Paryer books? String em up? Western Justice? Am I missing something?

Good interview, though.

"Sir, are you kidding?"

Timmeh, the only inaccuracy in AAron Brousards' statements came today when he suggested that your lights come on and your toilet flushes.

You are the black heart Timmmeh. Among so many others, you stand with craven cowards. Why?

Because you never ever fact check the bullshit they handed you on your own show, Sunday, after Sunday, after Sunday.

With Rodrigue's (learn to pronounce Hispanic names, Timmeh) mother dead along with hundreds of others, the epitome of abandonment now moves with the living survivors. And you just found a way, Timmeh, to piss on them.

Go stand in shame with the people you really support. You are a vulture, Timmeh. Eat your own black heart, you'll never touch the righteous man.

Although I heard statements by this Southern gentleman which may have been exaggerated, his primary and underlying point was that there were tremendous mistakes made and there should be inquiries, investigations, and prosecution for reckless endangerment at a minimum. These mistakes, as pointed out by the interviewee, were made at a local, regional, State, and Federal level. We should learn from these mistakes and embrace the lessons they teach us.

If Tim Russert ever nit picked Bush, Cheney, Rove, or any of the administration the way he nit picked for accuracy Broussard, we'd see clear lies and distortion, as it truly is. Why does he choose to pick and this poor guy and give treasonous creeps a pass?

DS

Of all the nits to pick over the Katrina disaster, I can't believe Russert (and the bloggers he mentioned) have chosen to pick this one.

Well, I'm one of the black-hearted bloggers in question. As far as I've been able to find out, my weblog was the second to question the truthfulness of Broussard's statement, and the first to post specifics from various news accounts that refuted his chronology of Rodrigue's mother's death.

As I said at the beginning, I felt ambivalent about even bringing up the possiblity that he was lying. And I'm willing to entertain the idea that Broussard was justified in lying the way he did (or "bullshitting the way he did", if you want to argue that he really didn't know that Eva Rodrigue died on Monday, and just failed to verify the details before he spoke), because in the context of the ongoing failure of the federal disaster-relief effort to move more quickly, he needed to say whatever he could to put pressure on them to get in gear. I think I'd buy that argument, at least to some degree. And if you read between the lines of his statements on MTP yesterday, he's kind of making that case (along with, in my view, dishonestly trying to maintain his innocence, for example by repeating at the beginning of his response that she died on Friday).

But on a deeper level, this sort of thing strikes me as an accountability moment for webloggers who made a big deal about his tearful charges at the time of his initial appearance. The information is out there now: He clearly wasn't telling the truth in that tear-jerking account about the repeated phonecalls on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday... For someone to have helped publicize the original story, and then fail to correct the record now, would be dishonest. (Kudos to Norm, by the way, for being more honest than that.)

I'm one of those who goes on (and on and on) about what a horrible president Bush is, and I'm quick to pounce on the latest dishonest comments from him and his supporters. But I'm not willing to be misled and have my emotions manipulated by a guy pretending to be distraught over something that, technically speaking, did not happen. (Or, again, to give Broussard more of the benefit of the doubt, using his legitimate grief in a worthy cause -- pushing the feds to boost their response -- via the telling of a lie that incorrectly links the federal failure to a death not actually caused by it.)

I'm not willing to lie to try to beat the other side. I'm not willing to become Bush in order to defeat him. I think Bush's lies are worth noticing and talking about, and that he should be held accountable for them. But during the Clinton presidency, I also thought his lies were worth noticing and talking about, and that he should be held accountable for them.

I think it's important not to just give Broussard a pass because he happens to be on my side of the larger poltiical debate. As far as I can see, he's the one who has something to answer for in terms of dragging Eva Rodrigue's death into the realm of politics. He's the one who has sullied her memory by associating it with a self-serving falsehood.

The uploading of this webpage seems to have a few problems. The scroll bar for the home page indicates that there are several video clips and images that can be viewed. Indeed, If I quickly scroll down I can see these clips and images and can even click on them to play. However, after a few seconds the images dissapear and I can no longer access these clips and the scroll bar is large, showing no evidence of hidden images and video clips. I've tried loading the home page on several computers and the same thing happens. There are a few older clips that I like and can no longer view them. Is this a problem with home server? Can something be done to fix this? Thanks

John,

Lying requires intent. No one is disputing that he got the facts wrong, but calling him a liar without establishing intent and considering the subject matter is black-hearted. I didn't read your orginal post so maybe you didn't call him a liar. The point is that many are trying to make this a political issue. Many on the right are trying to defend the Federal Government by attacking local officials this seems to be one of those cases. As Broussard pointed out there is blame at all levels. Pointing to one doesn't exonerate the others, and pointing to Broussard's mis-statements doesn't change the fact that all, the federal government included have much to be ashame of, and appears to be a tactic to excuse the federal government, by attacking the messenger on details when the overall point was accurate, namely the federal government fucked up major league.

Wait wait wait.

They're debating the DAY?

I assumed the overall fact would be proven wrong, but the DAY?

(Disregard above banter.)

I really can't comprehend the Federal/state/local response argument sometimes.

It's as though Bush supporters are expected to point out the local government's failings to swing the evil spotlight away from the Federal mistakes while those who disagree with the Bush administration are supposed to be viewed as simply that--those who dislike Bush--by focusing more on the Federal government's screw-ups. While there are those that reasonably see the fault in both areas (and more), I think Broussard is right in pointing out that Mother Nature has no political party.

I wish blame would fall flat and hard where it's supposed to for once. I hate the picking and choosing here that's swayed by other factors.

Well, a lot of this discussion is fueled by the fallacy that only one of two sides in a debate can be wrong. To the extent that Broussard's false statements are now being used by Bush supporters as a way to divert attention from their own guy's failings, that's unfortunate. But it doesn't make what Broussard did right.

For myeself, I'd be more inclined to give Broussard the benefit of the doubt as to having just been honestly mistaken in his remarks in the first MTP appearance if he'd taken the opportunity of the second appearance to acknowledge that he had been wrong. He didn't do that. Instead, he appears (to me, though I'm admittedly fairly cynical about politicians generally, not just Republicans or Democrats specifically) to have used the opportunity to try to push an artful bit of spin that as much as possible preserves his own reputation.

Yeah, I realize that's what politicians do. It doesn't mean I have to believe it is sincere, though. And in this case I have a hard time doing so. Your mileage may vary. Whatever.

John...

You go too far in calling him a liar, you have as Norm points out no way of accurately knowing his intent.

Having said that though... did the lack of rapid Federal Response cause Rodrigue's mother death? Not at all, she was at the St. Rita home and FEMA employees contacted them and ambualnces actually showed up before the storm hit and the owner turned them away. The owners bear the burden of guilt.

Does this in any way exonerate President Bush, Brown, and Chertoff from the loss of life that occurred at other localities as a result of a slow Federal response?

Not at all... what happened at Charity Hospital, The Tulane Medical Center, Memorial Hospital, The Convention Center, the 9th ward was a direct result of Federal inaction and they bear a large part of the responsibility.

Do they bear the sole responsibility? No there were mistakes made by the Governor and the Mayor as well... and Broussard noted that.

Great interview! It's good to hear someone cut through a lot of the BS and relate the realities on the ground.

I hate rebs!!

This is just part of the usual blame the victims routine the repugs and their bought mouth pieces always play.

As someone said, if the talking heads could be bothered to put the people responsible for this under the same microscope they are using on the survivors, they would finally have something worth talking about.

The story is essentially true. This man, unlike the people who interviewed him, at the time, was not sitting in an office far away with scripts and notes created by writers and professional spinners. He was reacting to the information he had "just been given".

As he says, when the entire story is laid out, IF it ever is, the twisted heads protecting this sick little president, trying to defect blame to the victims, will be clearly exposed.

But, given who is in the position to tell the story, I don't expect to ever hear it all.

Hell, they are just a bunch of poor darkies and rebs, eh? Who cares? From where I live, you are all yanks and half of you appear to be insane.

I sympathize with the other half, that have to live with you.

His tears were true, his distress was true and so was the distress of his coworkers that told him the story. I believe him that he just wanted to make a strong point at the end of his first appearence - and then broke.

I really don't understand your motives of checking his story, in the first place, John. I cried when I saw him back then. And I know that he is a somewhat dazzling figure (there was a corruption probe at his parish some months ago with him involved). But even Russert acknowledged talking to Imus that the sad thing was seeing "a grown up man dissolving into tears on national television" (or something like that).

It obviously was no staged thing, for christ's sake! (Or else they should give him an Oscar!) Why would you immediately go checking this, John? Honestly I can't understand.

When Terri Schiavos parents wept "on national tv", her siblings, her friends, that all wanted her being kept alive - I didn't want to question their feelings. I didn't think it was right to suggest it was because of the money. Even if it would have suited my side of the political aisle.

If you want to know about fake tears try Senator Coburn instead.

Yeah...I was about to say.. who are we to say this guy had crocodile tears when he was up to his neck in dead bodies? I think most of the people nit picking about the days things took place are obviously not in the middle of the situation and are like sitting on very dry ground. Russert was shamed on national telivision and I hope other people were too. Don't go after the guys in the middle of this. Did we blame the firemen for not putting out the fire in the world trade center?

John,

I'm driving the same model, and getting pretty close to the same mileage as you.

Frenchfries,

I cried when I watched Broussard's initial appearance, too. I didn't question it. I just thought, whoa. That's horrible. That's outrageous. The people screwing up this disaster-relief operation should be taken out and shot.

Then I thought about it some more. I started to wonder if the story he told at the end was scrupulously true. Because it seemed possible to me that what was going on was a deliberate effort to use the crying and the emotion to advance a particular political agenda. I described my initial thinking here: Was Broussard telling the truth?

If you really want to know, the specific thing that raised my doubts was the way Broussard's sobbing statement reminded me of Steve Martin's character in My Blue Heaven, when he's crying to Rick Moranis' character at the airport in New York, "Don't make me look like a criminal in front of my momma." Broussard sounded an awful lot like Steve Martin's character.

Now, the reality is, I mostly agree with the particular political agenda Broussard was pushing in that appearance. I believe that the federal response to Katrina was awful, and that Bush should be held accountable for that, along with a boatload of other failures his administration should be held accountable for.

But the truth matters. And the truth in this case is that Eva Rodrigue's death had nothing to do with the federal government's response to the hurricane. So the climax of Broussard's case against FEMA was, from a factual standpoint, untrue. Maybe he was just honestly mistaken. Maybe he was intentionally lying. Either way, his assertion was factually incorrect.

For me, this immediately calls into question all the other examples of FEMA failures that Broussard talked about at that first appearance: the Wal-Mart water trucks, the Coast Guard diesel fuel, the cutting of emergency phone lines. Given what we know now about Eva Rodrigue, how can we take these other stories at face value? We can't. Broussard has no credibility. He's obviously willing either to lie, or to tell an untrue story based on unverified hearsay, in order to make FEMA look bad.

If holding political leaders accountable for their lies means anything, it has to apply to all leaders, not just the ones on the other side. Because I will guarantee you, if you're willing to let your own guys get away with lying to you, just because they're your own guys, they will take advantage of that until they become just as bad as the other side's guys. Every time.

Let me try an analogy. Say you've got a president. He says a certain country has weapons of mass destruction, and is actively trying to get worse ones. He says the bad guy running that country is refusing to allow UN weapons inspectors into his country. He says that bad guy clearly represents a serious and growing danger to our country. In light of all that, we have no choice, he says, but to invade that country and overthrow that bad guy's government by force. It's a powerful emotional argument.

Now, if it subsequently turns out that that president was either A) intentionally lying, or B) mistakenly asserting things that turned out not to be true, because he wanted those things to be true, and just didn't bother to figure out beforehand whether they actually were or not, then should that president be held acocuntable for those statements? Should his other statements be held up to closer scrutiny? Should the public that trusted him the first time be less-inclined to do so thereafter?

I know what my answer is: Hell, yeah.

So what's different about Broussard's case? Why should he get a pass, while this hypothetical president is held accountable?

John,

Well, to me it's just a question of dimension. First of all I didn't know if Broussard was a Democrat or not, and that didn't count for my reaction to him. Why did Meet the Press have him on, in the first place? I guess to get some perspective of the people on ground zero Katrina. They got a little more than they wished, I guess.

Did I think that his story about that mother was kind of strange? Indeed I did. But he struck so many of the right chords: "The cavalry is coming" - hadn't that been promised again and again and never happened? "I'm fed up with the press conferences" - he was not the only one. "Send us someone to help us!" - pure and simple.

After 9/11 the federal government wanted even more power in a case of emergency, they got it - and then they left their people alone. So it's not nearly the same with Broussard's local failings and Bush's war. Comparing Broussard to Bush - after all, a lie is a lie, right? - is providing this president exactly with the kind of folksy cover he always has. But Bush isn't the fibbing head of a parish, he is the most powerful man in the world. And all the brush clearing in the world can conceal that.

So maybe Broussard also cried because of his own mistakes and shortcomings, maybe he, Nagin or Blanko failed as well - but they didn't want nor did they have the authority of FEMA, Homeland Security and the White House. Is it a coincidence that these branches of government are currently occupied by the Republican Party of the 21st century - by "the other side"? Of course not. I just don't accept the notion that somehow the three levels are equally guilty of what happened.

In short, whatever the merits of his story, Broussard presented a look at the desperation on the ground. And I just cannot be as mad with him as I am with the brush clearing, folksy gentleman at the top.

The following is an exact quote of my comment from another thread on TalkLeft:

Broussard NEVER specifically blamed the Federal government for Eva Rodrigue's death. Never once. He clearly stated he wanted accountability for all responsible. I invite anyone to detail how one could logically conclude Broussard specifically or solely blamed the Federal government for Eva Rodrigue's death. Mind you, I'm not talking about what Russert said or asked. Here's the link to the MSNBC.com transcript 9/4.

(By the way, I, under my other online moniker "Ace Pumpkin", posted that comment from which I quote above here.)

Frenchfries, I'm not disputing any of that. Yes, the feds are responsible for screwing up. They're arguably the most responsible for screwing up, because it's their job to pick up the slack when local and state officials are overwhelmed by the magnitude of the disaster, as they clearly were in this case. I'm not saying all three levels are equally guilty. And I'm totally not as mad with him as I am with Bush. I'm with you all the way there.

At the same time, I think it's pretty pathetic that lots of people on the left are rallying around Broussard, making him out to be some kind of hero for standing up to that meanie, Tim Russert.

Um, no. He's not. He's a guy who got caught telling a falsehood, and used political spin to try to avoid accountability for it. And that's not heroic.