E-mail suggests government seeking to blame groups

[zimv20]

link (http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050916/NEWS0110/509160369/1260)


Federal officials appear to be seeking proof to blame the flood of New Orleans on environmental groups, documents show.

The Clarion-Ledger has obtained a copy of an internal e-mail the U.S. Department of Justice sent out this week to various U.S. attorneys' offices: "Has your district defended any cases on behalf of the (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers against claims brought by environmental groups seeking to block or otherwise impede the Corps work on the levees protecting New Orleans? If so, please describe the case and the outcome of the litigation."

Cynthia Magnuson, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said Thursday she couldn't comment "because it's an internal e-mail."

Shown a copy of the e-mail, David Bookbinder, senior attorney for Sierra Club, remarked, "Why are they (Bush administration officials) trying to smear us like this?"

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups had nothing to do with the flooding that resulted from Hurricane Katrina that killed hundreds, he said. "It's unfortunate that the Bush administration is trying to shift the blame to environmental groups. It doesn't surprise me at all."

Federal officials say the e-mail was prompted by a congressional inquiry but wouldn't comment further.

Whoever is behind the e-mail may have spotted the Sept. 8 issue of National Review Online that chastised the Sierra Club and other environmental groups for suing to halt the corps' 1996 plan to raise and fortify 303 miles of Mississippi River levees in Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas.

The corps settled the litigation in 1997, agreeing to hold off on some work until an environmental impact could be completed. The National Review article concluded: "Whether this delay directly affected the levees that broke in New Orleans is difficult to ascertain."

The problem with that conclusion?

The levees that broke causing New Orleans to flood weren't Mississippi River levees. They were levees that protected the city from Lake Pontchartrain levees on the other side of the city.

(more)

what was that about not playing the blame game?

[LethalWolfe]

That e-mail + this administrations reversal on wet lands conservation started by Bush Sr. = cute bit of irony.


Lethal

[mactastic]

Why am I not surprised?

How about an email that asks if your money for state and local first responders has been cut lately, and if so please provide details.

[pseudobrit]

How about an email that asks if your money for state and local first responders has been cut lately, and if so please provide details.

Now is not the time to point fingers.

[ham_man]

That e-mail + this administrations reversal on wet lands conservation started by Bush Sr. = cute bit of irony.
And Clinton?

How do we know that Bush even had anything to do with this?

[zimv20]

And Clinton?

How do we know that Bush even had anything to do with this?
it's been covered in the other katrina threads.

[LethalWolfe]

Going w/a less knee jerk reaction...

Where is the line between the blame game and the facts? Doesn't this course of action make logical sense if one is trying to answer the Q, "Why wasn't the city protected better?" If the answer is in part, "because a lawsuit stopped improvements to the levees" is that a smear or just a fact?


And Clinton?

How do we know that Bush even had anything to do with this?

How do we know that Bush had anything to do w/the current Bush administration straying away from a wetlands protection program honored since it was started by the previous Bush administration? Is that the question you are asking?


Lethal

[ham_man]

How do we know that Bush had anything to do w/the current Bush administration straying away from a wetlands protection program honored since it was started by the previous Bush administration? Is that the question you are asking?
I was just speculating the fact that this may have been done without Dubya's knowledge...

[LethalWolfe]

I was just speculating the fact that this may have been done without Dubya's knowledge...

That I don't know. It's difficult at times to know when one is referring specifically about a Pres or generally about a President's administration since a President's last gets used for both.


Lethal

[pseudobrit]

That I don't know. It's difficult at times to know when one is referring specifically about a Pres or generally about a President's administration since a President's last gets used for both.


Lethal

A President is her administration.

[skunk]

I was just speculating the fact that this may have been done without Dubya's knowledge...Perhaps if he took his job more seriously and spent less time on holiday he'd be able to keep up to speed. Then again, perhaps not.

[pseudobrit]

Perhaps if he took his job more seriously and spent less time on holiday he'd be able to keep up to speed. Then again, perhaps not.

I think we're safer with him as far removed as possible.

[skunk]

A President is her administration.Aren't we jumping the gun a little here?

[pseudobrit]

Aren't we jumping the gun a little here?

Only in the states.

[zimv20]

Perhaps if he took his job more seriously and spent less time on holiday he'd be able to keep up to speed.
iow, did andrew card put together a dvd for him?

[rdowns]

Dubya's knowledge...

That's a new one. I am familiar with military intelligence and jumbo shrimp.

[skunk]

That's a new one. I am familiar with military intelligence and jumbo shrimp.Did you forget "Western Civilization"?

[mactastic]

I was just speculating the fact that this may have been done without Dubya's knowledge...
And that's a comforting thought for you?

[IJ Reilly]

And that's a comforting thought for you?

As they say, "any excuse in a storm."

[solvs]

Where is the line between the blame game and the facts? Doesn't this course of action make logical sense if one is trying to answer the Q, "Why wasn't the city protected better?" If the answer is in part, "because a lawsuit stopped improvements to the levees" is that a smear or just a fact?
Depends on why they're asking the question. Is this an issue, or are they trying to make it the issue? If they are trying to drum up an excuse to blame the environmentalists where none exists, I have a problem with it. If it's true, then I guess they'll have to look into that.

I'm just hoping this doesn't lead to environmentalists being taken less seriously for everything. They're not all eco-nuts. And perhaps if we had worked more with the environment instead of against it, this might not have happened.

[IJ Reilly]

Depends on why they're asking the question. Is this an issue, or are they trying to make it the issue? If they are trying to drum up an excuse to blame the environmentalists where none exists, I have a problem with it. If it's true, then I guess they'll have to look into that.

I'm just hoping this doesn't lead to environmentalists being taken less seriously for everything. They're not all eco-nuts. And perhaps if we had worked more with the environment instead of against it, this might not have happened.

I think the main point of these stories is to fuzz the edges enough such that those who cling to the idea that the Bush administration is faultless can find a reason to believe.

[mactastic]

I think the main point of these stories is to fuzz the edges enough such that those who cling to the idea that the Bush administration is faultless can find a reason to believe.
No, it goes beyond that; and this is something the conservative movement has down pat -- exploit these kinds of things for political gain. Not only can environmentalists (already a filthy word for many) be conveniently blamed for the devastation of Katrina anytime anyone points to Bush as deserving of blame, but the environmental movement as a whole can be further tarred as shortsighted and stupid.

See also the immediate lifting of environmental restrictions. Once things settle down, do you think the right will want to restore those regulations? Or will they say "Oh look how much better things go when we deregulate"?

And if you want any more proof just see here. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1106213,00.html) Righties out trying to drum up a case where a victim of Katrina lost out due to the estate tax to try and bring that issue to an emotional head and get it back on the floor in Congress. They are playing politics with this, just as they used the Iraq war as a way to propel themselves into power in the last two election cycles.

They played politics with 9/11, they played politics with the Iraq war, and they're playing politics with Katrina. And the American people are finally, slowly, starting to catch on. We'll see if Rove can fix that for the GOP.

Someone mentioned that Rove had been in the hospital with kidney stones during the hurricane. Perhaps that goes a long way towards explaining the colossal federal screw up. Bush's brain was out of commission?

[IJ Reilly]

No, it goes beyond that; and this is something the conservative movement has down pat -- exploit these kinds of things for political gain. Not only can environmentalists (already a filthy word for many) be conveniently blamed for the devastation of Katrina anytime anyone points to Bush as deserving of blame, but the environmental movement as a whole can be further tarred as shortsighted and stupid.

I agree, I'm saying only that these stories don't need to believed or even heard by most people to have their desired impact. They work mainly for the people who want their predispositions verified.

[zimv20]

Someone mentioned that Rove had been in the hospital with kidney stones during the hurricane. Perhaps that goes a long way towards explaining the colossal federal screw up. Bush's brain was out of commission?
seems so (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1785729,00.html).


Bush’s key aide ‘missed’ Katrina

“BUSH’S brain” was missing when flood waters swamped New Orleans. Karl Rove, the White House aide who goes by that unofficial title, was suffering from painful kidney stones and was briefly hospitalised in the middle of the biggest crisis so far of President George W Bush’s second term.
Once his condition improved it was Rove who urged the president to open his chequebook for the stricken city, against the advice of White House economists, and spend $200 billion (£111 billion) to rebuild it “higher and better”, as Bush went on to promise.

Although many Republicans are horrified by the cost, Rove is determined to revive Bush’s dormant image as a compassionate conservative, the theme of his first presidential campaign in 2000, and will be overseeing the reconstruction effort.

Bill Kristol, editor of the neo-conservative Weekly Standard, said Rove’s absence had made a significant difference after the hurricane hit. “He was out of commission for 24-36 hours and he’s indispensable. It’s a thin White House and it’s not a good thing that the government could become paralysed for a day,” Kristol said.

(more)

[solvs]

I agree, I'm saying only that these stories don't need to believed or even heard by most people to have their desired impact. They work mainly for the people who want their predispositions verified.
And see, that's what I'd tend to believe. Why the sudden interest in specifically calling for info on the environmentalists? If they've gotten something, well that's one thing... but if they're just trying to find someone to blame by drumming up false charges (which they tend to do, so it's not like we don't have a reason to be suspicious), then they should be called on it.

Off topic, I guess I should stop wishing for bad things to happen to Karl Rove. Look what happens when he's not around. Things get even worse! :eek:

[IJ Reilly]

And see, that's what I'd tend to believe. Why the sudden interest in specifically calling for info on the environmentalists? If they've gotten something, well that's one thing... but if they're just trying to find someone to blame by drumming up false charges (which they tend to do, so it's not like we don't have a reason to be suspicious), then they should be called on it.

Off topic, I guess I should stop wishing for bad things to happen to Karl Rove. Look what happens when he's not around. Things get even worse! :eek:

It depends on what you mean by "worse." The results are about the same, only the spin is better when Rove is on duty.

But as far as these stories are concerned, the administration only needs to murky the waters to be successful in manipulating public opinion. Not only do they give the true believers something to cling to, but they leave some less-well informed people scratching their heads and wondering whether they really understand the situation well enough to have an opinion. "Hmm, maybe it could be the fault of the environmentalists..." Takes some heat off the administration by driving some fraction of the electorate into the "I don't know" category.

[mactastic]

I agree, I'm saying only that these stories don't need to believed or even heard by most people to have their desired impact. They work mainly for the people who want their predispositions verified.
And this is something the Democrats have no capacity (or stomach) for. You (the GOP) want to claim 9/11 changed everything? Katrina changed everything too. I wasn't for repealing the Bush tax cuts before Katrina. I wasn't for immediate troop withdrawl before Katrina. I wasn't for massive infrastructure improvements in America before Katrina. I wasn't for strong measures to improve the situation of the impoverished before Katrina. I wasn't as adamantly for Davis-Bacon before Katrina.

Hell, it's a blank check to make up new beliefs out of whole cloth. And who can argue with you once they've used the line "but 9/11 changed everything".

And that's all without being in power. And anytime one of the righties asks why you suddenly 'flip-flopped' on the war tell them Katrina changed everything. Then ask why Bush is going around nation-building. :p