Posted on 03/03/2006 4:51:36 PM PST by new yorker 77
Clarification: Katrina-Video story ASSOCIATED PRESS
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.
Obviously I don't count the MSM as reputable but we all know how the liberals respond when the article is from anywhere other than the old media.
This is very old news, I am not sure why it is considered newsworthy.
To me, It is all a sad story.
It has been 6 months, and people are still trying to find homes.
Has the candyman apologized?
Dan Patrick has him on his Friday ESPNRadio show every week. For a couple hours.
I've just done a search on AP's site, but could not find any clarification, except for some dumb story about Michael Douglas.
Maybe I didn't use the correct keywords...you can try...
http://www.ap.org/
I remember that picture but I think it was 2003.
Numerical Simulation of Flood Inundation Due to Dam and Levee Breach
http://www.asce.org/files/pdf/hurricane/Models_and_Simulation/Numerical_Simulation_of_Flood_Inundation_Due_To_Dam_and_Levee_Breach.pdf#search=
Lol! Good one!
However, this does not alter the fact that Bush knew of the approaching hurricane and did absolutely nothing to stop it.
Me too. Here is a perfect opportunity for the Press Secretary to make a big point about how the media got caught red handed peddling a lie in a major story yet we hear nothing at all.
Very irritating to say the least. The Administration needs a Bolton type critter in that position that is ready to take on these prima donnas. I think it would provide a morale boost to the whole conservative movement.
And what are they going to do to retaliate? Run false stories?
That's a Category 1.
|
LOL! Or if we had placed a camera in the eye of the storm, the wind generated from the race between Shummer and McCain could have sent it back to sea.
AP = Awful Propaganda
Tell your little girl that an electric motor turns the shaft that turns the impeller in the pump that takes the water out of the flooded city.
If the levee is breached, then the motors for the pumps go under water.
Either they shut off automatically or they burn out, or a worse case is that the power station that feeds electricity to the pump station becomes flooded and goes out or goes out. The power station could also go out due to Hurricane winds.
No motor, No pumping.
.
Ken Lormand
Bureau Chief/Managing Editor
SRN News
703-528-6213
----- Original Message -----
From: maica
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:36 PM
[SRN is the news service on the station that carries Medved, Hewitt, and other conservative talk shows.]
> Your news report today by Greg Clugston is inaccurate and > misleading. The reporter uses the word "breach" referring to the > potential hazards to expect from hurricane Katrina. The word used in > the briefing conducted with the National Hurricane Center and > President Bush (I heard the tape) is "topped". Words mean things, and > those two words don't mean even remotely the same thing. I the case > of New Orleans the difference is about twenty feet of water. >
> Either the reporters English skills are so bad that he does not > understand the difference, or he is willfully misleading the public.
> Which is it?
maica
(((((((
maica,
I have asked Greg Clugston to respond to your comments.
Thank you for alerting us of your concerns about our news coverage. Let me begin by assuring you, as firmly as possible, that I have not and will not "willfully mislead the public" in my news reporting. That would be dishonest, counterproductive, and an affront to me -- both professionally and personally.
I agree with you: the choice of words used in news reporting is important. I take great care in my writing to accurately and concisely explain news events. In one of my reports on the Bush-Hurricane Katrina story that aired on Thursday, March 2, 2006, I wrote that President Bush received dire warnings about a potential catastrophe on the eve of the hurricane, including the "possibility of the levees being breached." It's now clear that key government officials warned that the levees were at risk, among other worries.
Your specific concern centers on the word "breach." Like you, I heard the audio from a portion of one National Hurricane Center briefing. The Center's director, Max Mayfield, did not use the word "breach." However, there was ample discussion among high-level officials --in that meeting and others-- about the ability of the levees to withstand Katrina's force. Whether or not the word "breach" was used in every discussion, the thrust of those conversations is clear: that a serious disaster, including failure of the levees, was not unforeseeable.
On September 1, 2006, President Bush himself used the word "breach," which further complicated the story for the White House. In a TV interview, the president said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." One reason why I used the word "breach" is because the veracity of the president's statement has been at the center of the post-Katrina analysis and government review.
My 22-second report yesterday attempted to update the story accurately and concisely. It's impossible in that short amount of time to explore or explain every detail of a multi-layered story. However, I believe inclusion of the word "breach" was not misleading. It's quite understandable that any talk about the levees in New Orleans on the eve of largest hurricane in recorded U.S. history conveyed deep concern about the ability of the levees to hold. In this context, the word "breach" is appropriate.
For the record, I recorded two (2) voice reports on the Bush-Hurricane Katrina story on Thursday, March 2, 2006. One of the stories included the word "breach," the other did not. In your e-mail, you said my news report was "repeated half-hourly." It's the policy of SRN News not to re-air the same report within four hours. Perhaps, in addition to one of my stories, you heard other reports on the same story that were generated by someone else.
It was never my intention to cause confusion with my story and, if that was the case, please accept my apologies.
Sincerely,
Greg Clugston
SRN News White House correspondent
------------------
I wrote back to him, pointing out the timeline that he so conveniently has compressed and distorted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.