Wednesday, January 25, 2006

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

12 Comments:

Blogger zosimo said...

the fault of what happened to n.o. and its people is mainly the fault of the people who lived there! no one, espically the media wants to admit it but its true as the people were warned to get out and didnt. why, because the vast majority were raised to rely on the government for every aspect of their lives and could not act on their own when it mattered. its their fault not the government. its brutal but true

January 25, 2006 5:57 am  
Blogger An said...

Shit happens. Nobody could really predicted it...

January 25, 2006 7:46 am  
Blogger Voice 1 said...

H, this has been my first chance to visit the blog, have to say nice place you have here. I see you get the "victims of disasters deserve all they get" crowd in here as well. I wonder what their attitude would be if they were a victim.

January 25, 2006 8:48 am  
Blogger Mea said...

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.

January 25, 2006 9:07 am  
Blogger DJEB said...

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?

January 25, 2006 2:16 pm  
Blogger DJEB said...

Anna, go here.

Voice, yes, we do.

M, we don't limit ourselves to terrorism here, but we do focus on it.

January 25, 2006 2:19 pm  
Blogger Hype said...

'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.

looking at the radar it seems to me like somebody was using a microwave device to direct/create or change the hurricane.

weather control devices have been around for about a century.

-Hype

January 25, 2006 4:06 pm  
Blogger Benoit Lapierre said...

hi
i have a question. did you ever receive a cheque by adsense ? hehe i just want know if it's real.

January 25, 2006 4:20 pm  
Blogger Voice 1 said...

One question to those who don't think the Bush regime has anything to be ashamed about. Why are they stonewalling the Katrina investigation if they have nothing to hide, or be ashamed about?

From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/politics/25katrina.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1138165200&en=e89a11af74ffd279&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The Bush administration, citing the confidentiality of executive branch communications, said Tuesday that it did not plan to turn over certain documents about Hurricane Katrina or make senior White House officials available for sworn testimony before two Congressional committees investigating the storm response.

The White House this week also formally notified Representative Richard H. Baker, Republican of Louisiana, that it would not support his legislation creating a federally financed reconstruction program for the state that would bail out homeowners and mortgage lenders. Many Louisiana officials consider the bill crucial to recovery, but administration officials said the state would have to use community development money appropriated by Congress.

January 25, 2006 4:46 pm  
Blogger rush said...

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!

January 25, 2006 7:05 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

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.

January 26, 2006 1:03 am  
Blogger Voice 1 said...

Yes, "Something to hide Mr Bush?" appears to be the quote of his "presidency" doesn't it. Apologies for my forgetfulness.

January 26, 2006 12:44 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home