Katrina warnings 'went unheeded'
The US government was warned about the risk Hurricane Katrina posed to New Orleans before the storm hit, but the warning was ignored, a senator says.Democrat Joseph Lieberman, on a Senate panel studying the response to Katrina, said emergency agency Fema had warned on 27 August the city could be flooded. He accused the White House of being unwilling to hand over documents which might explain why no action was taken.
A White House spokesman insisted the administration was cooperating fully.
Sen Lieberman said the report from Fema had been received by the White House several hours before the storm made landfall on 29 August. The note warned of the potential for serious damage, loss of power and flooding in New Orleans, he told the Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing.
Why was the president left so uninformed that he said four days later: 'I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees'?
It also predicted that Katrina would exceed the projections of an exercise the previous summer, which had suggested a Category 3 storm would require mass evacuations and could breach the city's flood defences.
Hurricane Katrina was a Category 4 storm with winds of 233kph (145mph) winds when it hit the city.
"What happened to that report?" Sen Lieberman asked. "Why was the president [George Bush] left so uninformed that he said four days later: 'I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees'?"
He said the White House had failed to provide important documents which could explain why the warnings went unheeded and had been reluctant to allow officials to be interviewed.
Sen Lieberman accused the Department of Homeland Security of a "conscious strategy of [delaying] our investigation in the hope that we would run out of time".
Source : BBC
posted by _H_ at 5:12 am
6 Comments:
Curious- do you post things only pertaining to terrorism, or just fascinating reads in general? If the former... Gulf Coast disaster...terrorism? Would like to hear anyone's opinion on the matter.
I will say that I do not believe a decision was made specficially to allow the Gulf Coast disaster- call it blind faith, call it naivite...a mistake and lack of administrative congruity is one thing, but purposeful destruction? I have to question such an accusation and see some SIGNIFICANT evidence to prove otherwise.
Zosimo, one can hardly blame the destitute who had no means to get out for not getting out. Additionally, you are totally forgetting about events like people trying to walk out and being ordered back by the authorities.
As for relying on the government, I see a glaring inconsistency in your position upon visiting your site. You support one of the biggest branches of government: the military. Or is it that, in your calculus, if a government agency's job is to destroy and kill, you support it, but if it is there to help people, you are against it?
Anna, go here.
Voice, yes, we do.
M, we don't limit ourselves to terrorism here, but we do focus on it.
hi
i have a question. did you ever receive a cheque by adsense ? hehe i just want know if it's real.
Hey, intersting article. I will probablly be the last person to defend something the current US administration, the post in question does bring to mind one point.. surely the white house must receive a number of security / natural disaster / terrorism briefings and warnings as and when circumstances arise. in this case, which of these briefings should be acted upon decisively. i guess it boils down to, do you want an administration that will react to any and all intelligence coming in (is that possible?) or try and take objective decisions keeping in mind the risks of ignoring some of the information available (i guess this is what they aspire to do..).
obviously, in this case, they ignored some very important information, with devastating consequences. i guess, the ability to make these calls objectively is what would define a good administration and i guess a good president.. but now, that is a different debate entirely!
Voice
Welcome , well you have in fact been here a few times before which is how I found your excellent site but it was before your non existent death so maybe your memory has not returned yet , But a visitor worthy of two welcomes if ever I have had one .
We get the full range in here I am afraid usually the "victims of disasters deserve all they get" crowd reappear and post comments such as 'lets nuke Iran' so If they don't have someone else to blame for a disaster then they try to create a New disaster to blame others for.
On your point of stone walling , my total agreement the phrase 'something to hide Mr Bush ?' comes to mind .
M
As Djeb said we don't rule out any stories here , Terrorism is the main theme of course but as you know yourself terrorism is not the easiest thing to define , Globalization , environmental damage , poverty , all things things have areas that you could discuss under the dictionary definition of terrorism . I suppose it is 80 % terrorism and politics and 20 percent what ever me or Djeb may have on our minds that day , maybe our motto should be expect the unexpected
Djeb
one can hardly blame the destitute who had no means to get out for not getting out. Additionally, you are totally forgetting about events like people trying to walk out and being ordered back by the authorities , exactly the point thank you
Benoit
Haven't got a penny/cent yet , click on a few ads and I will be sure to let you know :-)
Hype
'is mainly the fault of the people who lived there!'we'll see how fast your attitude changes when something like this happens to you again exactly the point thank you
Rush
I guess, the ability to make these calls objectively is what would define a good administration and i guess a good president.. but now, that is a different debate entirely!
is it ? :-) , I would say it is entirely the same debate , thank you for your comment.
Post a Comment
<< Home