Bush and Katrina's "Situational Information" By Ralph Nader

[kpete]

Published on Monday, March 6, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Bush and Katrina's "Situational Information"
by Ralph Nader

President Bush,

I saw you on the CBS television evening news the other day using a new phrase - "situational information". You were referring to the conditions just before and during the Katrina hurricane-Levee disaster in New Orleans. The "situational information" was not what it should have been, you declared. This was your way of saying that you did not receive prompt information about the risk the giant hurricane posed for the breaching of the city's levees.

Now it appears that you were given advance warning. This was the thrust of the CBS television news report by Bob Orr. Anchor Russ Mitchell introduced the segment with these words: "In the days following hurricane Katrina, President Bush insisted that no one in his administration anticipated the failure of the levees protecting New Orleans. But newly released videotape shows that as the huge storm approached the Gulf Coast, the president and his top advisors WERE warned it posed just such a threat to the low-lying city." (emphasis in the original)

These advisors included National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield and FEMA Director Michael Brown, who told top administration officials, including Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff, of the '"looming danger," "a day before landfall".

These tapes caused the Wall Street Journal's article on March 2 to have this headline: "Tape of Pre-Katrina Briefing Shows Bush Was Warned of Dangers." Sounds like you received quite explicit "situational intelligence" which you still decline to acknowledge getting. Maybe the White House has a problem with "situational credibility".

...........................
more at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0306-30.htm

[pimpbot]

1. Who let Ralphy out of his cave?

I didn't expect him to resurface until 2008.

[ronnykmarshall]

3. Only if it's a close election.

[Lefty-Taylor]

5. With all due respect, your implication is incorrect

because Ralph Nader has been speaking out, and writing coherently and vigilantly all along. He's been in no cave. Simply check other progressive sites to see his well-crafted articles -- commondreams.org, for example, often runs them. By the way, Al Gore supported the war in Iraq, initially, Nader did not and has continued to speak out against it. Did I vote for him in 2004? No. (I voted for Kerry.) But then, many of our votes didn't count anyway as the system is rigged -- something Nader's been talking about for at least the last six years.

[newyawker99]

6. Hi Lefty-Taylor!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. You can have him

but Nadar is not welcome around here.

[mdmc]

9. We love Zell Miller Democrats!

Evil , evil greens...

[mdmc]

8. welcome to DU!

I don't know if DU allows discussion regarding the green party or Ralph Nader. That is why you don't see much about him here at DU. I've seen threads get locked that discuss voting and election funding that are banned for discussing the ramifications of these bills on third parties.

It appears that you cannot post conspiricy theries, mihop 9-11 stuff (can't post in GD), or green stuff at du.

I may be wrong, and it may be left up to the moderator of the forum.

[MasonJar]

2. Oh, but, Ralph, there is no difference between Bush and Gore,

between the pugs and the Dems. Remember?

[Bandit]

10. He never said that

He said that was hardly any difference between the Parties. He never mentioned Bush* or Gore in that remark. People like you continue to mislead others as to the truth. Exactly how have the Parties differed these past five years? Bush* has gotten passed by large majorities virtually everything he put forward.

[WinkyDink]

4. But Ralph! SURELY Pres. Gore would have reacted similarly!!

YOU P.O.S.