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.
"Then in a series in the New Orleans newspaper Times-Picayune in June 2002, John McQuaid and Mark Schleifstein wrote that 'eventually a major hurricane will hit New Orleans head on, instead of being just a close call. It's happened before and it'll happen again Even storms weaker than Category 3 could break through the levees.' That September NPR did a documentary in which scientists claimed a Category Five Hurricane will put New Orleans under 20 feet of water and kill tens of thousands.
"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.'
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!"
"Yeah, like I'm some sort of levee specialist!"
"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.'"
"Yes."
"And blamed the CIA for exaggerating the threat."
"Yes."
"And then you restructured the intelligence community, to make it better and more useful. You could do the same with FEMA."
"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---"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).