Archive for March, 2006


Friday, March 10th, 2006

More on the distinction between “topping” and “breaching” of levees:

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.

Associated Press clarification
as reported by The Drudge Report

As Cold Fury so aptly puts it:

In other words, we lied, we knew we were lying, and we waited as long as we possibly could to correct our lie so as to ensure we did as much PR damage as possible to a President we despise. This is what is known in MSM quarters as â??reporting the news.â?

An Unsubtle Distinction

Friday, March 3rd, 2006

I’ve seen a whole lot of reporting regarding the “smoking gun” video tape of a meeting between President Bush and various officials regarding Hurricane Katrina a full day before it made landfall along the Gulf Coast. Reportedly Bush was flatly told that the levees could fail, and then we get the new “Bush Lied” drumbeat, accompanied with a direct quote of Bush days after the flooding in New Orleans, saying, “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.”

Cue Democrat uproar, including Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid screeching that the Bush administration “systematically misled the American people.”

Here’s one of the stories, just by way of example: Yahoo! News: Democrats Want Independent Katrina Probe. A quick search will find many similar reports all over the press.

The thing that I noticed, that these days will always make me suspicious, is that none of them seem to actually quote what Bush was told in the meeting.

Well, I finally found the quote. In the video, the director of the National Hurricane Center tells Bush,
“I don’t think anyone can tell you with confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not, but that’s obviously a very, very great concern.”

Let’s recap. Bush is told it’s a real concern that “the levees will be topped”. Bush later says that he didn’t anticipate “the breach of the levees”.

Here’s the real news flash: these are different words. Different meanings. If the levees were topped by a storm surge, that would have caused quite a bit of flooding and damage in the sub-sea-level New Orleans, but it would not have been anywhere close to the destruction caused when the levees were breached.

Update: More here.

A Subtle Distinction

Friday, March 3rd, 2006

I just watched some talking head on Fox News talking about the 10th grade geography teacher whose anti-American classroom rant was taped by a student. The teacher has been suspended pending further decision by the school board.

On the news program, the commenter (sorry I didn’t catch the name — it was one of those point-counterpoint segments) suggested that the teacher’s suspension plainly went against the First Amendment, and that censoring anyone saying what they want to say is a violatioon of the core of First Amendment rights.

News flash to an idiot: The First Amendment does not extend to the rights of a government employee to say anything he wishes in the course of performing his job of educating a government-mandated captive audience of young students. As with any employer/ employee relationship, if you don’t do you job, the boss has the right to streamline your sorry ass.

But that would have required thought and restraint…

Friday, March 3rd, 2006

One of the core rules of military command is thus: Never give an order that you know will not be obeyed.

They why of it is common sense — to do so diminishes your authority. It diminishes the chances that they’ll obey your next command.

Ah well. San Francisco never did like the military much anyway, so it’s no surprise that they thought that this was a good idea.

I’ll bet it made them feel good, even as it has absolutely no effect whatsoever. This is of course the basis of Democrat lawmaking, whereas the military is more oriented towards actually getting things done.