"I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," Mr. Bush said in a television interview on Sept. 1. "Now we're having to deal with it, and will."
i start this post with a quote from the president because it's a standout example of how efficently he lies. three lies in one statment, two brief sentences. an amazing lie:word ratio. i have never seen better. it is unfortunate that such simple magic fades under the harsh glare of facts-based reality
A Homeland Security Department report submitted to the White House at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, hours before the storm hit, said, "Any storm rated Category 4 or greater will likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching."
-----
Other documents to be released Tuesday show that the weekend before Hurricane Katrina made landfall, Homeland Security Department officials predicted that its impact would be worse than a doomsday-like emergency planning exercise conducted in Louisiana in July 2004.
The internal department documents, which were forwarded to the White House, contradict statements by President Bush and the homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, that no one expected the storm protection system in New Orleans to be breached.
so of course our master liar, rather than let facts get in the way of his masterful lying, is kind enough to keep facts out of our eyes while blowing smoke up our asses. no, i don't know what that means exactly, but he's doing it. they have actually declined to release white house papers for the investigation. while i find this behavior insulting, there is nothing quite like the slap in the face of micheal brown refusing to cooperate with the investigation. can we name him an enemy combatant?
when will we stop falling for this crap? he deflects any independent oversight, any independent counsel, presumably because he really wants to get to the bottom of whatever illegal or incompetent act for which he's preparing his next pr junket. why do this? we know the administration blatantly fucked up the response to katrina. is it possible that there is something criminal in the papers they are refusing to share? there certainly has been every other time. who will they blame this on eventually?
Comments
Post a Comment