• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
So said George Bush on September 1, 2005.

Really? But records show that the White House was put on notice that the levees could break prior to Katrina making landfall.


White House Got Early Warning on Katrina
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 24, 2006; Page A02

In the 48 hours before Hurricane Katrina hit, the White House received detailed warnings about the storm's likely impact, including eerily prescient predictions of breached levees, massive flooding, and major losses of life and property, documents show. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301711.html

The Department of Homeland Security had been conducting an exercise called Hurricane Pam (which they were calling a Category 3 hurricane) to test the nation's preparedness for a catastrophe since 2004.

Documents Show Govt Forewarned on Katrina
By LARA JAKES JORDAN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 24, 2006; 2:27 AM

. . . Pam's warnings proved prophetic. The documents show that the Homeland Security Department, which directed the Pam exercise, was warned a day before Katrina hit that the storm's surge could breach levees and leave New Orleans flooded for weeks or months. . . .

"Overall, the impacts described herein are conservative," stated the report, which was sent to Homeland Security's office for infrastructure protection.

"Any storm rated Category 4 or greater ... will likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching, leaving the New Orleans metro area submerged for weeks or months," said the report.

The documents are the latest indication that the federal government knew beforehand of the catastrophic damage that a storm of Katrina's magnitude could cause. . . .

And the President said on September 1st that no one anticipated the breach of the levees? Does no one = the Dept. of Homeland Security? That is absolutely appalling, although I shouldn't be surprised anymore by his lack of honesty.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
aps said:
So said George Bush on September 1, 2005.

Really? But records show that the White House was put on notice that the levees could break prior to Katrina making landfall.





The Department of Homeland Security had been conducting an exercise called Hurricane Pam (which they were calling a Category 3 hurricane) to test the nation's preparedness for a catastrophe since 2004.




And the President said on September 1st that no one anticipated the breach of the levees? Does no one = the Dept. of Homeland Security? That is absolutely appalling, although I shouldn't be surprised anymore by his lack of honesty.
Wouldn't you say this is getting a bit redundant? I mean come on, the horse is dead already, stop beating it :roll:
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
aps said:
So said George Bush on September 1, 2005.

Really? But records show that the White House was put on notice that the levees could break prior to Katrina making landfall.





The Department of Homeland Security had been conducting an exercise called Hurricane Pam (which they were calling a Category 3 hurricane) to test the nation's preparedness for a catastrophe since 2004.




And the President said on September 1st that no one anticipated the breach of the levees? Does no one = the Dept. of Homeland Security? That is absolutely appalling, although I shouldn't be surprised anymore by his lack of honesty.
Now try intepreting it in the proper context...

"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." before anything could be done about it...

What can be done within 48 hours of the actual hurricane?....Try to get everyone out of there?...Nagin tried that...failed miserably...

Did you expect the Army Corps of Engineers to magically make a dam system?

BTW - They thought of that earlier...The environmentalists said "No" because it'll disrupt the little swamp critters...

Move along folks...nothing to see here...:shrug:...
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's very clear to me. 48 hours before the storm (per your article), Bush was informed that the levees could be breeched. His statement, therefore, says he never could have anticipated such a thing.....that is, until he was told about it. Unless, aps, you think he should have torn down the levees and rebuilt them during that 48 hours.

This is a non-story. Another deperate attempt. Move along, folks.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
cnredd said:
Now try intepreting it in the proper context...

"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." before anything could be done about it...

What can be done within 48 hours of the actual hurricane?....Try to get everyone out of there?...Nagin tried that...failed miserably...

Did you expect the Army Corps of Engineers to magically make a dam system?

BTW - They thought of that earlier...The environmentalists said "No" because it'll disrupt the little swamp critters...

Move along folks...nothing to see here...:shrug:...
redd, how DARE you interject common sense into debate. :doh After all, George Bush doesn't like black people. :rofl
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
debate_junkie said:
redd, how DARE you interject common sense into debate. :doh After all, George Bush doesn't like black people. :rofl
Does that mean he's a little "iffy" about Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz?...:doh
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
cnredd said:
Does that mean he's a little "iffy" about Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz?...:doh
I suppose. I do find this thread to be comic relief. Just the thing I need before I make the 45 minute commute to Harrisburg to deal with the daunting task of earning a buck, so the government can take $1.50 in taxes. :roll:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
Now try intepreting it in the proper context...

"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." before anything could be done about it...

What can be done within 48 hours of the actual hurricane?....Try to get everyone out of there?...Nagin tried that...failed miserably...
So are you adding your own words to George Bush's quote? Give me a break. If he meant that nothing could be done, he should have stated such. That would be an accurate statement. Instead, he made it seem as though NO ONE anticipated the break of the levees.

Did you expect the Army Corps of Engineers to magically make a dam system?
Nope, but admitting that while there was information provided by the Dept. of Homeland Security about the possibility that the levees could have been breached, there was allegedly nothing the federal government could do in response to that information.

Move along folks...nothing to see here...:shrug:...
Then why did you bother to respond to my thread? You're free to ignore it altogether, and it would not remotely bother me.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
So are you adding your own words to George Bush's quote? Give me a break. If he meant that nothing could be done, he should have stated such. That would be an accurate statement. Instead, he made it seem as though NO ONE anticipated the break of the levees.



Nope, but admitting that while there was information provided by the Dept. of Homeland Security about the possibility that the levees could have been breached, there was allegedly nothing the federal government could do in response to that information.



Then why did you bother to respond to my thread? You're free to ignore it altogether, and it would not remotely bother me.
You're right. Why didn't he tear those levees down and build new ones? I mean, come on, he had 48 hours.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
You're right. Why didn't he tear those levees down and build new ones? I mean, come on, he had 48 hours.
That's not the point, KC. The point is that Bush denied that anyone could have known that the levees would break, when that was patently false. We're not talking about some private agency who made that determination. We are talking about an agency of the Executive Branch. But if you want to keep pretending the issue is that the government could not have done anything within the 48-hour period, be my guest.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
That's not the point, KC. The point is that Bush denied that anyone could have known that the levees would break, when that was patently false. We're not talking about some private agency who made that determination. We are talking about an agency of the Executive Branch. But if you want to keep pretending the issue is that the government could not have done anything within the 48-hour period, be my guest.
Read the article. Until Bush was told about the possibility of the levees giving way, he hadn't anticipated it. Should he have checked with you to see if you understood before saying it? I've seen some desperate splitting of hairs by liberals before, but this takes the cake.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
Read the article. Until Bush was told about the possibility of the levees giving way, he hadn't anticipated it. Should he have checked with you to see if you understood before saying it? I've seen some desperate splitting of hairs by liberals before, but this takes the cake.
He doesn't say that HE PERSONALLY had not anticipated it--he said that he didn't think ANYONE could have anticpated the breach. While HE may not have been told prior to the landfall, the Dept. of Homeland Security had been put on notice of such. Thus, someone in the federal government had been placed on notice that the levees could be breached. Therefore, for Bush to say, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," is totally false.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
aps said:
That's not the point, KC. The point is that Bush denied that anyone could have known that the levees would break, when that was patently false. We're not talking about some private agency who made that determination. We are talking about an agency of the Executive Branch. But if you want to keep pretending the issue is that the government could not have done anything within the 48-hour period, be my guest.
No, I don't recall Bush saying no one KNEW the levee's would breech. He said no one anticipated it.. meaning DESPITE the warnings.. all involved held out hope that said levee's would hold up.

Let's say I go out for a drive, and it's sleeting. Yeah, there's my warning right there that it's treacherous conditions. Does that mean I anticipate getting into an accident? Nope, I hope that I, as well as the other drivers have enough common sense to drive sensibly (and yes I know that's a stretch)

an·tic·i·pate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-ts-pt)

v. an·tic·i·pat·ed, an·tic·i·pat·ing, an·tic·i·pates
v. tr.
To feel or realize beforehand; foresee: hadn't anticipated the crowds at the zoo.
To look forward to, especially with pleasure; expect: anticipated a pleasant hike in the country.
To deal with beforehand; act so as to mitigate, nullify, or prevent: anticipated the storm by boarding up the windows. See Synonyms at expect.
To cause to happen in advance; accelerate.
To use in advance, as income not yet available.
To pay (a debt) before it is due.

It is your contention the Dept of Homeland Security realized beforehand that the levee's could breech, and yet you contend Bush is lying because he says no one "anticipated" them breaking. Well, I've got a news flash for you, while Mr Bush might be guilty of using a "wrong" word, his idea is not far off. Would you have rathered he say "No one EXPECTED the levee's to breech?"

And if that's the case, it is my contention that it's sad when one's debate comes down to splitting hairs about a word, a word that is OFTEN made to be synonymous with "expect" and therefore most who use anticipate, use it to mean just that.. expect. Because no HUMAN expects the things that are supposed to secure us to fail.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
debate_junkie said:
No, I don't recall Bush saying no one KNEW the levee's would breech. He said no one anticipated it.. meaning DESPITE the warnings.. all involved held out hope that said levee's would hold up.
Holy Moses. I would be curious as to how many people thought that this was a valid argument.


Let's say I go out for a drive, and it's sleeting. Yeah, there's my warning right there that it's treacherous conditions. Does that mean I anticipate getting into an accident? Nope, I hope that I, as well as the other drivers have enough common sense to drive sensibly (and yes I know that's a stretch)
Okay, but prior to your going out for a drive, you are watching the news and they are saying that driving conditions are treacherous and that there have been several accidents as a result. While you may not anticipate you will get into an accident, can you say that others, who saw the same report as you, didn't anticipate that they would get into an accident. Regardless, say you are in an accident as you are driving (you have seen the news before you left the hosue), could you, in good conscience, say, "Officer, I didn't antipate that I would have gotten into an accident"? Answer that honestly.

Frankly, anyone who drives in inclement weather knows that there is a higher chance of getting into an accident. That is just plain common sense.


an·tic·i·pate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-ts-pt)

v. an·tic·i·pat·ed, an·tic·i·pat·ing, an·tic·i·pates
v. tr.
To feel or realize beforehand; foresee: hadn't anticipated the crowds at the zoo.
To look forward to, especially with pleasure; expect: anticipated a pleasant hike in the country.
To deal with beforehand; act so as to mitigate, nullify, or prevent: anticipated the storm by boarding up the windows. See Synonyms at expect.
To cause to happen in advance; accelerate.
To use in advance, as income not yet available.
To pay (a debt) before it is due.

It is your contention the Dept of Homeland Security realized beforehand that the levee's could breech, and yet you contend Bush is lying because he says no one "anticipated" them breaking. Well, I've got a news flash for you, while Mr Bush might be guilty of using a "wrong" word, his idea is not far off. Would you have rathered he say "No one EXPECTED the levee's to breech?"

And if that's the case, it is my contention that it's sad when one's debate comes down to splitting hairs about a word, a word that is OFTEN made to be synonymous with "expect" and therefore most who use anticipate, use it to mean just that.. expect. Because no HUMAN expects the things that are supposed to secure us to fail.
Sorry, debate junkie, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. If you want to split hairs on the meaning of anticipate, be my guest. I don't buy it for a second. I am talking about the plain meaning of that statement. And, by the way, it would be the same had Bush used the word "expect."

You provided the definition of anticipate: To feel or realize beforehand; foresee: hadn't anticipated the crowds at the zoo.

Now read this part of the report:
"Any storm rated Category 4 or greater ... will likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching, leaving the New Orleans metro area submerged for weeks or months," said the report.

And you're saying that the finding that it "will likely lead" to a breach of the levees is indicative of no one anticipating that the levees would breach? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Seriously.
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
debate_junkie said:
Let's say I go out for a drive, and it's sleeting. Yeah, there's my warning right there that it's treacherous conditions. Does that mean I anticipate getting into an accident? Nope, I hope that I, as well as the other drivers have enough common sense to drive sensibly (and yes I know that's a stretch)
A more appropriate analogy:

Lets say you are a meteorologist for a florida city....indications are the incoming hurricane will make landfall as a Cat4 and you have a good Idea where the path lies....yet, you do not make the media aware, and no warning is issued. Many Die as a result of your descision. You had the information, and held a position which forced responsibility upon you, yet you failed to act.
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
People, let's not also forget that the administration also cut the Corps of Engineers' funding for even maintaining the levee.

If you haven't already, read this article on the levee system from Wikipedia. Can you honestly say after reading it that they couldn't anticipate what would happen?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_hurricane_risk_for_New_Orleans
 

SixStringHero

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
1,586
Reaction score
133
Location
Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Jesus Christ, lets blame one guy for a catastrophic event that administrations for the last 40 years knew could be a possibility and ignored.

Clinton also cut funding for the levee by the way.
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
SixStringHero said:
Jesus Christ, lets blame one guy for a catastrophic event that administrations for the last 40 years knew could be a possibility and ignored.

Clinton also cut funding for the levee by the way.
Did he cut it by 50%, though?

I'm certainly not placing the blame solely on Bush......I just said the administration. That doesn't necessarily mean just the Bush administration....though he was in office for a good four years before Katrina, he also had plenty of time to do something about it.....
 

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
aps:
And the President said on September 1st that no one anticipated the breach of the levees? Does no one = the Dept. of Homeland Security? That is absolutely appalling, although I shouldn't be surprised anymore by his lack of honesty.
First of all, the flooding wasn't actually caused by storm surge flowing over the tops of the levees. Water flowed over levees throughout New Orleans but they only failed in three places. The base of the levees failed on the back side of the levees, allowing the levees to collapse.

Studies have shown two main causes. A layer of unstable soil lies underneath the levees that will not properly support them when the soil becomes stressed. Large areas of soil moved laterally 45' in these areas. The other problem is the steel pilings that were installed 25 years ago. The pilings were to extend underground 17' but in many places only went 10' deep, therefore not providing enough lateral strength.

People, let's not also forget that the administration also cut the Corps of Engineers' funding for even maintaining the levee.

If you haven't already, read this article on the levee system from Wikipedia. Can you honestly say after reading it that they couldn't anticipate what would happen?
The 17th Street Canal and London Avenue Canal were completed segments of the Lake Ponchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project. Although other portions of the Lake Ponchartrain project are pending, these two segments were complete, and no modifications or improvements to these segments were pending, proposed, or remained unfunded.

The Corps was authorized by Congress to do a reconnaissance study back in 1999 to provide Category 4 or 5 protection. Money was received in 2000 and the reconnaissance study was completed in 2002, which indicated there was a federal interest in proceeding with the feasibility study. Preparation for that study is still underway, and involves issues such as environmental impacts, economics, and the engineering design of the project itself. The feasibility study was scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2006. It may take six years to complete; there was nothing that could have been done to get this level of protection in place before this storm hit.
As you can see from this article (also Wikipedia), the 17th Street and London Canal levees were completed and not further repairs were planned. Further studies were in progress, but as you can see from this article, years would pass before any further work would be completed.

There are numerous stories out there that show how maintenance money was squandered and that the levee inspections were more like social gatherings than serious inspections.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Gill said:
aps:

First of all, the flooding wasn't actually caused by storm surge flowing over the tops of the levees. Water flowed over levees throughout New Orleans but they only failed in three places. The base of the levees failed on the back side of the levees, allowing the levees to collapse.

Studies have shown two main causes. A layer of unstable soil lies underneath the levees that will not properly support them when the soil becomes stressed. Large areas of soil moved laterally 45' in these areas. The other problem is the steel pilings that were installed 25 years ago. The pilings were to extend underground 17' but in many places only went 10' deep, therefore not providing enough lateral strength.
Hi Gill. My beef is that the federal government was put on notice of the possibility that the levees could be breached in a Category 4 storm. I am not examining whether the feds could have done anything at that time. However, Bush subsequently states, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." On its face, it is dishonest. The implication was that no one had any idea that the levees could breach, when evidence shows that such is not true.

So my issue is related to Bush implying that no one had thought that the levees would breach, when, in fact, there was documentation proving otherwise.
 

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hi aps. I understand what you are saying but I don't believe it holds much water (no pun intended). Every one has been predicting a major disaster if a Cat5 hurricane was to hit NO. I've watched shows on Discovery about this subject for ten years now.

The bottom line is that no one anticipated that the levees would fail like they did. If the only water had been from storm surge, the damage would have been minimal.
 
Top Bottom