28.
By on Feb 9th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
28.
The number of “government agencies, from local Louisiana parishes to the White House, [that] reported that New Orleans levees were breached Aug. 29, the day Hurricane Katrina roared ashore.” The Bush administration was first informed at 8:30 ET on August 29; Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff claimed at the time he learned of the breach “midday” on August 30.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Think Progress: HeLLO? Where are you on the Cheney-Libby story. I usually go to you guys first.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:54 pmMy link didn't work
Libby is singing on Cheney. It's the best thing since Fitzmas
February 9th, 2006 at 11:56 pm#3 and 4 - I'm confused by that, I had Libby as falling on his sword for Cheney and stalling as long as possible, then being pardoned by Bush and off to Fox News to run his own show. It played on CNN a while ago, the take there was that it was hypocritical for the Veep to leak the NIE while at the same time go after the person who leaked the wire-tapping NSA stuff. Time for the alert level to go up - got your duct tape?
February 10th, 2006 at 12:04 amWhere is Ruppert with his standard "It was the local democratic governments fault."
It looks like the locals were doing there job, while Bush had cake with Senator John McCain in Arizona
and played guitar with Country Singer Mark Wills in San Diego:
February 10th, 2006 at 12:38 am
Not surprisingly, Michael Brown and FEMA seemed to do just fine with four hurricanes in the 2004 swing state of Florida, home of presidential brother Jeb Bush.
For the details, see:
February 10th, 2006 at 1:56 am"FEMA: Florida Election Management Agency."
Must read!!! The cronyism stench is even larger then we knew!! Read "Unholy Trinity: Katrina, Allbaugh and Brown" http://realnews.org/rn/content/i...tent/ index.html
February 10th, 2006 at 2:22 am(Courtsey of the Randi Rhodes Show website)
White House den of liars
February 10th, 2006 at 4:52 am.
multiple failures here, the time to act was prior to the Hurricane's impact...that to me is local. Coast Guard personnel were air lifting the next day...that's a federal response that worked. I don't recall seeing the chaos in Mississippi.
local gov't has a threshold on what it can do, Federal response to my best knowledge has never been 'instant' and had the residents that mistakenly stayed or been unable to leave stocked up for a few days to tide them over as well as the local gov't properly stocking the convention center and other buildings, that dire need in mid week could've been mitigated.
NO excuse for the federal govt's failures....but NO excuse for local either.
February 10th, 2006 at 5:51 amThe last time Brown spoke publilcly he blamed Dept. Homeland Security/Chertoff. Interesting to see what he does today.
February 10th, 2006 at 6:53 amIn the end we don't need to look at the details. America has one dead city while Iraq absorbs all of our hard earned money. Right here. Right now.
#8
Neal your link doesn't work. It has elipses in the middle of it.
I was curios what the article said.
Archon
February 10th, 2006 at 7:12 amSpudge_boy, thanks for posting that picture of Bush fake-playing the guitar with Mark Wills on August 30th. The day after learning the levees had breached, Nero fiddled.
February 10th, 2006 at 7:40 ambush was celebrating the deaths of the people in the lower 9th ward of N.O. that's why he was laughing and joking on the 29th of August 2005. This bastard is a mass murder when are we going to take him into custody,.
How many Poor and Black Americans have died in N.O. and how many are losing their last shred of property under this bastard?
Impeachment is too kind of a word for this adminstration......
February 10th, 2006 at 7:48 amCheck out the Bill Press show from 6 am to 9 am EST on Sirius satellite radio or on local stations in larger markets.
Check the url:
http://www.billpressshow.com/
Then listen to Thom Hartmann from 12 to 1 on Sirius and 12 to 3 PM EST live stream on the net.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/showlisten.shtml
Then finish the day with Ed Schultz from 3 to 6 PM EST Live stream on the net and Sirius satellite radio.
http://www.wegoted.com/
Join the revolution.
Archon
February 10th, 2006 at 7:49 amYet another lie from the Federal government on their action, or reaction, to the disaster? Actually, it should be their non-reaction to the disaster.
Once "Heck-of-a-job" Brownie testifies, the liars just might be held responsible for their non-action.
By the bye, why did Brown say he wouldn't testify if Pres. Bush would pay his legal fees? Does that mean his 'truthfulness' depends on the amount of money he gets? Loyalty for sale, anyone?
February 10th, 2006 at 8:35 amIt is usually called "Blackmail". If you were to tell an elected official, "I won't release damaging news of you if you give me money". They could prosecute you for blackmail.
However, if you are a friend of the President or former adminstration employee it is apparently legal to threaten to realease damaging info unless your attorney bills are paid by the White House.
These people have NO ethics or morals. They promised to return these to the White House.
Archon
February 10th, 2006 at 8:40 amOnce the average American people are faced with the extent of incompetence of the current administration, the Republicans will be relegated back to the minority party.
I can't happen too soon! While 2006 may not bring the change, I believe it will reduce the numbers of Republicans.
Unlike Gary Ruppert, I won't make any (false?) promises to cause myself bodily harm in case my prediction is incorrect. While I have hope for the American people to wake up to the truth about the elected Republicans, it's the voting companies that count the votes, and we know to whom they give all their donations.
February 10th, 2006 at 8:43 amIf Michael Brown is threatening to reveal facts that dispute the Administration's version of events unless his legal fees are paid (did I understand that correctly?) then:
1) I do not want one more penny of my tax money going to this man. Taxpayers are not obligated to pay his fees. If he's choosing to pay a lawyer to accompany him while he testifies, that's his choice. And his responsibility.
2) There is no point in the White House caving because we now know that what the WH told us was happening was not what actually happened, according to Mr. Brown.
3) If the WH does agree to pay his legal fees, then shouldn't we all just assume that he will lie and contradict this information?
Then again, maybe the WH "plan" was for Brownie to impugn his own credibility so they can continue to deny what he might say. It wouldn't surprise me.
Yeah, I'm cynical. I know it.
February 10th, 2006 at 9:26 amIf I remember correctly, that was the period of time when our man, who says his number one job is to 'protect amurikins', was busy 'getting on with his life'.
The idea of brownie stating that he wants defence money from the White House 'or else', is just so twilight zone. I think we're all asleep in the same nightmare.
If brownie talks, then he'll be doin', 'a heck of a job'!
February 10th, 2006 at 10:16 amYes, and CNN has video of Bush lying on Friday about levees breaking on Tuesday when he knew on Monday that they'd already broken.
Here's a link to the relevent web reports.
Someone needs to go dig up the video.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:34 am.
You all got it backwards. Andrew Card told Brownie that the White House would pick up his legal tab if he would resfuse to testify in front of the senate hearing.
Andrew Card also asked him not to answer certain questions.
We all know this is all totally illegal and breaks all kinds of laws. Will anything be done about it?
Dont think so.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:44 amNice to see Brownie,fighting back against that Bush lap dog Norm Coleman...still can't figure out how Minnesota elected that bozo
February 10th, 2006 at 10:52 am#23 If it is true that Andrew Card asked Brownie not to answer certain questions, then that would be considered "tampering with a witness", wouldn't it? Or were you just making a sarcastic joke, Paul? Because if what you said is true, then I would like to know if this does constitute witness tampering.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:55 amMichael Brown didn't ask for the White House to cover is defense bills. He said that he would fully cooperate with and answer all of the questions of the Senate panel, unless the White House extended to him executive privliage.
In other words: "You make it so they can't asked me any questions or I am squealing like a pig."
February 10th, 2006 at 11:32 amMark Wills looks like he's afraid Bush will drop the guitar... he does have a history of dropping balls...
George Bush doesn't care about black people...
February 10th, 2006 at 11:34 am#25 ..or a conspiracy
February 10th, 2006 at 11:37 amWell, you see, the White House didn't come to the aid of Brownie, so he is squealing today, just as he said he would.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Link for above article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210/ap_on_go_co/katrina_congress;_ylt=AgHE7qXXd39bY5g17u8EgAus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Of course, I want the actual transcript.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:41 amThen of course there is this just out:
Washington Post
February 10, 2006
Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Side note:
I love the poll on the page where this article is.
Same ol' sh!t for 55 years.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:45 amPablo is right; the Administration told him they would pick up all counsel's tab is he keep his browniehole shut. Brownie sees that being in bed with this cabal any longer is detremental to his career and, possibly, health.
The White House is just a home base for the new Mafia.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:48 amThere is something that I would seriously like to have explained to me. What is the full argument that says that the executive should not have to reveal the advice he gets from people? I heard the president stumble through an explanation of it last night, and he said (in essence) that if the advice he gets from people is revealed, then no one would want to give him advice in the future.
To me, the problem with this "reasoning" is that it seems like an excuse to allow people to say that they advised the president one way when they really advised him to do the opposite. And protecting that advice would mean protecting the lie being told afterwards.
Aren't we supposed to have an open government? If someone from, let's say, the oil industry were to advise someone in the administration, say the Vice President, why should they be allowed to keep that advice secret? Exactly what and who is being protected? I don't understand.
In the end, it sounds to me like what the president is saying is that someone might want to secretly advise him one way but publicly suggest otherwise, and that it is important that this lie be publicly maintained. Or is there something else I'm missing?
I would appreciate any serious help with this. Thanks to all.
February 10th, 2006 at 11:52 amDoes anybody know if Michael Brown was sworn in?
February 10th, 2006 at 12:21 pm#34 big papa,
According to what Senator Specter said when the AG testified, it would still be a crime to give false testimony to Congress whether or not you were under oath. That suggests to me that the oath is just for show, or to add a second charge of perjury to lying to Congress if the witness lies. Either way, he would not have a license to lie to them, since he could still go to jail for it even though he wasn't "under oath" (an expression so scary to the president that he refuses to subject himself to it).
February 10th, 2006 at 12:31 pmBig Papa, yes to your question. Brownie was sworn in on C-Span for this morning hearings..On going as I type..
February 10th, 2006 at 1:10 pm#33
Wayne,
I would think it would depend on your definition of "advice".
Is someone just whispering in the President's ear at a dinner party or has a company submitted a written opinion on legislation?
Written correspondence or official meetings I would suppose are public record and should be available according to your open governement theory. However, I don't know how you could ever enforce making everything the President is told or recommended in passing part of the public record.
Someday the President will be a Democrat again and I don't think you want that standard to apply. I wouldn't want that.
February 10th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
February 10th, 2006 at 1:27 pm#37 Archon,
Thanks. I'm not talking about whispering in the president's ear at a dinner party. I'm talking about meetings where official policy is formulated.
For the record, in case the trolls plan to jump on me for this, I already believe that it was wrong for Hillary Clinton's Health Care Task Form meetings to be kept secret, so please no one accuse me of "double swtandards."
Written opinions used by the government should be public record. And the Vice President's Energy task Fporce and Legislation Writing Team should have been made public. I do not understand the rationale for keeping it secret.
That is what I need to learn. Why is it important to keep the advice (in writings or in meetings) that the president gets secret? Mike Brown is, apprently, alluding to keeping his dialog with the administration over Katrina secret. Under what explanation is this justified?
Why is it bad to have the advice a president gets made public?
February 10th, 2006 at 1:53 pmArchon-
http://realnews.org/rn/content/index.html
Try this.....
February 10th, 2006 at 2:51 pmI am sorry for the misinformation. It was not Andrew Card who promised Brownie legal support, it was your no up or down vote asllowed supreme court nominee.
Harriet Miers write Brownie an e-mail putting out the facts. It was Andrew Card who asked Brownie not to answer all the questions truthfully.
I got the latter from RAWSTORY.
February 10th, 2006 at 7:05 pmThe List (TM)
The List
The List (TM)
January 21st, 2007 at 3:59 pm