Believe it or not, all news stations were talking about the breached/topped thing today, not just Keith (OH. MY. GOD.).

One of the options for the word topped from dictionary.com is in fact:
# To go over the top of.
# To exceed or surpass.

I can't believe some people are defending Bush by saying that he still didn't know the levees were going to break through because ONE of his weathermen said topped. Bush knew, he just said he didn't. It's happened before, why can't conservatives just come to grips that sometimes the President lies to the American people.

The point is, Olby ran a tape that said "topped", then claimed it was about a "breach". He lied about the tape. I take no position on whether Bush lied or not. But the evidence proves that Olby did.

Johnny wrote:

"Dubai called on Bill Clinton for advice on how to handle the ports controversy. According to Keith this was not a "metaphor" (the preferred OlbySpeak terminology). This time it was "symbolism for the world's estimation of the current President's leadership skills"'.

So Clinton giving Dubai advice while his wife makes political hay is ymobolic for Bush failure, huh?

THAT has to be one of the most delightfully double-jointed --- incredibly agile pieces of spin that I've seen since the 90's! Lanny Davis must be on Keith's staff. :D

Johnny Dollar, everybody in the news media said that Bush been aware that the levees would be breached, not just Keith (I know you like to pin all things on him though).

The fact that you take no position on if the President of the United States lied or not is kind of frightening.

Nonfactor,

Yet another throw away line from you..huh...

On the day the National Weather Service sent the bulletin mentioned to the WH, most in the media were saying that New Orleans had dodged the worst of Katrina.

> The fact that you take no position on if the President of the United States lied or not is kind of frightening.

Don't be frightened. This is not Bush Watch. It's Olbermann Watch. It's about Olbermann's spin, not the President's.

Also, it's not about whether Bush was aware the levees would be breached. (Even Dr Mayfield didn't expect that. He wasn't even sure they would be topped.) It's about Keith making a big hoo-hah about a tape that supposedly proved he was told about breaches. When the tape proved no such thing at all. I don't care if "everybody in the news media" did get it wrong (note: not everybody did, by the way). I'm interested in what Olby did, and the big extravaganza he made about it last night. A respectable journalist would be embarrassed. That's why Olby isn't.

Reposting:

Re: breaching of levees.

"A 41-page assessment by the Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), was delivered by e-mail to the White House's 'situation room,' the nerve center where crises are handled, at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, the day the storm hit, according to an e-mail cover sheet accompanying the document.

The NISAC paper warned that a storm of Katrina's size would "likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching" and specifically noted the potential for levee failures along Lake Pontchartrain."(Emphasis mine)

from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301711.html

Nonfactor:
Could you respond to Johnny's point, please?

This is not a question of, as you put it, "Everybody in the news media said that Bush had been aware". The question is what was he told during those conferences about the danger to the levees.

The press has breathlessly reported that the tapes are proof that Bush was told about the potential breaching of the levees.

But as Johnny points out, the person in the tapes, Max Mayfield, says that there was a possibility of the levees being "topped" and he states that the conversations in the other conferences only disccused a "topping" of the levees and not a breaching.

Now Bush may have indeed been told about the possibility of the levees being breached.

But these tapes don't show it.

SMG

I'm game, Trekkie. What should the WH have done since they knew the levees would be breached beforehand?

Johnny Dollar, did you see the definitions I pointed out that topped could mean? Topped in the situation of the levees means the same thing as breached.

All Americans should care about if the President lies or not, regardless if this is Olbermannwatch or not.

By extravaganza, do you mean that he looked at the video and analyzed that the President wasn't telling the truth when he spoke to the American people on September 1st? He says Bush lied and now you classify it as spin.

If the President only heard from that one weather official, and didn't hear the myriad of other people claiming that the levees would be breached it just shows that he is out of touch when it comes to protecting the American people against a national disaster.

Nonfactor:
Didn't hear the myriad of other people claiming that the levees would be breached it

Max Mayfield, who was in on the conferences (not all of them, of course), says that:

"On the many conference calls that he monitored, nobody talked about the possibility of a levee breach, or failure, until after it happened."

Is it possible - just possible - that Bush's advisers and staff were at fault and not Bush?

Nah, can't be. That would complicate things. In a "Bush is the devil world" of black-and-white, such things are too difficult to comprehend.

SMG

Nonfactor how could Bush have protected the American people "against a national disaster"?

I'm game, Trekkie. What should the WH have done since they knew the levees would be breached beforehand?

Did I say they could have done anything? The question is whether the President knew that the potential for levees breaching existed. This NISAC report says that the White House did know two days before the President got on TV and said that no one had prepared for that scenario. So either the President wasn't as "engaged" as his people say, or somebody didn't do a good job of keeping him briefed (which given the level of the crisis at hand is equally troubling).

Nonfactor how could Bush have protected the American people "against a national disaster"?

I'm more concerned about the fact that the Administration had five days' notice to prepare for the disaster and still bungled the job, yet wants us to believe they can respond to a terrorist attack on a major American city (an attack that comes with no warning and no preparation time) or even a sudden natural disaster like an earthquake.

Nice spin Cecelia. But the question is not what the admin could have done. The question is did KO lie when he claimed Bush lied, because of the wordage "breach" vs "topping".

It is still, and again, a matter of semantics.

Evidence shows that Bush WAS warned before hand of the possibilty of topping (which leads to breaching) during the taped briefing, and the possibility of breaching on the day the storm hit. Both were several days before his remarks that "no one could have anticipated that the levees could be breached."

This NISAC report says that the White House

Sorry, that's meaningless.

The debate is what was Bush told about the possibility of Katrina breaching the levees. Not a general warning of any storm breaching them.

According to the tapes released so far, and according to statements by Max Mayfield who was in on the calls, there was no discussion of the levees being breached. Only a warning of the possibility of a "topping."

Mayfield was monitoring the hurricane at the NWS. He knew the strength and size and direction that the hurricane had and was in the best position to tell the president about the threat to the levees. And he told the president of a grave concern about them being "topped".

And Mayfield knows the difference between "breach" and "topping."

SMG

There's a huge difference between protecting against a national disaster and stopping a national disaster. It is possible for government to protect the people, whether it's a national disaster or not, there is no way for them to stop one though. I guess you probably want me to show you some proof that they have the power to protect the people as well?

SMG - After the hurricane hit I saw about 3 videos of people who lived in New Orleans saying that the levees couldn't hold if a hurricane hit them (while they were evacuating).

It is possible that the staff for the President is at fault, but they aren't responsible for everything he says, and if he said, "Nobody could have expected the levees to be breached," you can't take it out on the advisors; he made a mistake and lied about it. I'm not so much mad about the lie, it happens all the time in politics (Bush did it just the week before in saying that he didn't know about the Ports deal and then saying that he did), but what I am mad about is that the conservatives (here and elsewhere) can't admit that the President lied to the American people.

> topping (which leads to breaching)

And raining leads to breaching. A lot of things lead to breaching. But if as some claim, dancing leads to sex, that doesn't mean dancing IS sex. Sheesh, I'm surprised I have to explain this stuff.

> Topped in the situation of the levees means the same thing as breached.

Really? Well maybe you'd better educate Dr Max Mayfield, the #1 hurricane authority in the country. Maybe you'd better explain that to NBC News, which felt it had to run a piece tonight pointing out the difference, even though it was severely embarrassing to their own cable network, which under the aegis of Keith Olbermann embarrassed them last night.

Or it's possible that NBC News got it wrong, Dr Max Mayfield doesn't know what he's talkng about, and "NonFactor" knows more about the subject than any of them do.

Puh-lease.

Trekkie,

You claim that Bush "bungled the job" and that he made no preparations for the disaster and at the same time state "Did I say they could have done anything?"

If you don't know how he bungled the job or that the Administration "could have done anything" then how can you assert that they didn't do their job?

What should he have done? Surely there's some Olby fan at the Olby Forum who can answer this for you.

Johnny Dollar, did you see the definition of topping yet? Or are you going to ignore that part of my post? And Keith didn't embarrass them, Chris Matthews said the same thing, as well as Scarborogh and Tucker (you really want to blame everything on Keith don't you?).

How do we know that Dr. Mayfield didn't mean topping in the way dictionary.com defines it? He hasn't come out yet and said otherwise, so I'll go by what the dictionary says.

The debate is what was Bush told about the possibility of Katrina breaching the levees. Not a general warning of any storm breaching them.

From the report:

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1138086166226440.xml

"The potential for severe storm surge to overwhelm Lake Pontchartrain levees is the greatest concern for New Orleans," it said. "Any storm rated Category 4 on the Saffir-Simpson (hurricane) scale will likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching. This could leave the New Orleans metro area submerged for weeks or months." (emphasis mine)

So just because the report, which was compiled because of Hurricane Katrina, completed the day before the storm hit and sent to the White House on August 29th doesn't actually use the word "Katrina", you deem it irrelevant?

Nonfactor:
After the hurricane hit I saw about 3 videos of people who lived in New Orleans saying that the levees couldn't hold if a hurricane hit them (while they were evacuating).

Yes and no.

Here's where I bring out my Ace card. I was born in New Orleans and currently live in Mobile, Alabama and lived through Katrina. When I was young, I played on top of some of the levees (the older ones are just grass covered mounds of dirt).

Yes, people in New Orleans (and the surrounding region) have known for about 50 years that if a major hurricane directly hit the levees that they wouldn't hold.

The question that Bush needed to know was whether Katrina was that specific hurricane that would breach the levees. It can't be just any hurricane that hits near New Orleans. New Orleans has gone through at least 6-8 hurricanes over my lifetime of 45 years. None of those previous ones breached the major levees (some of the smaller ones were breached by previous storms; but the pumps were able to keep the water out).

According to the tapes so far, he was told that the hurricane could possibly "top" the levees. He was not told, in the tapes, that the storm would "breach" the levees. Or even which levees would be breached (as I noted, the city could withstand some breaching if the pumps could handle the water coming in; depends on how big of a breach and where).

Look, he may have been told that the storm could breach the levees. My guess is that somewhere he was.

But the fact remains that these tapes do not show that. The press - specifically Mr. Olbermann - is saying that they do.

And that's inaccurate reporting.

One final note: the destruction from Katrina was just incredible. As I said, I've been through about 15 storms. None were as destructive as this one. Just incredible.

SMG

trekkie you stated the Adiminstration had five days to prepare for the disaster. But five days prior to the storm hitting NO it was only a CAT 1. Why wasn't the state and city prepared. You must be OK pals, you want the Feds to do everything for you.

Because it's a grave danger when the levees get "topped."

I don't know why you say specifically Olbermann when I've pointed out other non-specific events where people other than Olbermann said the same thing.

Topped (in the sense that dictionary.com defines it as) means the same thing in the case of levees as breached does, either way water breaks through them.

So just because the report, which was compiled because of Hurricane Katrina, completed the day before the storm hit and sent to the White House on August 29th doesn't actually use the word "Katrina", you deem it irrelevant?

Irrelevant was a poor choice of words on my part. Let me withdraw it.

Let's say not necessarily conclusive or definitive.

I live on the Gulf Coast and have been through about 15 of these. I'm no expert but I know enough about these storms to comment relatively confidently.

A small change in the direction and strength of a hurricane can have significant impact on the destruction of the area hit. Hurricanes are like tops spinning in the ocean.

For example, about 6-8 hurricanes have hit New Orleans over the past three decades (I've lived through 3 of them). In each case, slight turns in the direction of the storms, in some case less than 24 hours before landfall, prevented major damage to the city, especially flooding caused by water flowing over the levees.

In fact, Katrina did a small eastward turn right before it landed and did more damage to the Biloxi/Gulport/Pass Christian region than New Orleans. And it also lost some energy and was later downsized from a Category 4 to a 3.

My larger point is that a report on a storm before it lands doesn't necessarily tell you what the damages will be. There are too many unknown factor that the report cannot take into account.

Look, the White House failed miserably in responding to this. I'm not defending their actions (or lack of them). But let's understand the limits of the ability of Washington (or state or local governments) to respond to these disasters or predict how they'll turn out.

SMG

trekkie you stated the Adiminstration had five days to prepare for the disaster. But five days prior to the storm hitting NO it was only a CAT 1

My apoligies. I was off by one day (after Katrina had passed through Florida on August 25th, the computer models used to project hurricane paths had a 90% probability Katrina of hitting New Orleans). The storm hit on August 29th. Four days, not five.

But Lousiana had already declared a state of emergency on the 26th because the projections had the storm becoming much, much stronger as it passed through the Gulf of Mexico.

Look at FEMA's response to Hurricane Charley in 2004 (which was not as atrocious as this one, but was still sluggish). They should have learned from that and prepared better for Katrina. They didn't.

By the time the NISAC report came in, it was too late to do anything about the levees (the proper time was when the state and local governments asked for more money to shore them up). But the government should have been ready to respond much more quickly to the needs after the storm. Instead we have a comedy of errors where everyone says it's someone else's fault.

Trekkie:
(the proper time was when the state and local governments asked for more money to shore them up).

Have to laugh over this one. Sorry.

No, the proper time should have been when the state and local governments used the money that was appropriated for the levees.

Instead of shoring up the levees, they used it to buy votes. For decades.

Could they have used more? Sure. But they wasted the money that they got.

Folks, you're talking about Louisiana politics here.

And New Orleans? Spending money wisely?

Laissez les bon temp roulez.

SMG

Trekkie writes:

"By the time the NISAC report came in, it was too late to do anything about the levees (the proper time was when the state and local governments asked for more money to shore them up). But the government should have been ready to respond much more quickly to the needs after the storm. Instead we have a comedy of errors where everyone says it's someone else's fault."

Yer welcome, boys... :D

Instead we have a comedy of errors where everyone says it's someone else's fault."

Eureka.

We've finally got one to climb down from the "Bush is to blame" mountain.

Yes, the W.H. failed to get the bureaucratic leviathan moving fast enough. But it was a collective effort on all levels.

Although as someone who lived through it, I'm not sure how much more could have been done except at the margins. This was a devastating storm.

The government was just overwhelmed by its magnitude. We get hit by another one like it and it doesn't matter who is running the White House.

That's why we're told all the time at the start of hurricane season, store up water and food and batteries. For the first 3-5 days, expect to be on your own.

SMG

Hmm, things get curiouser and curiouser.

Latest news report:

"In the hectic, confused hours after Hurricane Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast, Louisiana's governor hesitantly but mistakenly assured the Bush administration that New Orleans' protective levees were intact, according to new video obtained by The Associated Press showing briefings that day with federal officials."

So, Bush was told before Katrina landed that the levees might be topped not breached. And then he was told by Blanco after it had hit landfall that the levees had remained intact.

I'm sure Mr. Olbermann will give as much time on this new bit of information as he has devoted on the previous allegations.

Right.

So, what we clearly have is the W.H. receiving all kinds of contradictory information. In the fog of this natural disaster, accurate information was difficult to come up with.

And this will happen during the Hillary Clinton Administration or Barack Obama Administration or whatever Democrat is next in the White House.

Screwups will occur.

Johnny,

You have again gone on and on about the fact that Olbermann lied when he claimed that the tape was about a breach, BUT have conveniently ignored the fact Fox News reported the same thing. Will you concede that Fox News lied by reporting that the tape was about a breach?

This is not Fox Watch. It's Olbermann watch. I heard John Gibson on Fox the first time the tape was played, and he pointed out that nobody on the tape had said anything about a breach. That doesn't sound like a lie to me.

Also, I have not heard one single program host on Fox say the tape was about a breach. If so, I missed it. I know some of the headline readers between the nighttime shows may have said it, but those headlines are usually taken straight from AP, who in this case were the responsible parties.

Let's say that someone on Fox DID say that. How does that excuse Olbermann? Mommy, it's OK for me to steal money because Bobby across the street does it? Is that your logic?

Of course with Olby it wasn't just misreporting what the tape said. It was playing the tape, and then playing it again, and again, and STILL lying about what he just played. Rerunning the old "breach" clip from Bush, and then inflating the whole thing into what history "will remember" as "the Bush Tapes".

Since he went further over the top into insanity than anyone else, he deserves the most scorn and ridicule. And since this isn't the first time he's pulled this kind of trick, he is entirely undeserving of the cutting of any slack.

No, Johnny, it doesn't excuse Olbermann.

Yes, as I said before, Donna Fiducia read it in between breaks of the midnight broadcast of Special Report. (Does this mean that those alerts can't be trusted?)

I'm wasn't trying to question the credibility Fox News. I do not trust any of the TV news outlets. (BTW, is Greta STILL reporting on the Natalie Holloway case?)

I just wanted to see how you would respond to my question. I got the answers that I was looking for.

Thank you, Johnny.

Well news headlines at night and into the wee hours of the morning ripped from the AP wire...I would say they are less reliable than if you have your own reporter out getting the info. All of the cable stations, Fox included, don't have a lot of staff doing real reporting once the nighttime talk show schedule begins. It's headlines at the top and bottom of the hour, and they usually take what AP gives 'em. I don't absolve any of them of blame, but I understand how the system works.

In Olbermann's case, however, he writes his own copy. He's supposed to be their premier anchor. He viewed the tape and the words, the hyperbole, and the hype were his, not AP's.

At least that's how I see it, but I've been told I'm "very, very biased". Can't imagine why.

Someone went to the trouble of using two "very"'s? Wow! I guess they really want to make the point. ;)

Seeing as how people here like anything Keith Olbermann, listen here to how Bill O'Reilly treats Olbermann's name as a horrible curse word. http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/

O'Reilly is a wuss. He can't even handle the mentioning of Olbermann's name.

Listen for yourself: http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/

Why do I get the feeling that everyone should avoid clicking on that link...

http://www.Callingallwingnuts.com/getyourcomputervirushere/html...

Every time I look at the picture of Olbermann above I go into stitches.... :D

Amazing how Bush is always the focus. How about somebody respond to this:

In accordance with the “City of New Orleans Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan” – a blueprint drawn up to deal with emergencies like this one – all “Authority to issue evacuations of elements of the population is vested in the Mayor.” The document specifically states, “The person responsible for recognition of hurricane related preparation needs and for the issuance of an evacuation order is the Mayor of the City of New Orleans.” This outline does not mention any specific federal government’s role in disaster relief, instead carving out roles for state and municipal governments.

The National Hurricane Center called Nagin Saturday night asking him to evacuate New Orleans, and President Bush also begged him to get his people to safety. As mayor, the final decision was Nagin's. He was expected to issue such an order 48 hours before the storm made landfall; however, the storm touched down and the levees gave way less than 48 hours after his proclamation.

Moreover, he is to see that “Special arrangements will be made to evacuate persons unable to transport themselves or who require specific life saving assistance.” Yet some 205 buses, and perhaps a greater number of large transit vehicles, were left stranded in a flooded parking lot. University of New Orleans professor Shirley Laksa had calculated some 125,000 residents do not have private transportation.

So, why does Olby focus on Bush-bashing without focusing on Nagin? I think we all know why. Top or Breach is the big issue, not "why the Hell didn't you listen and evacuate Nagin? Why did you keep supplies out of the Superdome Blanco? Why did you relay hearsay as truth Nagin (10,000 dead, bodies in the Superdome, etc.)? Why did the police force fall apart? Why did the Chief of police quit and move to ANOTHER STATE?"

EVACUATION was the key here. Bush wanted one, pressed for one, and Nagin did nothing. Blanco CRIED for God's sake. What a leader! Blame the Feds all you want, you can't whitewash the massive incompetence of the pathetic liberal leadership in New Orleans and Louisiana. That was the source of all strife here.

Who would've thought that KfK would place all the blame on two democrats in Louisiana? All levels of government failed, not just the Democrats. The fact that the federal government did NOTHING for 7 days after the hurricane isn't something to be passed by. Sure, local government in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi failed, but so did the federal government. We have FEMA for a reason.

But no, KfK, continue to place all the blame on only the democrats in Louisiana, and nobody in the Federal Government or nobody in Alabama or Mississippi.

The truth is, people have lost faith in the federal government after this hurricane, and your quoting of a management plan doesn't make them trust the federal government any more.

The fact that the federal government did NOTHING for 7 days after the hurricane isn't something to be passed by.

Much of your credibility for your other arguments - some of which have merit on their own - is sundered when you make the above comment.

The hurricane landed on Monday. There were numerous rescue efforts being undertaken later that day and the early part of the week by resources sent by Washington.

Clearly, it wasn't enough and it didn't arrive fast enough.

But to say that the Federal Government did nothing for seven days is false.

See, for example, this very detailed and in-depth report.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html

SMG

Great link SMG.

Your never going to get your point across to nonfactor and trekkie, they are DU'ers. At least they can come here and post opposing views, unlike their homebase.

I still don't understand what all the hubbub is about, Bush was warned the levees might be topped, he stated on TV that no-one ever suspected the levees would fail. Someone saying the levees might fail and believing they will fail are two completely different things.

Did KO run the tape of Blanco telling federal officials the levees were intact, when in fact the city was filling up with water?

by nothing I should have said nothing major, or nothing on a big scale, which is true. We all remember the reports with the reporters standing there for a whole week wondering when the federal government or any body of government was going to do anything.

I'm sure they did do a few things, but nothing worthy of the scale of the disaster. The truth remains, people don't trust the government to help save their lives or get them food and water after a disaster.

The point of my post was KfK only blaming Democrats, and you harp on one word.

Nonfactor:

Okay, but I can only respond to your words. I wasn't sure whether you literally meant "nothing" or were engaging in, as you seem to admit, exaggeration.

There is no doubt that Washington (okay, Bush if you must) was late in responding to the diaster. But again, it wasn't 7 days. A great deal of material and personnel arrived into New Orleans (and the general Gulf Coast area) by Friday - 4 day after Katrina hit.

Clearly, it should have been there sooner. From everything I've read, the most optimal time frame would have been Wednesday or at the latest Thursday, some 48/72 hours afer the hurricane landed.

Every hurricane season, we're told down here (I'm posting from just outside Mobile, Alabam) that we're on our own for the first 3-5 days after a storm. One needs to keep supplies of water, canned foods and batteries over that length of time. Because depending on the severity of the damage to the roads (and the main interstate highway along the coast - I-10 - was severely damaged) and to the power lines, the ability to get supplies to folks is greatly limited.

One other small point that I haven't read about: Right after the storm landed, cell phones were useless. Lines were overloaded and it was impossible to reach folks. This lasted until Thursday. I'm sure that played a role in getting information out.

As I said, Washington failed us. But I'm not really sure a Washington run by a Clinton or Biden or Kerry would have much more than a marginal difference.

Hannah Arendt had a great line: "Democracy is rule by the many; oligarchy is rule by the few; and bureaucracy is rule by no one."

SMG

Nonfactor, the point of my post is to talk about PREPARATION for the storm. Isn't that what this Breach vs. Topping crap is all about? Did I say the Feds were blame-free on this? Was that the point of my post? Focus Nonfactor, I know it is tough.

I am saying that the LOCAL authorities were in charge of and blew the PREPARATION phase. Of course, instead of addressing this point, you complain that I am blaming Democrats only! By the way, what do you think we would have heard had Blanco and Nagin been Republicans? I bet we wouldn't see puff pieces in the NY Times!

Keep ignoring the two cowering morons behind the Media Curtain and blame Bush. Sure, the Feds have taken a huge hit on Katrina, because the MEDIA covers nothing else. I am sorry I chose to highlight the two most incompetent officials in all of this and ignored the Feds, but I figured the entire mass media is attacking the Feds. I know you would prefer I do the same.

I think we're as close to agreeing as we ever can be KfK, but I don't think the mass media is ignoring the feds, everyone can agree that it was a huge failure on all levels.

I agree, locals blew the preparation process, and a lot of the stuff after, but that does not excuse the Federal government (which it seemed like you were doing). When I hear news about Katrina, I don't just see: Bush screwed up, I see: Everyone screwed up.

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.

AP FRIDAY NIGHT CLARIFICATION ON BUSH/KATRINA VIDEO

Well, isn't that just peachy keen?

Goes to show you; you just can't trust that rightwing corporate press.

SMG

Friday night -- certainly took them long enough, but at least they didn't try to bury the correction by putting it out when nobody is watching! Oh, wait . . .

Maybe the story was "fake but accurate"?

> Friday night -- certainly took them long enough

We had the correction 48 hours before they did!!

I've posted elsewhere on this blog but Dollar acts as if Olbermann ALONE reported this story. It was the AP that was the source and the AP was WRONG. My local paper carried the retraction on the front page no less. But yet, in Dollar's obsessed mind, only keith Olbermann is "guilty". It's just one more of the "reasons" why he thinks Olbermann should be fired and drive out of journalism for some reason. But at least, unlike O'Reilly he really is a JOURNALIST. Not a whore who has only a tentative grasp of reality left to him. or Dollar for that matter.

"This isn't Fox watch." ROFLMAO! So if anyone else screws up, even if it's EVERYONE in the media then only Olbermann will be reported?

Do the people who love Dollar so much not realize the kind of twisted logic he's got going on here? Keith Olbermann: WRONG 100% of the time, even when everyone else, even his beloved Fox, whose tits he sucks at daily, also has it wrong. Somehow, in his mind, ONLY Olbermann is guilty because the name of this blog is OlbermannWatch!

The utter insanity of this kind of thinking defies belief. Yet some of you here (Cecilla) seem to have no problem with it because like Dollar, you're incapable of objective thinking. Or is that just thinking in general? Whatever--I love this blog--it's so damned funny. It's supposed to be a comedy right? It's not? Oh well, that's even funnier!

Sometimes I wonder about the reading comprehension of people here:

> in Dollar's obsessed mind, only keith Olbermann is "guilty".

What I actually said:
"I don't absolve ANY OF THEM of blame"

> even if it's EVERYONE in the media then only Olbermann will be reported?

What I actually said:
" I don't care if "everybody in the news media" did get it wrong (note: NOT EVERYBODY DID, by the way).... I heard John Gibson on Fox the first time the tape was played, and he pointed out that nobody on the tape had said anything about a breach."

I guess this explains why Olby can get away with lying about the contents of a video even as he shows it, and the credulous still swallow it whole.

To the Marxist Islamic loving scum.
I am not a Nazi, I'm a supporter of the Stae of Israel, you guys sympathize with the Islamo-Fascist.
By the way the Nazi's were leftists hense the name National Scoialist!
Hugo chavez the new leftist idol is a Nazi.
I believe in a free society, economic and social values for all that makes me a Libertarian.
However I believe in freedom only for my country and real allies.
All other nations shoild be destroyed or made vassal tribute states.
On social issues I am to the left of Andy Warhol and John Lennon.
On foreign policy, I am to the right of Genghis Khan, Julius Ceasar and Phillip II of Spain.
Real Imperialism by conquest and domination, unlike the Iraq charade is the solution to all of America's social ills.
So to Swashbucket, Non-Person and that other Commie, I am Nationalistic libertarian or Libertarian Nationalist.
Also I'm Hispanic so I,m not a Nazi.
But that what Moaists like you do, accuse any one right of center of being a Nazi.
However the Nazi's were Left wing Racist Socialists.
So the Nazi's are your ideological comrades.
Comrades!

I would much rather see Keith slip up once in awhile than to listen to that pinhead O'Reilly. KO is a breath of fresh air and a damn good looking sexy one too. I'd love to see an All Keith All the Time TV show. He is definitely The Man.

Addendum to the above post:

"Sherry Starr(Tm) is an affiliate of Countdown insdustries"

CLARIFICATION: My User name is Sherry Starr (I used to be a radio disk jockey and that was my on-air name). I am in no way affiliated with Countdown (although I sure would love to be) as this blog has suggested. You have obviously confused me with someone else.

I am just a huge fan of KO's and could watch that handsome face all the time and listen to that magnificent voice nonstop. His sartorial splendor is another bit of eye candy.

I'm available for voice overs if anyone is interested. :-)

http://www.hhp.umd.edu/FMST/people/staff.html

Scroll down to see a picture of Sherry

Well I scrolled down but couldn't see a picture of me, which is not surprising since you don't have a picture of me. You don't even know me.

But please be sure to tell Keith that I am his #1 fan!! (And no I am not the kind of fan from "Misery".