Sunday, September 04, 2005


in anger. How is this a defense?
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defending the U.S. government's response to Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff argued Saturday that government planners did not predict such a disaster ever could occur.
Isn't that one very large strike against them? This is from the same people who claimed that no one could have foreseen that terrorists would hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Well guess, what -- they lied about that too.

He next tried the Titanic defense:
Chertoff argued that authorities actually had assumed that "there would be overflow from the levee, maybe a small break in the levee. The collapse of a significant portion of the levee leading to the very fast flooding of the city was not envisioned."
What's the difference? With one, you get a flood. With the other, you get a flood. You're telling me they didn't plan for the possibility that NEW FUCKING ORLEANS could flood? I was there for 2 days 9 years ago and I could have told you that. And anyway, since when does the Federal EMERGENCY Management Agency stop short of the worst case scenario?

Slimy. Deceitful. Incompetent.

No comments: