Thursday, March 09, 2006

"Contingency?" What's a "contingency?"


As much as I tried (and, yes, seriously, I did give it my best shot), I can't resist commenting on this stupidity. And it's not like I'm picking on Jason or anything -- it's just that there's so much right-wing stupidity out there but it's kind of convenient to not have to go looking for it when you know you can find all of it in one place. One-stop shopping, as it were.

Apparently, the new dumbfuck wanker talking point is that there's no way President Top Gun CrotchBulge McFlightSuit should have anticipated the "breach" of the New Orleans levees by Hurricane Katrina since it's possible no one actually used the word "breach" in his presence.

Apparently, all of the President's advisors and consultants and emergency preparedness teams completely forgot that, when dealing with the mentally retarded, you have to sit them down, and get their attention, and speak slowly and enunciate to make sure they're following you so that they might, perhaps, God help us all, consider what you're saying and perhaps consider unexplored eventualities.

See, it wasn't enough that there were numerous warnings about the levees being "topped." It wasn't enough that countless articles pointed out that that "the current levee system around the city was designed to withstand the equivalent of a Category 3 storm," and everyone knew that Katrina was a monster of a Cat 4/5 heading for the coast.

It wasn't enough that, months before, people like Chris Mooney had already written that:

In the event of a slow-moving Category 4 or Category 5 hurricane (with winds up to or exceeding 155 miles per hour), it's possible that only those crow's nests would remain above the water level. Such a storm, plowing over the lake, could generate a 20-foot surge that would easily overwhelm the levees of New Orleans, which only protect against a hybrid Category 2 or Category 3 storm (with winds up to about 110 miles per hour and a storm surge up to 12 feet).

No, apparently, countless articles and news pieces and warnings about the levees "failing," or "being topped," or being "overwhelmed" or possibly "unable to withstand" a Cat 4/5 hurricane don't count since, well, the word "breach" allegedly didn't come up and that's the magic word and unless you say the magic word, it doesn't count, does it?

This week's Associated Press reporting on the leaked Katrina briefing tapes contains a seemingly minor but actually quite significant factual error and subsequent hit job on President Bush. The reporting buried among sturdier assertions the claim that Mr. Bush was warned about possible breaches of the levees on Aug. 28-29, right before and during Hurricane Katrina's onslaught on the Gulf Coast. In reality, he was warned about many potential problems on these tapes -- but levee breaches weren't among them. The AP reported this as though it were fact, and then uncritically quoted Democratic partisans who were only too happy to parrot it.

So ... Bush was aware of "many potential problems" but the concept of levees that had been designed to handle no more than a Cat 3 storm actually, you know, failing in some way under the onslaught of a monster like Katrina ... well, that would have required, you know, thinking ahead and connecting the dots. And, as we've all seen, the Bush administration doesn't do dots. Dots are for pussies.

AND THE BEST PART: I almost forgot this gem:

Official: Even new Gulf levees could fail

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal coordinator for Gulf Coast recovery efforts said Monday he will focus on ensuring the region's levees are stronger than they were before Hurricane Katrina — but can't offer assurances that they could withstand another storm of that size.

Read that again to make sure you appreciate what it means. All this time, the talking point has been that no one could have appreciated the breach of the New Orleans levees as they existed at the time. And yet administration officials are openly admitting that, even if the levees were rebuilt to be stronger than before, there would be no guarantee they would withstand another Katrina.

So, I ask you, how can one make that admission and, in the same breath, take the position that no one should have at least considered the failures of the original, weaker levees?

But perhaps I'm being unfair since, if you read that article carefully, it never actually, technically uses the word "breach," per se. So I guess we're good here. Sorry. My bad. Carry on.

FLOG THAT BABY: It's not like I need to beat this horse any deader than it is, but there's one more point that I think needs airing. As we all know, in once again passing the buck, President Dumbfuck claimed that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." Let's make sure we understand what he's saying here.

Bush is not simply saying that he didn't anticipate that possibility. All of the idiotic defenses springing up to defend Bush are based on the claim that no one actually used the word "breach" in his presence so, therefore, everything's cool and he's off the hook.

But in saying the above, Bush is not simply claiming that he's an ignorant dumbfuck, oh no. He's not simply saying, "Well, no one warned me so I had no way of knowing." No, what he's saying above is that every other person involved in emergency preparedness was equally moronic. He's not simply saying that he's an idiot. Rather, he's accusing every other person that was involved in emergency preparedness for Katrina of being just as much of a dumbfuck as he is.

Now, if I was one of those people, and I had been pondering whether the levees might actually fail and trying to warn people, I'd be pretty fucking pissed. If I was one of those people, I'd be all over the airwaves making it clear that I wasn't as big an idiot as President Pretzel. I would be contacting every media outlet on the planet, explaining that, if Bush wanted to admit to being a complete retard, that was his choice, but he wasn't going to besmirch my good name and reputation.

So all of these defenses of "Well, no one used the word 'breach' in his presence" are missing the bigger point by a country mile. We all know the man's an idiot. We've all accepted that. But when he goes on national TV and accuses everyone else of being just as much of an idiot, then it's time for those folks to step up and correct the record.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just to add to the fun - the assertion about "topping" being different from a "breach":

If you "top" a dam of any sort, there is a significant increase in the risk of structural failure. (actually - it's a huge risk - because the top of the dam is the weakest point of the structure).

A bit of basic study in fluid dynamics makes it painfully obvious that any kind of weakness in the structure (due to age, fatigue or design issues) is going to be amplified by the stresses imposed on the structure when the water crests over top of it.

Therefore, it isn't exactly a leap of logic to infer that "topping" is likely to result in a breach. (especially when the Army Corps of Engineers had been saying that the New Orleans levy system needed overhauling for 15+ years!)

If Bush didn't clue into this, his advisors certainly should have. By the time there's a breach, it's too late.

Eric said...

Innocent question here, has there been any determination on what exactly caused the breach in the wall. (and don't say 'obviously it was the storm').

I mean, I'd appreciate it if there were some actual answers to what caused them the fail. If it was say.. a barge that came loose and plowed into the wall then I'd anticipate that it wouldn't be possible to predict that sort of thing.

And the big difference concerning the wording is very important, since 'topping' a wall simply means the water flows over the top and (hopefully) the pumps will quickly take care of them. A 'breach' means that no matter how fast your pumps go they won't take care of the water.

And yes, when the Army Corps of Engineers uses different words they do mean different things.

Oh by the way, I've been told somewhere that the levees were not even over-topped.. they were straight out breached. Any thoughts on that?

In any case, ff they seriously thought that the walls would 'breach' why didn't Ray Nagin do more to evacuate people? The mayor of New Orleans only made the evacuation a requirement after the White House called him and bullied him into doing it a day before the storm hit. Prior to that the evacuation was 'optional' despite the fact that they knew for days that the storm was going to hit New Orleans.

And if you are thinking 'well they didn't know for sure', don't you think that its better to be safe than sorry? I mean, they've evacuated NO before.

CC said...

southernontario:

As I remember it, Grog has it right -- once you "top" a dam or levee, chances are good that full structural failure isn't far behind since you've just added a lot of additional stress that that structure just wasn't designed for. And as soon as you have even a small crack or buckling somewhere, it will almost certainly progress to disaster in short order.

Again, from memory, I recall that the really large dams need to have incredibly smooth and flat spillways, and that they're polished on a regular basis to make sure they stay that way.

As soon as you get a small irregularity in that surface, the water turbulence will rip it apart quickly.

All this means is that it's unspeakably idiotic to suggest that people were all considering the "topping" of the levees, but it never occurred to them to consider actual "breaching." That's just an unbelievably moronic to say but, as you've seen, it's being said by exactly the person you'd expect to be hearing it from.

CC said...

By the way, just to back up to look at the bigger picture, it's also madness to say that you could never have imagined the breaching of the levees ("breaching" meaning outright failure and collapse).

It was well known that the levees were rated only for a Cat 3 storm, yet here you have a Cat 4/5, which I believe was doing most of its damage not just from sheer water pressure, but from the wind which was pounding massive waves into the levees hour after hour.

I'm not sure where the first point of failure was but, under the circumstances, it's ridiculous to stand up afterwards and suggest that no one imagined a possible breach. That's just lunacy.

Of course, this is the administration that couldn't have imagined terrorists using airplanes as missiles, or not being greeted as liberators upon invading Iraq, or being there maybe five months tops, or needing more than, oh, 40,000 troops max, or ...

You get the idea. This truly is the faith-based admininstration which has never, ever, ever understood the fundamental principle of planning: Hope is not a strategy.

Anonymous said...

U.S. Geological Survey seismologist Lucy Jones remembers attending an emergency training session in August 2001 with the Federal Emergency Management Agency that discussed the three most likely catastrophes to strike the United States.
First on the list was a terrorist attack in New York. Second was a super-strength hurricane hitting New Orleans. Third was a major earthquake on the San Andreas fault.

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2005/09/did_fema_really.html
At some level the president of the United States is responsible for what happens in that country. If he did not know, then he is just as responsible as if he did know. It is part of the job to know.
" As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents ,more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Menchen ( 1880-1956 )

David Webb said...

Reinforcing grog's post about breaches and topping...

From CTV.ca:

"Engineers believe high winds pushed water over the levees' top and eroded them from behind. Other experts studying flood prevention speculated that any dip in the retaining levee system might have allowed water to slosh over, triggering the collapse."

So topping leads to breaching. But who could have predicted that?

From the same page:

"Nevertheless, experts repeatedly cautioned that the levee system was unlikely to protect the city against a Category 4 or 5 storm."

Simple enough for even Jason.

Cathie from Canada said...

I get a chuckle out of how the Bush administration keeps saying "well, nobody expected...." whenever anything goes wrong, and they think that's a reasonable excuse for total ineptitude. Nobody expected anyone to fly planes into buildings. Nobody expected a civil war in Iraq. Nobody expected the levees to fail (top, breach, whatever)...And actually, of course, people DID expect all of these things, but Bush and company couldn't be bothered to listen to them and the media can't be bothered to fact-check. Its all just too much like work!