Doesn't seem to be any damage, or any concern over tsunamis:

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A strong, 6.0 earthquake in the Gulf of Mexico was felt throughout the Southeast but caused no apparent damage, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

The earthquake occurred at a depth of 6.2 miles, the USGS said.

The quake, about 250 miles west of Tampa, Florida, was "pretty unusual" for the area, although a 5.2 magnitude quake was recorded nearby in February, said USGS seismic analyst Jessica Sigala.

People as far away as Stone Mountain, Georgia -- an Atlanta suburb -- reported feeling the quake at 10:56 a.m. ET.

 

It's no secret that I think "global warming" is tremendous pile of crap and that I'm infuriated when I hear liberals blaming it for increased natural disasters, hurricanes in particular. It's annoying mainly because we can look at the historical record and see that these are natural cycles of upswings and downswings in hurricane activity that last sometimes a decade or two. Check out Accuweather.com's Joe Bastardi if you're out of the loop.

What's really interesting is that everyone, including the Accuweather folks, predicted an active season this year, but after a slow start have downgraded their "prediction" (which seems more like part observation when it's revised the way it was).

Downgraded:

Forecasters now expect 12 to 15 named storms including seven to nine hurricanes. Of those hurricanes, three to four could become intense storms of at least Category 3.

Original:

In May, federal forecasters said the 2006 north Atlantic hurricane season would be ''very active,'' with 13 to 16 named storms. Of those, eight to 10 were expected to blossom into hurricanes with four to six becoming intense hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher.

But wait! Aren't more hurricanes the result of global warming? And haven't we been bombarded with headlines all summer about all the record high temperatures in all states this summer? Haven't they been preparing the report that while 2005 was the old "hottest year on record" 2006 took the crown? They even got Pat Robertson (which isn't really that surprising because he's always looking for a reason to say something stupid).

So explain to me why this hurricane season has been downgraded? Need more than that? How about the fact that we're having a BELOW AVERAGE season.

Let me guess "scientists", you've got a way to spin that as "global warming" too, right? I'm sure somehow the warm water you talked about leading up to this season, actually reflected the sun better and kept the water below the surface cooler or something, right? Just like I'm sure global warming explains why snow fell for the first time in 25 years in Johannesburg a couple weeks ago and crazy rare snow has repeatedly pounded South Africa this month. Please liberals, I'm dying to hear your explanations on this.

One other quick point about that graphic. Notice that 2005 was a record season, but the previous record was 72 years earlier, in 1933! Did global warming cause that record season that held all the way until last year? Think liberals, think! I'm so tired of you telling me it's the hottest it's been in X years, and having to ask you "why was it that hot X years ago? Who drove the hummer or burned stuff at a factory?"

Have no fear though libs, if you were getting concerned that your global warming dogma might beging to fall on deaf ears, Reuters has your back. You never had to worry anyway, because most mainstream scientists fear opposing global warming because it virtually eliminates the posibility of gaining funding and has the potential to hurt them at work, but Reuters just wants you to know that they're there for you and Yahoo! helped by blasting the headline across their home page:

Atlantic hurricanes could rev up any time

The article opens with this gem:

MIAMI (Reuters) - There has been little action in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season so far, but that may be about to change.

... and ends with this...

So far this year, only three tropical storms have formed -- Alberto, Beryl and Chris. Strong wind shear -- the difference in wind speed and direction at different levels of the atmosphere -- has disrupted some of the tropical weather systems that eventually become cyclones.

Mayfield expressed puzzlement as to why the season hasn't been a little more active.

"We're actually not sure why some of these are not developing," he said.

Mayfield obviously doesn't understand how this evil global warming works. Apparently neither does anyone else.

 

Severe weather just missed me here in Nashville today, the most deadly parts hitting north of the city. The death count stands at 11 in Tennessee, less than a week after tornadoes killed 24 people in the state. Our local CBS affiliate, News Channel 5 WTVF has full coverage here, including a compilation of photos of tornados, damage, hail, and more as well as approximately 8 minutes of raw footage of the aftermath.

WATCH THE VIDEO. It is one of the most shocking videos I've ever seen. Sure it's always cool to see the big funnel cloud, but to see the damage it caused for milese and miles from a helicopter is something completely different. I've seen plenty of this footage on TV over the years, but this is probably the worst I've seen. You'll notice too that it's not the usual flattened trailer park we've all seen. This thing ripped through tons of neighborhoods, including many upper-middle class, what appear to be at least mini-mansions. There's no way to describe it though, you have to watch the video. News Channel 5 has more photos here too.

When you're done letting that sink in... take a look at this. Tornadoes in Israel?! I'm sure this isn't a first, but it's certainly not a place that exists in what we call "tornado alley". Check out the coverage of the combined tornado/hail storm/sand storm at Arutz Sheva/IsraelNationalNews.com

 

You probably heard that Cyclone Larry ripped in to Australia this weekend leaving hundreds homeless and was the worst storm to hit the continent/country since 1974. What you probably hadn't heard is that this is Bush's fault. Now even if you recognize all the "blame Bush" stuff, you probably wouldn't expect it in this case, and it hasn't happened yet. But seriously, would you really be surprised to hear that this was somehow his fault? Really? You don't think that there are liberals talking in their liberal circles about "global warming" and how Bush caused it with his anti-environment policies? You know they are.

Anyway, of course I'm not expecting to actually here him blamed publicly, but I'm just saying that you should be that surprised if we do hear it at some point. Anyway, I'm sure they'll rebuild....

In related news, Joe Bastardi of Accuweather has alarmed a few folks by warning that the northeastern United States is due to be struck by a major hurricane.

excerpt via Reuters article

There are now indications that the Northeast will experience a hurricane larger and more powerful than anything that region has seen in a long time," said Ken Reeves, senior meteorologist at AccuWeather.com.

"The Northeast is staring down the barrel of a gun," said Joe Bastardi, AccuWeather.com's chief hurricane forecaster.

The current storm cycle and above-normal water temperatures in the Atlantic are reminiscent of the pattern that produced the 1938 hurricane that struck Providence, Rhode Island, killing 600 people, Bastardi said.

"The Northeast coast is long overdue for a powerful hurricane, and with the weather patterns and hydrology we're seeing in the oceans, the likelihood of a major hurricane making landfall in the Northeast is not a question of if but when," he said.

read more...

Of course, Reuters had to continue pushing one of the lies about Katrina:

Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans and the Mississippi coast last August with winds above 135 mph and a 30-foot-high storm surge, causing more than $60 billion in damage.

I believe it's been well accepted now that Katrina was only a Cat 3 at landfall and that what hit New Orleans was between category 1 and 2 conditions. We KNOW FOR A FACT that it was levee design/construction flaws that caused the failure there and that the levees weren't overtopped, not even close. Not isolated incidents, I'm talking about the big break that caused the massive damage. The studies have shown this... where where does Reuters get this information? Where were there winds and storm surge that high?

Anyway, this was Reuters little toss in.. But I like Joe Bastardi, and I think folks should keep his warning in mind. He's on FNC all the time during hurricane season and seems extremely knowledgable, and doesn't spend his time pushing the bs "global warming" on people, and points out that this is just part of the hurricane cycle.

Jumping back to Cyclone Larry in Australia for a minute, check out that AP article again...

The casualty toll was so low because people left town or went to shelters after authorities posted warnings. Residents and officials were mindful of the damage Hurricane Katrina did to New Orleans and Mississippi last August, said Ben Creagh, a spokesman for Queensland state Department of Emergency Services.

"Everyone here studied Katrina and took a lot of messages away, a lot of lessons at the expense of the poor old Yanks," Creagh said. "There was absolutely no complacency at the planning level at all, and I think that shows. ... Good planning, a bit of luck - we've dodged a bullet."

Within hours of the storm's landfall, officials declared a state of emergency, prepared Black Hawk helicopters to run rescue missions and announced cash payouts for victims - $720 for each adult and $290 for each child who lost their home. Prime Minister John Howard indicated more aid was to come.

Within hours they declared the state of emergency? Casualties low because people left town? Well President Bush declared an emergency almost 3 days before the Katrina, on the previous Friday!!! And we all watched Katrina move across the gulf for like a week! Then despite personal calls and begging from the President for Governor "Keep the Red Cross Out" Blanco to call for a mandatory evacuation, she didn't. And despite thousands of buses at their disposal and their own evacuation plan that included using those buses, Nagin and Blanco didn't. Of course we should always remember that members Louisiana's emergency planning agency was indicted and awaiting trial for the unaccounted for squandering of as much as $60 million, and the incompetence of the Army Corps of Engineers, etc. etc. etc.

 

Just saw this on a Fox News Alert, but this article comes from News 10 - KXTV

There is a levee break in southern Sonoma County after heavy rains weakened the banks along Sonoma Creek. The levee gave way this morning near a farming area where an area of about five square miles and part of Highway 121 are now flooded.

No homes appear to be underwater, although at least two farm buildings are partially flooded.

Earlier there were flood warnings in effect for the Napa and Russian rivers, but the National Weather Service canceled them this morning.

The Napa River at St. Helena was expected to reach flood stage at 19 feet Sunday night, but by early Monday morning it had only reached eight feet. The Russian River at Healdsburg is also higher but still 10 feet below flood stage.

I'm not sure how yet, but this is clearly Bush's fault, no? I also have a sneaking suspicion that this has something to do with Dick Cheney hunting. I'm sure the White House Press Corps. will get to the bottom of it for us!

 

By now, I'm sure you're aware of the bogus and spun AP article (and video) meant to be the "Bush lied" smoking gun for the left, that was quickly destroyed by the right side of the blogosphere. This didn't matter because the anti-Bush media jammed it down the public's throat for two days, never explaining the flat out lie it contained, not to mention that the first impression means everything, so the damage that had been done is really irreversible.

The AP clearly planned this whole thing out, because they must have known the bloggers would bust this. After all, one of the writers was Rathergate era CBS 60 Minutes II producer (shocking huh?), so they waited until late friday night, when the evening news programs were all over and virtually no one would ever get the news, the AP issued a "Friday night clarification". That clarification basically admits to a flat out lie. They admit that they made a claim in the original story, that they said the story supported, when it didn't at all... and they now admit that.. but if they're really interested in "truth", why did they never even put the story out on the wires? Why is it still being burried? I mean, we know most of the media wouldn't pick it up anyway, but still.

Well a couple bloggers have stayed on it and noted that one media outlet did the noble thing. Powerline and Patterico both point out that the Arizona Daily Star printed it on the front page. I'm not holding my breath for the rest of the media to follow suit. They got their desired effect out of the original lie... Why make a big deal out of reporting the truth now, and risk appearing to defend the President?

 

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?

 

SCROLL FOR UPDATES at 12:38 AM March 2, 2006
In the ABC interview, Bush was was referring to the "break" breach that occurred that no one anticipated. The overtopping (that never actually happened) concerns had been around for decades and everyone knew that. Everyone knew about the potential for flooding as a result of high storm surges going over the top of the levees, but that damage would have paled in comparison to the UNANTICIPATED break/breach that actually occurred as a result of design and/or construction flaws. Again, scroll for further explanation/update, but I suspect now that I've sort of wrapped my mind around this, I'll be creating a more clear and to the point post on this

I just noticed that John Powerline Blog sees basically the same thing, and tears down this whole AP anti-Bush campaign, piece by dishonest piece. Props to Ankle Biting Pundits for linking me to that post. ABP assumes, as do I, that the truth won't matter here because in the public won't get as involved as bloggers to find the real truth of this, and they'll buy what they see in the papers and on TV NewsBusters is on to the AP's dirty tricks as well, and like Powerline, they break it down much more articulately than I have. Newsbusters' post is also very brief but right to the point, with a supporting quote from the Army Corps of Engineers. I was linked to Polls and Pundits from a comment on ABP, who is on top of this as well.

(original post starts below)

Here's the new media hype headline I'm sure you've seen by now: Tape: Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina

I first saw this story on the Yahoo! home page, and I knew immediately what it was attempting to say, and why it was an inaccurate portrayal... and that the media would be jumping for joy over this, and that we can expect all the usual Senate Democrats to be out with their "incompetence" talking points tomorrow, and for at least a week or two to come (vs. doing any actual work.. what's new?) Drudge is running the story as the top headline as well.

Here's the gist... The AP has exclusively obtained video of video conferences involving the President and FEMA that took place during the week of Katrina. This includes video from a day before Katrina where the levees breaching was discussed. This is supposed to be used to bust Bush "lying" when he said a few days later, on Good Morning America:

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees"

What everyone is ignoring is that the levees never "breached" or "overtopped", they broke because of design and/or construction flaws. This is a known fact. The eye never struck New Orleans, but category 3 conditions were initially reported to have still hit the city. The levees should have been able to handle that. But as the experts have weighed in in the following months it has been determined that New Orleans only experience between category 1 and 2 conditions. I repeat, CATEGORY 1 OR 2 conditions hit New Orleans, and again, the levees were supposed to be able to handle a 3.

The article has quotes, and the video shows clips of things like this:

"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.

Again, what does that have to do with anything? THE LEVEES WEREN'T TOPPED! The "levee concerns" that everyone had HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!! But the media loves to keep pushing the known bogus idea that the levees were "topped" every few weeks when some new development allows them to use it to spin and hurt the administration. By the way, we also know that Louisisiana's emergency people blew millions of dollars on who knows what, and I believe that is still under investigation (trying to get this post up quickly, because I've got to run so I don't have time to find the link... but I suspect you already know the story)

So while everyone may have screwed up, it is still known that the local and state REALLY screwed up, and could have prevented a lot of the pandemonium and death by activating their own plans. The FEDs were obviously unprepared to deal with something this large, especially with such idiotic local officials. But the point here is that this is supposed to be some explosive story, and it's really not.

I think maybe Bush wasn't getting the full story from his people, that's possible... But the point is that AFTER the storm, most people didn't know that the levees had broken (NOT overtopped) so early... actually not for a few days. So I suspect that in that week, as the reports kept rolling in revealing more damage and chaos than most had first realized Bush along with most people thought that the levees had dodged a bullet, which they should have had they not been poorly designed or built and broken down under week conditions that never came close to overtopping them.

This is just more media piling on to a non-issue. The levees were never "breached" or "overtopped" in the way that people were concerned they were. That bullet, technically, was dodged... The disaster was caused by many other factors, but not that. So this whole "Bush Knew" or Tape: Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina campaign is a joke. Yeah they were warned at took note... but what they were warned about had nothing to do with what actually happened.

By the way, the FACT that we know it was design and/or construction flaws that caused all the problems in the New Orleans, it is beyond annoying to continue reading articles that say "damage caused by Hurricane Katrina" or "flooding caused by Katrina", etc. etc. These type of statements are totally dishonest and misleading, and always used coupled with misleading statements about warnings about levees overtopping that are irrelevent to the actual story. But don't expect it to end anytime soon.

Again, sorry about not have a lot of links, but much of what I'm missing links on is old but related news that you most likely already know, and I'm in too much of a hurry at the moment to dig them all up.

Ian at Expose The Left wonders where the media's outrage is over another video.

UPDATE - 12:38 AM March 2, 2006

In discussions with liberal commenters on this post, I've come to realize something... "Breach" is the all encompassing word for overtopping, breaks, or whatever. I get annoyed when the press uses it when trying to give a distorted picture of what happened, and make people think the levees were overtopped. But using the word "breach" is still accurate when people are talking about the breaks that actually ocurred, although again I've just not liked the word because of how it's generally used to spin the sitation.

So imagine you're the President in this interview. You're being told that the levees actually broke a day or two after the storm hit, and wasn't overtopped do to an extreme storm surge. Everyone had of course known for decades about the potential for an overtopping type of breach, so that wouldn't even make sense for the President to try to say that no one expected it, right? So if you consider that he was referring to the "break" type of breach that actually occurred, then it makes a lot more sense because no one did anticipate that. The concern that was discussed perviously had been about the levees being breached by high storm surges that couldn't be contained by the levees... not worry of them flat out breaking down under conditions they were supposed to be able to handle.

You can call this spin or you can disagree all you want... but I actually just realized that angle that made it all the more clear in my mind. Again, why would he be so stupid as to say no one anticipated the levees breaching when it has been talked about for decades and especially all the days leading up to the storm? Because he meant the "break" type of breach that happened, not the overtopping by storm surge that had been antcipated (but didn't occur). So we've got a country who had for about 24-48 hours breathed a sigh of relief that New Orleans had been spared the worst, and the levees hadn't dumped a bunch of water in to the soup bowl city, but then unpredictably the levees flat out broke down and caused immeasurable damage.

So yeah, the overtopping concern had been raised for many years, but the damage would have paled in comparison to what happened as a result of the break. We were all totally unprepared, especially after Nagin didn't use the buses to evacuate and Blanco didn't force a mandatory evacuation, to deal with the unprecedented amount of damage. I think that's what you libs are confused about. The damage from overtopping levees wouldn't have been anywhere close to the break that occurred. Try this experiment to understand the difference, fill a cup to the very top with water and put it in and empty bowl. Blow on it and notice some water come over the top and in to the bowl. Now do the same thing except instead of blowing this time, shatter the glass with a hammer.

Get it now? An overtopping causing bad flooding had been a concern... A flat out breakdown breach of the levees hadn't been considered and the flooding caused by it was beyond anything anyone could really wrap their minds around.

So to sum up, it is my belief that the President meant "breach" in the "break" sense of the word, and this was accurate. Yeah, I know I'm a shill for Bushy and trying to cover for him, but it seems clear when you look at the fact that a "breach" from overtopping had been a concern for decades, so he would have to be insane to have made the comment meaning it in that sense of the word.