Yes we are lucky we have a President who lies to avoid being held accountable for mistakes. It is the same kind of luck I am grateful for everytime I get kicked in the gonads. You have a bizarre idea of what luck is.
AP issues a clarification on the Katrina- Video story: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm 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. Oops!
That doesn't make one bit of difference as far as him lying or not. But as far as him being to blame, was he prepared or did he take any actions or address the situation of the levies being overrun?
Why not? Wasn't the lie about the levies breaking? As far as the 2nd point, I agree with you he wasn't very prepared.
Ok, if we want to talk about semantics then Clinton only lied depending on what the meaning of 'is' is. The wording doesn't change the meaning. The meaning was the same. The rest of the warning was what would happen. It included the superdome problems, evacuation problems, supply problems, all of which happened. The fact that overrun or breech was used doesn't really matter.
The wording doesn't change the meaning? Does that make sense? Before he was warned about topping, later he said he didn't think they would breach. That's two different things. Like I said I think he was unprepared as far as all the problems that happened, but I don't see where he lied.
In this case it doesn't. If I said a river was going to overflow, or a river would flood its banks, it doesn't matter. It is a case of semantics. The meaning was the levies wouldn't hold back the water. Whether the words overrun or breeched were used, the meaning was the same. To act shocked and say one predicted that is a lie.
If there was only overrun from Katrina, it would have made a huge difference. I found this old Wall Street Journal article. http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...pJqQLKegQo_20060911.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top "Confusion over the difference between a breach of a levee and a mere overrun may also be to blame. Locals have long known that an actual break in a levee would mean catastrophic and irreversible damage. But if flooding was only the result of water sloshing over the top of a levee, combined with 12 inches of rainfall and possible storm surges, then the situation could have been far less serious."
