dean to which you are conspicuously uncritical and another by Bush to which you are overly critical.

Attempting to salvage by spin the mistake made by Dean and the press serves no useful purpose.

Frankly, it is rather embarrassing to have to read.

No, overtopping is not exactly the same as breaching. But breaching will, absent some other cause, be caused by overtopping.

Levee design flaw still elusive

The New Orleans Levees were designed to be topped. The Corps designed the levees for the much more serious problem of flooding where high water levels are maintained for weeks rather than in a hurricane by hours.

In a flood the levees are first weakened by saturations which reduces the ability to withstand scouring by an overtopped levee. To combate this, the Corps madated that the levees in New Orleans be integrated into pilings driven into the substrata to a depth of 17 feet.

Mayfield did not warn Bush that the levees would be breached because the Corps did not believe that breaching was possible.

Greg, a charter member of the Bush cult, provides a link that supposedly says the Corps of Engineers didn't believe the levees could be breached. Unfortunately, nowhere in his link does it say this.

Instead, Greg's link notes the design of the floodwall was controversial, that there may not have been enough money to adequately complete the project, that the design was not properly executed, etc.

Again, breaching of levees--absent some other cause (such as a ship ramming it or sabotage)---will always be caused by overtopping.

Mayfield is a meteorologist. But even so--he knew a storm surge of the magnitude predicted would cause the levees to likely be breached.

Frankly, Greg is not telling the truth when he claims the Corps of Engineers did not believe the levees could not be breached as this 2002 NOLA newspaper series points out.

If Greg hasn't the honesty to look at that series--he should do a search on the name 'Al Naomi.'

Again, breaching of levees--absent some other cause (such as a ship ramming it or sabotage)---will always be caused by overtopping.

Please provide a detailed engineering study on exactly how a 6 year old concrete wall integrated with 17 foot pilings will inevitably be breached by a storm surge.

This I have to see.

From The Washington Post:Investigators Link Levee Failures to Design Flaws
Three Teams of Engineers Find Weakened Soil, Navigation Canal Contributed to La. Collapses
Quoting Hassan Mashriqui, a storm surge expert at LSU's Hurricane Center

Mashriqui also found that in the areas where the outlet had wiped out marshes and other wetlands, levees and floodwalls were much more likely to fail. In areas where the natural buffers remained, the manmade defenses held, even when they were overtopped.

"Without MRGO, the flooding would have been much less," he said. "The levees might have overtopped, but they wouldn't have been washed away."
blockquote>

So basically, we have storm surge experts at LSU who did not believe that the levees would fail, even if topped.

Yet we have a press and a "say anything, do anything" left that believes the president of the United States should have known more than experts in the field.

Not Odd how when it is their boy, like Howard Dean in the hot seat......they are so much more understanding.

Once again, Greg's link doesn't support what he is claiming. From Greg's link:

Investigators now believe the walls collapsed when the soils beneath them became saturated and began to shift under the weight of relatively modest surges from the lake. And newly released documents show that the Corps was aware years ago that a particularly unstable layer of soil lay beneath both floodwalls.

There we have it. Greg claims the Corps of Engineers didn't believe the levees could be breached. Yet, the Corps was aware the floodwalls were built on unstable layers of soil.

Somebody here is lying. I don't think it's the Corps of Engineers.

Mar. 05, 2006

Model examines levee breach

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS VICKSBURG

Computer models only go so far. So engineers will soon be making waves in a 4-foot-wide model of the canal between New Orleans and neighboring Jefferson Parish.

They want to learn what part waves played in breaching a floodwall on the 17th Street Canal, where Hurricane Katrina's storm surge pushed water from Lake Pontchartrain - and where water poured into the city after the storm hit on Aug. 29.

The model of wood, dirt and water will be used to verify results from four computer models, each looking at different forces of waves and currents, said Wayne Stroup, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center's Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory.

If the numerical and physical models match up, it will validate computer models of the other canals where levees broke, he said.

The 1-to-50 scale model is the latest in a collection of models dating back to 1927 at the Mississippi laboratory formerly known as the Waterways Experiment Station.

This one, built in the past six weeks, represents about a one-mile stretch along Lake Pontchartrain and a half mile of the 200-foot-wide canal itself, said Bill Seabergh, the research hydraulic engineer overseeing the project.

To ensure its accuracy, surveyors measured the canal's depths and the height of the surrounding land from the mouth of the canal.

The model will eventually include representations of the U.S. Coast Guard station, the nearby marina and the Old Hammond Highway Bridge, structures that could have affected how waves reacted with the canal's floodwalls, Seabergh said.

Using 24 gauges on the model, researchers will try to see if waves started breaking inside the canal and whether the storm surge caused underwater turbulence that damaged the floodwalls.

The work is part of the corps' Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force, which is investigating why levees and floodwalls in the New Orleans area failed during Katrina.

There we have it. Greg claims the Corps of Engineers didn't believe the levees could be breached. Yet, the Corps was aware the floodwalls were built on unstable layers of soil.

The Corps was told during the Clinton Administration that there was substandard subsoils, but exactly how does that translate into your contention that the corps knew the levee WOULD be breached and warned the Bush Administration about its fears.

You are just spinning like a top.

First you claim...

breaching of levees--absent some other cause (such as a ship ramming it or sabotage)---will always be caused by overtopping.

Then when I rub your nose in the facts given by the LSU storm surge expert, you spin in a different direction.

The facts are these.

-The levees were designed to be topped.
-The experts did not anticipate the levees would fail.
-The Clinton Administration failed to manage the levee project, so New Orleans flooded.
-The media deliberately lied about what Max Mayfield told Bush.

Again, Greg--as I noted earlier:

"No, overtopping is not exactly the same as breaching. But breaching will, absent some other cause, be caused by overtopping. Overtopping has several causes; one is greater than anticipated rainfall which may cause overtopping. That is a relatively benign problem; there are pumps to mitigate some of the overtopping and usually the rainfall is so gradual, additional methods can be employed to prevent or lessen overtopping."

And I noted that overtopping caused by hurricane-induced storm surges will lead to breaches is not in dispute. Thus, your claim that "levees were designed to be overtopped" is not true in all cases. It's akin to saying cars are designed to withstand collisions; in some cases, they are and in other cases they are not.

As to your claim The experts did not anticipate the levees would fail.

That is most certainly false. In June 2004, Al Naomi--Project Manager for the Corps of Engineers==warns: Al Naomi, the US Army Corps of Engineers' project manager, "begs" the East Jefferson Levee Authority for $2 million to fund necessary levee repairs that Washington has refused to fund. "The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don't get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can't stay ahead of the settlement," he says. "The problem that we have isn't that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can't raise them."

The Clinton Administration failed to manage the levee project, so New Orleans flooded.

Again, demonstrably false:

June 2005: The House of Representatives proposes the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history—$71.2 million, or 21 percent. The Bush administration had earlier proposed a $52.8 million reduction for the New Orleans district's fiscal year 2006 budget. The cut would be the largest single-year spending cut ever incurred by the district. As a result of the expected cut, the local Corps office postpones a study seeking to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane. Additionally, it imposes a hiring freeze and is unable to start any new jobs or award any new contracts. "I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction," said Al Naomi, project manager for the New Orleans district. "I think part of the problem is it's not so much the reduction, it's the drastic reduction in one fiscal year. It's the immediacy of the reduction that I think is the hardest thing to adapt to." One of the hardest hit projects is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project (SELA). Its budget is being slashed to $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million. The amount is a sixth of what local officials say they need. Funding for levee repairs and other work on Lake Pontchartrain is scheduled to be cut from $5.7 million (see February 2, 2004) this year to $2.9 million in 2006. "We'll do some design work. We'll design the contracts and get them ready to go if we get the money. But we don't have the money to put the work in the field, and that's the problem," Naomi says.

2001: Between 2001 and 2005, the US Army Corps of Engineers requests $496 million to strengthen the 300-mile levee system protecting the low-elevation greater New Orleans area from the waters of the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain. The Bush administration responds to these requests by proposing a $166 million budget. Congress approves a $250 million budget.

June 2004: For the first time in 37 years, the US Army Corps of Engineers must halt its work on the New Orleans' east bank hurricane levee system, due to lack of funds. Several sections of the levee system have sunk 2 to 4 feet and need to be raised.

The media deliberately lied about what Max Mayfield told Bush.

No, but you did.

"No, overtopping is not exactly the same as breaching

Thank you for finally owning up to the truth. This is a first.

Now read the quotes by Hassan Mashriqui, the storm surge expert at LSU's Hurricane Center and admit that the experts did not anticipate a levee breach.

Next, read up on the construction problems of the 17th Street Levee and what was known by the Clinton Administration....and not known at the briefing that this article references.

Bottom line, the media and the left lied about the video and got caught.

Sorry, better luck next time.

Greg is intellectually dishonest. Hassan Mashriqui does not say that the levees would not be breached. In fact, Mashriqui predicted they would very likely be breached.


But what can one expect from someone who is willing to accept the deaths of 1500 Americans in order that his political master doesn't get bad press.

Please provide the exact quote where Mashriqui predicted the levees would very likely be breached.

I am waiting for the quote Ms Gold.

Greg: Tell you what--you made the claim, you back it up. Here's your quote to refresh your memory:

because the Corps did not believe that breaching was possible.

As for Dr. Mashriqui, here's The New Scientist:

As Katrina crossed the Gulf of Mexico in August, Hassan Mashriqui of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge ran simulations showing that the MRGO would funnel storm surges from the Gulf and Lake Borgne into New Orleans. He predicted that a surge of 2 to 3 metres per second would breach the walls of the Industrial Canal, which joins with the MRGO, and flood low-lying areas.

These predictions were correct, says Paul Kemp, also of Louisiana State University, who has now modelled the Katrina storm surge. The MRGO suffered the highest storm surges in Louisiana before giving way. That failure led to the flooding of the city's St Bernard Parish.

From issue 2524 of New Scientist magazine, 05 November 2005, page 5

"Hassan S. Mashriqui, an engineering professor at Louisiana State University and an expert on storm surges, said the segmented nature of the walls could be an additional problem, since any weak point could cause a catastrophic failure.

"Since they're not tied together you get a little bit of a gap and that's what water needs to make it fail," Dr. Mashriqui said."

link

it's an article on the substandard work done by the army corps of engineers - which i didn't know was a clinton group until greg told me.

He predicted that a surge of 2 to 3 metres per second would breach the walls of the Industrial Canal, which joins with the MRGO, and flood low-lying areas.

The press really does have a problem with saying "breached" when it obviously means "topped".

because the Corps did not believe that breaching was possible

I should have used the word "probable" rather than "possible".

Despite what you say, despite what the press says, no one at the Corps was telling the Administration that the levees were going to be breached.

Aw... c'mon guys; you're doing it again. The President of the United States is either a bungler or a liar. Caught right on tape (video-, no less). Whether or not Mr. Mashriqui's treatise on levee design and the Corps of Engineers supports or refutes the bungling and/or the lies is, so far as I tend to think, irrelevant.

For the record: I don't much care for Howard Dean either.

No Donald, the press lied, but of course you would not get upset about THAT.

WHAT LIE?

you're arguing semantics again. breach - top -

i know why, too.

~~

Liberal Editor Used AP's Discredited Katrina Story to Call Bush a ...
NewsBusters - 14 hours ago

Katrina Video Shows Media Beating a Dead Horse
ChronWatch, CA - 2 hours ago
The evidence ... X. The MSM have become so obsessed with getting President Bush that they have lost all sense of reality. Do ...

NewsBusters Sammon Excoriates Media on Katrina Video:
"Journalistic Fraud" ...
NewsBusters - Mar 2, 2006
... So, to suggest that was the warning that Bush should have ...

Media, Democrats Exaggerate Warning of Levee Breaches
GOPUSA, TX - Mar 3, 2006

go, greg - rah rah rah.

As a matter of fact, I do get upset when the media does its job poorly or incorrectly. As a matter of fact, I believe the media is every bit as guilty of prolonging this nonsense as the current administration. As a matter of fact, I believe that, had the media been doing its job, there'd be a great many more high ranking administration officials up on charges right now. And the Democrats, as a party, are just as guilty as the media. The entire system has gone nuts, if you want my opinion...

Innocent people are dying on a daily basis, crushed by a machine over which they have no control, as a result of the ever-shifting whims of a few powerful people. "Crimes against humanity" would be a good place to start. The administration is guilty of implementing it. The media and the democrats are guilty of allowing it to continue.

(In anticipation of Greg's retort: Yes, al Qaeda is guilty too... in the 9/11 attacks. But by now we all know al Quaeda had nothing to do with the war in Iraq, despite the administrations lying implication that they were linked).

All of this, however, does NOT change the fact that in this particular instance, in this VIDEO, the President has demonstrated that he is either incompetent or a liar. The words that come out of his mouth are INDISPUTABLE: He is either; 'talking out his ass' (uninformed - despite the fact that his RECORDED comments come at the end of a meeting, the purpose of which was to inform him, uncaring, out of touch, clueless, a POOR leader) or just plain lying.

So far as I can tell, this particular instance is just one of the MANY, by now, regular instances that he demonstrates these traits. The fact that his party hasn't abandoned him blows my mind. The fact that the democrats haven't made a better stand against him blows my mind. The fact that the media hasn't done a better job challenging his utterly transparent incompetence blows my mind.

The comments in question illustrate perfectly that, not only is this President an embarrasment to this nation and its people, he is a direct danger. How many more times does he have to prove this before the other institutions charged with protecting the population start doing their jobs?

"The fact that his party hasn't abandoned him blows my mind. The fact that the democrats haven't made a better stand against him blows my mind."

two words - status quo.

you can't get caught with your pants down in a massage parlor and say you didn't know what you were getting into.

But by now we all know al Quaeda had nothing to do with the war in Iraq, despite the administrations lying implication that they were linked).

Iraq had everything to do with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is the natural result of 30 years of neglecting to respond in force to terrorism. The response to 9/11 of invading Iraq, ended the era of state sponsored terrorism.

All of this, however, does NOT change the fact that in this particular instance, in this VIDEO, the President has demonstrated that he is either incompetent or a liar.

That is an interpretation that serves your partisanship and nothing more.

"The response to 9/11 of invading Iraq, ended the era of state sponsored terrorism."

That's a laugh. It hasn't done much to slow the terrorists down, now has it? In fact, it can be argued it's done nothing but escalate attacks and recruitment.

Admittedly, I'm a bit of an 'old timer', but I remember a day when reading about suicide attacks in the news was a bit of a rarity. Yep, those were the good ol' days; about six or seven years ago. It's a daily occurence now.

As to that other; call it what you want. It doesn't change the realities of the situation at all.

As to my 'partisanship', please refer again to the first paragraph, where I state that I hold the Democrats almost as responsible for this mess as the current administration.

As poor a leader as Bush is, it's clear the Democrats (AND the media, for that matter) lack any real leadership as well. If they'd had a real leader, they would have put the whole lot of 'em in a hole a long time ago.

That's a laugh. It hasn't done much to slow the terrorists down, now has it?

Placating them didn't work either Donald, it cost 3,000 lives in New York.

but I remember a day when reading about suicide attacks in the news was a bit of a rarity.

That is odd?

Are you not the same Donald McCullough who claimed that Bosnia was "before your time"?

The reason you have not been made aware of daily violence is because you obviously do not pay attention to the world news. Islamic terrorist have been hacking people to death, blowing up market places and engaging in suicide bombings in Algeria, Morocco, Chechnya, Niger, Mauritania, Nigeria.....for decades.

Algeria is where they really sharpened their skills during the 1980's. Their favorite method there......was to rush out of the hills and hack people to death with axes. They dabbled in suicide bombing there too......then passed the idea onto Hamass.

As to my 'partisanship', please refer again to the first paragraph, where I state that I hold the Democrats almost as responsible for this mess as the current administration.

Odd for a non-partisan,... you seem to hit every orchestrated note perfectly.

Islamic terrorist have been hacking people to death, blowing up market places and engaging in suicide bombings in Algeria, Morocco, Chechnya, Niger, Mauritania, Nigeria.....for decades.

Yet another misrepresentation from our neighborhood fascist, Greg.

Let us consider Prof. Robert Pape of the University of Chicago. Pape is no pacificist; he is considered something of an expert in the use of air power during wartime. Anyway, Pape has completed the most exhaustive study of suicide bombing in a book called "Dying To Win."

Basically, Pape examined all recorded suicide bombings and found religion played next to no role--suicide bombings are almost always driven by a nationalistic desire to rid a country of a (perceived) occupier.

Moreover, its not Arabs who have committed the majority of suicide bombings.

What Makes Suicide Bombers Tick

"Iraq had everything to do with Al Qaeda"

go, greg! udaman...

AMERICA!!!

As always Jade, blinded by her fundamentalism, flies right by the point.

Regardless of Jade's diversion toward the subject of Robert Pape's book Dying to Win, the fact of the long history of Islamic terrorism in places like Algeria, Morocco, Chechnya, Niger, Mauritania, Nigeria still remain.

As for Robert Pape's thesis, of course you missed the point. Mr. Pape writes that suicide terrorism works because it pays.

Pape claims that "recent suicide terrorist campaigns . . . are associated with gains for the terrorists' political causes about half the time" (64-65).

Of course, Ms. Gold and the left are working as hard as humanly possible to make sure this remains true and thus are increasing the risk of terrorism to us all.

"It is precisely this sort of manufactured, baseless outrage that is causing the Democratic party to lose elections to a weak Republican party."

whether it's baseless or not to give the appearance of beating a horse already neck deep in the water, all the while ignoring 200 miles of other destroyed coastline (it's NOT just NOLA you know) is certainly not making anybody on either side look good.
L.