« Gay Cowboys Get Rough With Sheep - Animal Rights Group Upset With Brokeback Mountain | Main | AP: "Some National Archives Documents Removed". RightWinged: "Anyone Seen Sandy Berger!?" »

BREAKING: AP Issues Friday Night "Clarification" On Bush/Katrina/Levee Breach Video

h/t Drudge

AP FRIDAY NIGHT CLARIFICATION ON BUSH/KATRINA VIDEO Fri Mar 03 2006 19:48:29 ET

Clarification: Katrina-Video story
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.

I'm not expecting the media to run as wild with this one. This is basically the AP being forced, kicking and screaming, to admit their spin job... though not in so many words, and I don't really consider this "good enough", but it's better than nothin', and more than we usually get. (i.e. Dan 'The documents are fake, but the story is still real' Rather)

Mark Noonan Blogs For Bush adds:

And, of course, it is released after the days news cycle is all set. I'd like a Congressional investigation of this.

What we have here is a very strange confluence of events: this story started just as Mardis Gras brought New Orleans back into the public eye. Normally, the story would be about how New Orleans is recovering - but the story instead was a bogus re-write of videos that the Administration had long ago provided to the MSM. I smell a rat here - a DemocRAT, if you ask me. This is simply too beneficial for the Democrats for it to be coincidence - there could very well be collusion, and that would make what the AP did a de-facto campaign contribution to the Democratic Party. I believe that such a donation - which would have to be figured as a value of tens of millions of dollars - would be illegal under our campaign finance laws.

We should have a full hearing in Congress, with the AP and the DNC forced to turn over all documents which may in any way be related to Katrina from the day it went ashore to the day this AP story ran last week. We need to get to the bottom of this, lest the MSM - by getting away with this - merely become an adjunct of the DNC dressed up as an independent media.

Right on Mark... Sadly we know this will never happen, but I'm glad you pointed out one thing I left out in previous posts, which is that these tapes weren't some "leaked" new revelation, but something that had been shelved for months by many news organizations (I had read that somewhere too, but was to busy with how bogus the whole thing was at the time, and I can't remember where now.)

Bryan Preston at Junkyard Blog is out front on this too, as is Ripclawe at Narcissistic Views, and Sister Toldjah.

See previous:
SMASHED: AP's New "Bush Lied About Levee Breach Worries" Campaign Destroyed By Bloggers
Media Goes Nuts With New "Bush Knew About Katrina/Levees" Video... Distorting All The Way

Others who blogged on the bogus AP attack on the President (getting trackbacks out to bring attention to this new development that most are unaware of at this point... since we know the MSM won't be reporting this part) Wizbang, Outside The Beltway, Powerline, Captain's Quarters, Myopic Zeal, Iowa Voice, Generation Why?, Blogs For Bush, Sister Toldjah, Flopping Aces, The New Editor, Two or Three, MacStansbury, LawHawk, Pursuing Holiness

These folks blogged about the fact that the writer of the story is a former 60 Minutes II producer:
Wizbang, Powerline, Outside The Beltway, Willisms, Flopping Aces, The Jawa Report, Don Surber

The Army of Davids 'done good' forcing this "clarification" from the AP, and has seen many victories in recent years. Now march with this latest development.

UPDATE
The few other bloggers who are aware of this new development seem to all be noting the curious timing of this "clarification". Late Friday evening when it's only blogger types who are going to catch it. The day's news cycle is over, and they now have about 2 and half days for other news to become next weeks story so this thing gets absolutely no attention (not that it would have anyway... do you see any of the evening news programs, or CNN, or NY Times making this a leading story even if it had been released in time?) But this late release time did prevent folks like O'Reilly and Hannity from being able to report it.

Anyway, this is really just par for the course for the AP. Their motto is clearly "lie and retract, lie and retract", only instead of admitting it was a lie and retracting, they issue "clarifications". I'd go a step further than noting the suspect release time of this "clarification", and say this may have been planned all along. Do you think they were stupid enough to not know that the bloggers would bust this? I mean we're talking about a former CBS 60 Minutes II producer, surely she knows the power of blogs first hand, and surely she knew the lies she was telling in this article. Go back and read this "clarification", it is truly an admission of lying if you digest what it actually says. It's not a "this is what we meant", it's really admitting the lie, but trying hard not to.

Here's my other problem with this latest development... Why can't I find the "clarification" anywhere except Drudge? I've done a few Yahoo! and Google News searches and have yet to find it. Yet Yahoo! was running it in the news section of their home page for approximately a full day (maybe two, the days all ran together, but I know it sat at the top of that list for a loooong time, just like this headline has all day today: "Pentagon releases names of Gitmo inmates"). So why is this latest development, admission of guilt, not also top headline or even indexed? Interesting.

Scott at Powerline Blog is on this now too, and wonders if we'll see a similar "clarification" forthcoming from the Democrats for this pile of ridiculous they dumped out yesterday. Scott also has John of Powerline's comments on this:

I think it's reasonable to assume that the AP's "clarification" is the result of our dissection of their incredibly lame story. I think this highlights, though, how hard it is for truth to catch up to error. Hundreds of newspapers printed the AP's misinformation, and it was the basis for television news on all of the broadcast networks. The correction (or "clarification") will never catch up to most of the tens of millions of people who heard the original story. The news business is all about impressions, and corrections, days after the fact, never take away the impression that the original story falsely created.

Exactly. This is such hit and run BS from the AP. They had this whole thing planned - Launch the attack in the middle of the week when everyone will hear it, then "clarify" when no one will, and the damage is done. Disgraceful!

Captain Ed is now weighting in as well, and notes that the new "overrunning" language the AP has brought in isn't accurate either. This was clearly part of their attempt to keep from fulling admitting what they did and retracting the story.

UPDATE
More blogger reax:
RedState, Delmarva Dealings, Gina Cobb, Laura's Miscellaneous Musings, Newsbusters

By the way, I still haven't located this article online anywhere. Like I said earlier, why isn't this on the wires being picked up by Yahoo! News and all the rest? Why isn't this on Yahoo!'s home page right now, like the original bogus story?

 

TrackBack

| TrackBack URL

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rightwinged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/259

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference BREAKING: AP Issues Friday Night "Clarification" On Bush/Katrina/Levee Breach Video:

» Penis Exercises linked with Penis Exercises
The Problem With Free Penis Enlargement Exercises. Are there any peni [Read More]

Comments

WOW!...Look who's playing the "I did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinski." Sex in the dictionary referrs you to sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is defined as coitus or penetration of the vagina with a penis. So Clinton wasn't lying...and neither did Bush. Right? Fact is...they were both hiding their own incompitance.

Wow that's original... we've been over this in comments battles in previous posts, and it's so far off base it's not worth an answer. Such an idiotic statement reveals how clearly blinded you are by your hatred of Bush, so why bother debating it with you?

Thanks Randy...seeing as how I've never been to this site, would you care to enlighten me about why it's idiotic to think that both of these men care about covering their butts so much that they use words carefully in order to say that they didn't "lie" The video is moot anyway :MESERVE: In the transcripts of the 29th briefing, you talk about conversations you had that morning with the president. This is the day of landfall…How did the president know to ask about breaches of the levees? Did he have reports in hand at that time already that that had happened in New Orleans?

BROWN: There’s no question in my mind he probably had those reports, because we were feeding in the Homeland Security Operations Center, into the White House sit room, all of the information that we were getting. So he had to have had that information. Plus, I think the president knew from our earlier conversations that that was one of my concerns, that the levees could actually breach.
For the record, I don't hate Bush. And that's all people like you have anymore, when someone points out how Bush is not that great of a president...they automatically "hate Bush". Keep falling down to your knees and worshipping him...

OK Randy, So I decide to look over some of the "debate" recently on this web site and came upon this:"Even if that were true, it has nothing to do with the fact that no one is providing an example of Bush being warned in those pre-Katrina meetings about the levees breaking/breaching."
Randy, that's you. Here is (once again) what Brown said:"Plus, I think the president knew from our earlier conversations that that was one of my concerns, that the levees could actually breach. "
There is your example...what say you?

I'd respond by saying that Brown "thinking" something doesn't mean a whole lot. I'd also answer by following up with what Brown said seconds later:

"I think that was fairly typical of the president. I think what he was really saying -- and I'm defending the president in this regard -- I think he was saying that we really didn't anticipate that it was going to happen because the storm was beginning to decrease. Yes, I was still worried about it, because I knew what the potential was. But I think the president was speaking honestly at that point that he didn't really anticipate that they would be breached because of all this conflicting information."

Look at the information and this makes a lot of sense. There were conflicting reports all over the place.. Blanco reassuring everyone that the levees were fine, a downgraded strom that the levees seemed to have handled. Then over the next 24-48 hours as fact got separated from rumor it became When the unanticipated vast breaches became realized it was back to the drawing board. It didn't get any easier when the city completely lost control and had no law enforcement, and armed thugs took over. Blanco sat on her hands and didn't request military for 2 days, and was caught admitting she needed to, to one of her aides, on tape when she didn't think the camera's were rolling either before or after some interview. Not to mention she refused to order the mandatory evactuation that the President begged her to do. Also everyone ignored the Pam exercise, Nagin left thousands of usable buses that were part of the city's own evac. plan and Louisiana's own emergency preparedness team was awaiting trial for $60 million in unaccounted for federal money! Were none of those contributing factors!?

I'm sure it's still 100% Bush's fault though right? He's got those 700 foot sandbags on his ranch in Crawford and he could have flown them over on Air Force One, right? Or he could have gone over and rebuilt the levees as they broke due to design and construction flaws.

Randy.....you're debating skills know no bounds. First you dismiss what Brown said about warning Bush that the levees breaching was a possibilty by saying,"I'd respond by saying that Brown "thinking" something doesn't mean a whole lot."
Then you use Brown's "thinking" to defend your argument!
""I'd also answer by following up with what Brown said seconds later:""

"I think that was fairly typical of the president. I think what he was really saying -- and I'm defending the president in this regard -- I think he was saying that we really didn't anticipate that it was going to happen because the storm was beginning to decrease. Yes, I was still worried about it, because I knew what the potential was. But I think the president was speaking honestly at that point that he didn't really anticipate that they would be breached because of all this conflicting information."
He uses "think" 4 TIMES!!!!...lolol...go back to debating class bud.....

The point, aaron, is that using the classic liberal move you chose a selective quote that suited your agenda and dishonestly left out the next one. I don't put a whole lot of faith in any of it really... Though the paragraph I added that you... forgot (?) ... seems to fit the reality of the situation. This Brown quote includes verifiable known information (decreasing storm, conflicting reports), all things that we know were happening (which I expanded on), so to be honest it does hold more weight than the selective quote you provided... But again, it really doesn't matter, the real main point of including it was to expose your dishonesty and cherrypicking of quotes. Thanks for playing.

There isn't enough shampoo in North America to wash all these split hairs.

Post a comment