Month: March 2006

AP FRIDAY NIGHT CLARIFICATION ON BUSH/KATRINA VIDEO

Now that all the hysterical “gotcha” headlines have convinced the public that Bush lied in the oft repeated ABC TV interview about the levee breach, here comes the embarrasing retraction, which will invariably be a footnote in the ongoing news coverage; thus continuing the public’s misperception. Supposedly AP had the tape, of Bush being briefed at his ranch before Katrina hit, in their vault for months and only “found” it just now.
the Associated Press reporter, who narrated the videotape, implies that Mr. Bush lied when he said after the storm that nobody had anticipated “the breach of the levees.” This is supposed to be contradicted by the video footage of a pre-landfall briefing in which the National Hurricane Center told the President of the possibility that “the levees will be topped [emphasis added].” But in fact the New Orleans levee system wasn’t topped; it was breached, just as Mr. Bush said — and there’s a big difference between the two. The levees being topped by the storm surge would have caused damage, but arguably much less severe than what happened after the structural failure that actually occurred.

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.

Here is some background on the levee failures and successes in New Orleans – the distinction between topping and breaching is clear. And a last thought – saying that Bush did not lie about this is different from saying that the Federal response to Katrina was A-OK.  Katrina: What went right

2102 space rock to give Earth its closest shave

2102 space rock to give Earth its closest shave, say watchers
If you’re looking for something new to worry about: a space rock capable of sub-continent scale devastation has about a one in 1,000 risk of colliding with Earth early next century, the highest of any known asteroid, watchers said on Thursday.

Don’t Fear the Bubble That Bursts

Don’t Fear the Bubble That Bursts – New York Times
So there is a good argument that society has a compelling interest in keeping house prices from getting too high. Reasonable prices allow young, middle-class families to buy a house without going into too much debt. They also let people live where they want.

Do not condemn Putin out of hand

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment – Do not condemn Putin out of hand

(Comments by Tom Barnett) – Lieven makes about the best case you can for Putin’s renationalization of much of Russia’s energy sector.

First, as he points out, Yeltsin engaged in his share of authoritarianism, with almost no criticism from the West, plus he let that gangster-style capitalism bloom unrestricted in its class warfare.

By contrast, all reputable opinion polls still show Vladimir Putin enjoys the support of a large majority of Russians. This too is understandable, given the way in which the economy has grown and living standards improved under his presidency. And if much of this progress can be attributed to high oil prices, it is also true that greatly improved revenue-raising capability means that at last the Russian state can once again divert a reasonable proportion of these profits into improving state wages and services. To achieve this, it was necessary to restore state power and radically reduce that of the oligarchs, and it is dishonest to suggest that given Russian realities, the process of cutting down the Yeltsin-era elites could ever have been pretty.

How’s that for realism?

Lieven then goes on to note the single-party/state-heavy route has worked well for plenty of countries in their development, citing South Korea, Taiwan, China, Turkey, and even France! Fair enough. I would add Japan and Singapore, but the point is made.

Here’s the most interesting stuff:

The new Russian elite of Mr. Putin’s conception is supposed to be dynamic and capable of competing in the free market, but also to be deeply patriotic: it should be committed to the interests of the state and deferential to the wishes of the state, especially in foreign affairs. The elite will move freely between the state and the market sectors, and in the process will be handsomely rewarded, but it will keep its money within Russia, not spend it on British football clubs or French chateaux. Its members will never lobby for foreign support against their own government. In society as a whole, there will be open public debate on a range of issues, but on others it will be strictly limited. Similarly, elements of democracy will remain but be heavily managed. This will not be a personal or dynastic dictatorship such as Azerbeijan but a collective regime of this elite, with leading members succeeding each other and rotating in power. If proved correct, the rumour that Mr. Putin, after stepping down as president in 2008, will take over Gazprom or another great corporation would be very significant in this regard.

We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran

We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran – New York Times
Each time a new nuclear weapons state emerges, we rightly suspect that the world has grown more dangerous. The weapons are enormously destructive; humans are fallible, organizations can be incompetent and technology often fails us. But as we contemplate the actions, including war, that the United States and its allies might take to forestall a nuclear Iran, we need to coolly assess whether and how such a specter might be deterred and contained.

A Port in the Storm Over Dubai

A Port in the Storm Over Dubai – New York Times
Since January 2005, every container entering the truck gates of two of the world’s busiest container terminals, in Hong Kong, has passed through scanning and radiation detection devices. Images of the containers’ contents are then stored on computers so that they can be scrutinized by American or other customs authorities almost in real time. Customs inspectors can then issue orders not to load a container that worries them.

So why not take advantage of the sudden interest in Port Security and mandate that such scrutiny be applied to everything coming to America?