Of course any advisor would have to speak deferentially. He or she can't say, "Sir, in October 2001, Mark Fischetti, writing in Scientific American, in an article entitled 'Drowning New Orleans,' declared that a 'major hurricane could swamp New Orleans under 20 feet of water, killing thousands. Human activities along the Mississippi River have dramatically increased the risk, and now only massive reengineering of southeastern Louisiana can save the city.' And sir, the same year FEMA claimed that the flooding of New Orleans due to a hurricane was one of the three top possible disasters facing the U.S.
"In 2004 CNN ran an ad featuring Saturday Night Live's "Mr. Bill" that urged protection of Louisiana's wetlands, and stated 'since New Orleans is below sea level, if a hurricane hits us directly, it could push the water over the levees and fill it to the top.' In June the Times-Picayune complained about cuts in the budget for work on the east bank hurricane levees and quoted an Army Corps of Engineers' senior project manager as saying, 'When levees are below grade, as ours are in many spots right now, they're more vulnerable to waves pouring over them and degrading them.'
"Then, Mr. President, in the July 2004 "Hurricane Pam" exercise, 270 experts spent a week simulating the impact of a major hurricane and predicted that flood waters would overcome the levees and cover most of the city, killing tens of thousands. And in September after Hurricane Ivan, the Natural Hazards Center declared that if it had directly hit New Orleans it would have 'caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the city 'bowl' with water.' In October 2004 National Geographic predicted that an August hurricane would cause the waters of Lake Pontchartrain to spill over the berm holding back the lack, submerging 80% of the city and killing thousands. So actually, sir, your comment to Sawyer looks pretty uninformed."
No, Karl Rove's not going to say that. But he could say, "We have to recognize that this could become a political problem. Some are saying that your administration should have been aware that levees needed work to prevent a catastrophe, but instead was preoccupied with the war in Iraq (which is increasingly unpopular) and so you just didn't pay attention. They're saying we diverted money for levees to Homeland Security and Iraq, and even suggesting that we didn't care about New Orleans because of all the poor black people there. So when you said, 'Nobody anticipated the breach of the levies' the liberals were all acting like you personally should have known about various dire predictions by scientists, journalists and political officials. Like that's your job!"
"Fortunately the public doesn't seem to buy that. Only 13% of persons polled blame you for the breach of the levees. 25% blame state or local officials, and 38% say no one's to blame. And a lot of people see the whole thing as an act of God. These are mostly people in our political base. Most people aren't gonna fault you for being surprised about what happened. Our problem is what they're saying about your response to the disaster. 42% call it 'bad' or 'terrible,' and just 35% call it 'good' or 'great.' We need to do some perception management "
"Your advice, Turd Blossom?"
"Well, when the liberals were making a big deal about us not finding weapons of destruction in Iraq, we honestly acknowledged 'intelligence failures.'"
"And blamed the CIA for exaggerating the threat."
"You mean, blame Brownie?"
"Well, you've already said he's doing 'a heck of a job,' and just like you didn't blame Tenet you needn't blame Michael Brown. Maybe let him go if he seems a real liability. Anyway while you personally lead the investigation into what went wrong in New Orleans---"