As usual, the MSM is using their own ignorance to play on the ignorance of the general public. It is a very simple manner to look up the definition of these two terms. And when you do, it is quite obvious that they are not the same thing. There is a big difference between shoe laces coming untied and breaking.

The MSM is playing dirty politics, as usual.

There are a lot of things that have been hidden and /or ignored by MSM such as the governors comments caught on tape saying she should have done what Bush told her to do and evacuated sooner. But it is all politics and MSM is after Bush. They have pretty well got him down and he is unpopular but that doesn't mean that the people are willing to vote for a donk. That is what MSM cannot get through their heads.

Jason, if you are trying to get rational thought and content out of the MSM... well, what can I say?

They are too infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome to ever be able to think rationally.

Hi Jason, I think we basically agree here on the bigger picture. When I said over at Big Lizards that a serious storm surge overtopping the levees being worse, I'm going by most of the articles I've read. For example, this 2002(I think) NOTP article says:

A stronger storm on a slightly different course -- such as the path Georges was on just 16 hours before landfall -- could have realized emergency officials' worst-case scenario: hundreds of billions of gallons of lake water pouring over the levees into an area averaging 5 feet below sea level with no natural means of drainage.

If that's the worst-case scenario, then a breech can't be worse, right? The Scientific American article envisioned overtopping as the worst case as well. Willing to read/learn otherwise, like I said I was going from my own reading in the immediate aftermath.

The scenario you present is a "worst case" but it's not THE "worst case" if you get my meaning.

When you talk about billions of water going over the levee and into the city (which is what happened in Betsy) that's bad. Because as you say there's no natural way for the water to get out. HOWEVER, there is a man made way to get that water out via the city's pump stations.

With a breach, you have the same thing as your scenario, but with one added element - NO PUMPS. With a breach you can't pump the water out because it comes right back in. So before you can begin to dewater the city you have to repair the levee while fighting the lake.

People simply don't make a contingency for a levee breach, because in a breach situation, you have a total failure. With topping you still have the canals and pumps, with a breach, the canals and pumps are worthless.

Think of it as a three part defense, levee, canal and pump. In your scenario, the canals and pumps are still in play, with Katrina, nothing was left in play because the first, second and third lines of defense all failed.

The SA article looks at overtopping from the lake as worst case, because that assumes that the city is still in play and you have a perimeter still there to fight from. Take away the perimeter wall, and you're toast.

Everyone in New Orleans knows this, we lived with it for centuries, but you just make a multi-layered compartmentalized system and assume that your levees will hold even if water comes over the top. If the levees don't hold, NO MATTER WHAT, you're back to square one.

--Jason

somebody explain to me b/c i don't know for sure...when i was watching the news before katrina hit everyone (weather reporters, n.o. levee experts, corps of engineers, etc.) was stating that the levees were built to withstand up to but not a category 3 hurricane. heading towards n.o. katrina was a category 4-5. myself being a lay person about all this, and not the president with all the experts and whatnot telling him specifically the info before katrina hit, i figured on my own (also without asking any questions from experts)that the levees would be breached. simple deduction. "no one thought the levees would be breached" (paraphrase)ummm...levees not breached up to cat. 3 hurrican, katrina equal to or above cat. 3 equals levees breached.

please, clinton was bad enough splicing definition, et al of words, don't contribute to a bush version. clinton was wrong and so is bush. be american not partisan.

Ok, JK, it's really simple to understand if you've lived behind levees before, but for most I understand the confusion. The levee "system", berms(levees), seawalls, canals and pumps is "designed" to withstand a Cat 3 storm. That means the height of the levees is matched to the predicted storm surge created by a level 3 storm and the concrete walls atop the interior levees should be able to withstand a Cat 3 storms winds.

As the Cat 5 storm approached, people were wondering/concerned whether or not the surge would be a 20 foot surge or a 60 foot surge. A 20 foot surge would create some local flooding, and a 60 foot surge would simple scour the ground clean inside the bowl of the city (no reall point planning for that event, it'd be like trying to stop a tsunami by putting up a chain link fence.

Now lets examine Katrina itself. No one was predicting/anticipating a breach, because that wasn't the supposed danger. The danger was water comeing up and over the levees, not pushing them aside. People were trying to anticipate that, trying to figure out if it'd come from the lakefront or through New Orleans East (relatively unprotected area of the city).

People were afraid that the levees would simply be rolled over, not completely destroyed. The fear was that there would be a bowl filled with water to the level of the levee tops, covering the pumpstations and submerging everything OVER the rooftops. The breach was a completely different event, a smaller flood, but a flood that can't be pumped back out of the city, because as you pump water out it comes right back in.

People were "anticipating" the storm to larger than the system was designed for, they weren't anticipating the collapse of the levee infrastructure.

Further, the storm that actually hit New Orleans was a Cat 1 (maybe 2) storm and it was the NW quadrant (the weakest section of the storm. That REALLY threw people for a loop. There was no reason for the levees to be overwhelmed or breached. Unfortunately, decades of New Orleans corruption and graft left the city behind substandard levees and millions of little rodents had undermined the entire New Orleans levee system. Add to that a barge broken loose in the Industrial Canal which may have crashed into the 9th Ward levee and you've got chaos.

Now specifically to the Presidents statement. On the day of and day following the storm, Governor Blanco was putting out the information that the levees had not been breached, neither by the storm nor by the officials (which is a contingency for overtopping events). So people were taking Blanco at her word on this because after all, it was (by her own doing) still her agencies that were in charge (she didn't release control of the situation until late Wednesday night).

At somepoint in any defensive system you have to say, here's our starting point, our base. With New Orleans that base was the earthen levee system that's 200+ years old, then you add layers of defense on top of that, canals, pumps, seawalls etc. No one anticipates the literal ground to fall out from under you, or you base to simply disappear, which is what happened in New Orleans with Katrina.

Hope that helps, you might be interested in this post about the Coypu/Nutria and their undermining of the entire system and Blancos misdirection and obstruction throughout the storm and it's immediate aftermath.

http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2005/12/whats_a_coypu_a_1.html

http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2005/09/blancos_insurre.html

--Jason

"it depends on what the definition of 'is' is." again you're playing loose with the english language. yes, you may be technically correct about what "breach" means in the context of levees. but considering bush supposedly did not ask one question to the weather, n.o. levee experts and fema officals reporting to him and i highly doubt (but i could be wrong...let me know if i am) he is an expert or even personally knowlegeable about levees as you are that he knowingly used the term "breached" to mean what you define it to mean.

either way, all the "experts" told bush the day before katrina that it was going to be the big one (major flooding i.e. "topping" of the levees, major damage, "hopefully not but large loss of life, "catastrophe on top of catastrophe" etc.) and there wasn't any sense of urgency from our president. like he thought, oh the levees held then no problem i'll continue on my vacation. forgetting that the experts told him there was going to be major problems; even without the experts, you, or bush "anticipating breach of levees." it's disingenuous to make the "failure to anticipate the levees' breach...we just thought the levees would be topped" excuse for the govt's incompetent handling of the devastation.

and on top of that, not following up immediately on the status of the 3 state area devastated by the predictably "worst natural disaster in u.s. history" even if n.o. hadn't been the main focus. his white house advisors had to make a dvd of "msm" news reporting on the devastation for him to view and catch up on what the rest of us and the world knew was happening in the area what 4 days after katrina hit?

is that leadership? is making repeated excuses leadership? and making excuses for bush's excuses the american way? just b/c the msm, liberal, et al may or may not hate bush doesn't mean he and our government didn't fail the victims of katrina. i demand the best (judged by action not lip service)in our presidents and at least competence in our govt. republican or democrat or independent.

Jason another awesome post you did! Thank you so much!!!

With all due respect JK, it's not a question of playing fast and loose with the language, it's about describing TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT EVENTS.

The difference is between "flooding" and "the collapse of a structure". The advisors, the scientists, the director of the Hurricane center and EVERYONE living in New Orleans know that there's a HUGE difference between "topping" and "breaching".

New Orleans has seen topping before (most notably in Betsy), in fact, we see some topping of the levees in almost every Hurricane that comes near the city.

AS TO RESPONSE, this was the fastest response that FEMA has ever had to a natural disaster in the states. If you want to hype up the response time, then you have to go after Blanco, who while she allowed administrators in to assess and prepare, she stiff armed the military for 3 days. IF you look at the -Katrina category in this very blog, you'll see Blanco admit on video on Wednesday after the storm that she should allow troops in.

As far as follow up after, again, if you compare this to other Hurricanes you'll see that this response is HUGE and moving faster than IVAN, HUGO, and all the other hurricanes in the last 2 decades.

Bush isn't "making excuses" he's already publically taken responsibility 3 times for the federal response. Which I'll point out again is the fastest ever for FEMA.

The President is a CEO, he receives information up from the various departments and oversees their work, he's not Superman that can swoop in and plug the dike with his finger.

You're "after" the President in this case and ignoring the blatent misrepresentation that the media is pushing out. Today we're hearing that Blanco misrepresented the case to FEMA and the President (remember she was still the point person until Wednesday night when she finally relinquished control), but the media isn't reporting that tape with near the spread that they are misrepresenting the tape yesterday. The AP hasn't even released the video to the public as of noon today (the last time I checked).

If you want to go after Bush, that's fine, hell it's national passtime now. But there's plenty of legitimate criticism to be had without trying to misrepresent the fact.

Topping and breaching are just as different as "wind damage" is to "implosion" the terms in both cases are whole orders of magnitude different.

In a topping event, the city can be dewatered in a matter of a few days with the canal and pump system, in a breach event the de-watering can take MONTHS. Credit should be given for them dewatering the city in less than a month even with TWO major weather events. Katrina and Rita.

Finally, Yes, they did say "this is the big one" and guess what, it turned out to be much more bark than bite in reality. Keep in mind that the hurricane that actually hit the city (actually it was a near miss) was a Cat 1 storm (possibily Cat 2) by the time it hit the city. The locals were jumping up and down cheering that they'd "dodged the bullet" and claiming left and right that New Orleans had been spared again until the Feds actually reassesed the situation and countermanded Blanco's "there is no breach" statements.

If Blanco and Nagin had done their jobs, evacuate when asked, handle the evactuation, and if the locals (levee board) had not looted the funds since long before I was born, the levees probably would have held, and we wouldn't have had thousands stranded (keep in mind that Nagin refused a train to evacuate, refused to use the buses and vechicles at his disposal to get people out and someone, most probably Barthelemy, had sold off the emergency supplies that were supposed to be in the Dome (which were gone)).

This isn't a case of trying to say what is, is, it's a case of actually saying what happened. Describing the event that actually took place. The media failed miserably by misrepresenting the event before, during and after the storm and to cover their mistakes they need to cover it up by banging pots and downright LYING to people.

Just as having a branch fall on your house and having a tornado impode it, we're talking about TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT EVENTS.

Topping is not breaching, and NO, no one expected the levees to breach, especially not after everyone had cheered that New Orleans had been spared.

Bush was well prepped on what the difference was between topping and breaching, that's obvious by analysis of the tape in total and not just the cherry picked account the AP put together. It's well documented in the transcripts that Bush asked about the difference and the scale of such events and it's also obvious that Brown, Mayfield and even Blanco knew the difference too.

--Jason

Jason the post was great, but I think your comments are even better.

Good work!

Jason, I almost fell off my chair when I read some of your Katrina stuff. I have sent you blog site to Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, Janet Parshall, Drudge, Sean Hannity, Little Green Footballs, White House, and half a dozen others. I have never read any of this. That is because our al Jazeera Medai / Press long ago fluched the Journalistice Creed down the toilet. They are totally agenda driven.

technically, linguistically, whatever,clinton didn't lie when he stated he did not have sexual relations with lewinsky. but you and i both know he was attempting to deceive. just like bush technically did not lie about not anticipating the levees being breached to make excuse knowing beforehand that a major catastrophe would occur from katrina and the govt's incompetence afterward.

my point is TO HOLD OUR LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE. yet you keep missing that point and keep arguing the "breach" and "topping" distinction. yes you are right about that distinction so you don't need to keep bringing it up ad naseum. (your argument actually excuses the local govt from their responsibility for forcing the evacuation of the people before the storm since "no one anticipated a breach of the levees." if it's just "topping" they can just pump the water back, right? no need to force an evacuation. besides the hurricane ended up being only a cat. 1-2 when it hit land.) so i guess no one's to blame since you point out the federal response was the quickest in two decades. not the local govt before the hurricane nor the federal afterwards.

yet, the republican led house, senate, and the executive all lay out in their repective reports the failure of the local, state, and federal levels. how can this be? you state that bush took responsibility for the federal response three times. what did he actually take blame for again? (not being superman?)

let me point out that i'm a u.s. citizen living abroad. that is why my focus is on the federal leadership as opposed to local or state. i believe all three share in the blame but i am not directly impacted from a local or state level. as far as the msm, i agree a lot of them have not fulfilled their duties with integrity; but, probably for different reason than you would argue. but you have to admit the msm did their job a lot better right before, during, and immediately after the hurricane than all levels of govt. if you have a problem with msm it is now politically, months after and not directly involved with the actual katrina coverage.

the poisonous partisanship b/t dems and repubs is to the detriment of the country. and i believe you along with your supposed adversaries are part of the problem. right is right and wrong is wrong whether you are a dem, repub, or indy. you may win some battles, maybe even this one, but in the end you are contributing to the loss of the "war".

Here's where you completely drop the ball JK and admit that to you it has absolutely nothing to do with Katrina, the government's response or anything to do with what happened in New Orleans or the greater Gulf Coast.

By comparing Clinton's Presidential Blow Job and the resulting attempts deceive and the government's Katrina response you demonstrate that your goal is merely to find some tit for tat justification for Clinton or tit for tat condemnation of Bush.

The fact remains that Max Mayfield was NOT, I repeat NOT NOT NOT warning of a "breach." Max Mayfield KNOWS the difference and so did everyone preparing for Katrina. I notice by bringing up Clinton, Monica and the Blue Dress (which have ABSOLUTELY NO relation here) you want to absolve Clinton for his lies by lying about what President Bush said, represented or wanted to convey. That is intellectually dishonest, and I expect that you know that but are willing to deceive yourself and try to deceive others because you feel you have some higher purpose in doing so.

I don't excuse the locals at all. A topping event is a big deal, I've never said it wasn't. The city ordered a "mandatory evacuation" then DID NOT evacuate. I don't excuse them at all.

I think the locals lucked out that a Cat 5 storm didn't hit them, and I'm VERY critical of the locals for not using the buses and trains and other resources available to get the people out(this leads me to think you're not reading my responses but just responding to the first paragraphs, or keywording your way through the posts looking for terms you can apply talking points too, your bringing in Clinton and Monica show this as they are COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY unrelated to ANY OF THIS).

Nagin should have implemented the city's evacuation plan, but at the 9th hour he, on the fly wrote up a whole new evac plan and didn't bother with putting all the available resources into play. Regardless of what ACTUALLY hit the city, the city took the position that a CAT 4 or 5 storm was about to hit and that everyone should get out of the way. Then they sent people to the dome (which I'll point out again was supposed to have emergency supplies in it, but didn't, if you want to find an intent to deceive by the government, look there).

Bush has taken responsibility for the entire mess that New Orleans has become (and the Gulf States too) because he is the Commander in Chief, and unlike Clinton, Bush knows that the buck stops with him, that people are going to blame him for everything, and that the best way to get moving on with moving on is to take responsibility and let the hacks have at him. Again, I'll point out this is the national passtime and Bush's embrace of and ignoring of the unhinged left personally makes me laugh every time they trot out fake documents, a memo from a meeting that says nothing and means less, or now when they blatently lie about issues like this one.

If you want the best, then let them work. Can you imagine the work the administration could get done if they didn't have constantly battle the misrepresentations in the media?? Here's a clue -- topping and breaching are two different things, there is no company taking over our "ports" (only one foreign company selling some terminals at some port), the documents were fake, the DSM was not policy or even accurate and Halliburton is not trying to take over the world in order to make Cheney the Crown Prince of Darkness).

The media did their job before, during and after Katrina??? ARE YOU INSANE????? The media went hysterical before the storm, lost their mind during it and after it they lied at every opportunity and repeated every crazy rumor as fact over and over and over again.

I'm guessing that because you're "overseas" you didn't get the memo that there weren't scores of murders and gang rapes in the Superdome, I'm guessing you didn't get the memo that 10,000 people did NOT die in New Orleans and I guess you didn't hear that the white devils in New Orleans DID NOT blow up the levee. Yeah, JK, the media did a bang up job. HINT FOR JK - The media has lied, is lying and will continue to lie about this storm, and it's aftermath because the only way to cover their asses for their failures in this is to continue to make it seem like and insolvable, constantly aggravated and worsening problem when in fact the opposite is true.

My "problem" with the MSM is that they know the difference and they don't care. They know that a lie will sell more papers, get more advertisers and make more money than the truth will, and that's not their purpose. The media, rather than being the man in the middle telling people the truth has now become a political player, making their own stake in the game and taking sides. That's not why there is Freedom of the Press, their function is to remain separate from the partisan events, not become a part of or create partisan events.

My problem with the media is that they are doing a disservice to the people of New Orleans, hampering efforts to rebuild my hometown and are taking sides when they are supposed to remain objective (I word I wonder if the media even knows the definition to anymore).

Blame me for the polarization and poisonous partisanship all you want, I'll counter by pointing out that I am the one pointing out the indisputable truth here, and you're trying to defend multiple lies. I'm defending the truth tellers here, you're making excuses and ignoring lies that you even admit are lies. Topping is not breaching, the events are different in cause, effect and scope. I'm the one pointing out that the Media is lying, misrepresenting and fanning the flames of partisanship, you're trying to absolve Clinton (notice in my posting I don't bring up Clinton at all???? BECAUSE THAT IS IRRELEVANT, get it? CLINTONS BLOW JOB IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY OF THIS!!!)

Right is right and wrong is wrong, and in this case, Bush is right. No one anticipated a breach, they anticipated topping, but not breaching, they anticipated flooding and wind and rain damage, but not a complete and total collapse of the defense systems of the city. They anticipated haveing to dewater, and repair the city, not rebuild the entire defense structure of New Orleans from scratch (as they are now having to do.

AND, the media is the one wrong here. They were wrong before the storm, they were wrong during the storm and now they're wrong after the storm. The selective cutting of the video, mischaracterizing the comments of Brown and Mayfield, and leaving out key points that disagree with the false premise they are putting out is what is wrong here.

If the people of New Orleans are going to be helped, then the truth must be told. People must be told that the levee system unexpectedly failed completely and has to be rebuilt completely if the city will survive. By constantly misrepresenting what happened, by lying about what's going on now, by making this a partisan battle to find a parallel to Clinton's blow job to retroactively excuse him isn't doing anyone in New Orleans or this country any good.

I'll continue to cut you some slack, as an ex pat you probably don't see the big picture or the small details of what's happening here at home, you obviously have either some serious gaps in your information supply or you've chosen to believe falsehoods, I'm going to be nice and assume it's the former and not the later.

--Jason

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

The AP now has admitted their mistake and issued a "clarification".

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013316.php

Can I say it? Should I say it? Oh well, Ok, I will. . .

GAME. . . SET. . . MATCH

Methinks this will be a long tournament though.

--Jason

http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2006/03/victory.html

jason,

i recommend you re-read my statements or maybe have someone else read it to you. i guess my dry sarcasm went over your head.

jk

Jaon I see that you have gone to Chronwatch forum http://forum.chronwatch.com/forum - from my post about your blog. I had previously told you that I had sent your blog site, to to quite a number of talk show hosts and news outlets. I was curious to know if you knew if any of them had viewed your material or contacted you? I would appreciate an acknowledgement? In addtion to the over a dozen talk show hosts mentioned in my previous e-mail, I also sent your site info to Drudge report and a few others.
I sincerly hope that some of what you mentioned about Blanco, Nagin and the Nutrias gets more attention. I understand that Times Picayune did a major news article about the Levee's several months to a Year ago, prior to Katrina. Do you know anything about that?

I see your very poor attempt as sarcasm as simply a way to retreat from your earlier statements without having to admit your fault at trying to say apples are oranges.

Thanks, and have a nice day.

--Jason

jason,

on second thought just have someone read you my statements. especially the last paragraph from all my posts.

i understand you believe bush/federal govt did a good job dealing with the disaster. i, however, disagree and i came to this conclusion based on the reports stating failure at all levels (local, state, federal)from the house, senate, executive; along with msm, international news magazines, blogs, etc. yes it is possible they are all wrong and you are right but "Methinks" not (see how corny "Methinks" sounds).

it is worth noting that you criticise my source of info when i'm reading your blog, linked from "conferate yankee", linked from "redstate"(?). as for me believing in "falsehoods" i get my info from all points of view as noted above and then i make up my own mind. see, i learned the difference b/t "breached" and "topped" in reference to levees from you (i thought breach meant general failure.) b/c you are right on that issue doesn't mean i negate all the reports and info i have read stating the failure of all levels of govt in their response to the natural disaster.

by the way i paid no creedence to the ap video when i viewed it. i believe they should have just released the whole video without commentary. commentary is for the op/ed section.

jk

p.s. if we are going to continue our dialogue may i ask you not to assume things about me and just stick to what is written. i.e. you jumped to many erroneous conclusions about me from my bush/clinton analogy. also, proofread your response before posting. it's getting more difficult understanding your arguments when you ramble on like you're "screaming" typing.

I don't see much point to this last post, other than to ad hominems ranging from a slap at my writing to some illusion of what I have or haven't done. Thanks for the ad hominems.

I haven't criticised your sources (unless your "source" is the AP article), because you haven't offered any "sources" for anything. You've offered your opinion, which I've found false on numerous acccounts. If your opinion is your source, then so be it.

Nor have I characterized the response as good or bad. I'm addressing the bias and misrepresentations of the media. Was the response faster than previous FEMA efforts, YES, was it more effective? Not yet, that remains to be seen.

The media has been a major stumbling block in Katrina relief and recovery, whether it was the misdirection during and immediately after the storm which sent the government running in different directions to combat issues that were simply not there, or whether it's the constant current redirection of resources to address each "crisis of the moment" that the media chooses to create.

The media has been a hinderance in their quest to find the worst possible scenario to present to the people and then demand action on. When they haven't been able to find a sufficient atrocity, they simply make something up which in turn diverts attention from those things that need it to false problems and offronts.

I'm glad you finally admit that there's a difference between the two terms and understand that the President's statements on Thursday after the storm were accurate and truthful and the AP story was a falsehood in it's characterizations. It's too bad that you can't simply admit this and move on without trying to take swipes at me personally or misdirect by trying to claim it's all about something bigger or alluding that your posts have merely been sarcasm practice.

If you want to talk about realities in New Orleans, that's fine, I suspect that really your point is to score partisan victories against the President and like the rest of those who were duped by the AP this week you're trying to spin this into a greater "we care about New Orleans and you don't" message, and like most others who've lived there and been there after the storm we see through that straight away.

The region affected by Katrina was huge, and it's a tragedy that one of our cities was essentially "lost" to this storm and now we have to face the pain of bringing it back, BUT what the media and the left in general is doing is NOT HELPING. With every attempt to falsely blame the President for the failure of the levees, the false claims of racism, the false claims of advance knowledge, support for the people of New Orleans and the Gulf region in general wanes. That support is still needed by the people of the Gulf Coast, and I suspect that the irony of the media and the left claiming that more support is needed while they force the hearings, plant false stories and insist on playing the blame game and divert those very same resources to their partisan game, is lost on you.

Unlike some, I'm not willing to trade my support for my hometown for partisan gain, I don't say everything is "hunky dory" in New Orleans and I certainly don't say that mistakes haven't been made, before during and after the storm. I try to stick to the reality of the situation and mistakes therein. I don't make up false accusations from wholecloth to shock people or play a partisan game.

New Orleans will come back as a smaller, richer, better city as it should. New Orleans will hopefully become the San Francisco or Manhattan of the South and when all is said and done will be a shining example of America's true greatness. That is if we can get the media to begin reporting the facts and presenting the truth. Hopefully also we can get the leftists, who continue to exploit the people of New Orleans as they have for years, out of the way and let the people who actually want to help rebuild the city, rebuild it.

Your retroactive sarcasm is lost on me JK, because New Orleans is my hometown, my family has been seriously hurt by this storm on many levels and I take this situation more more seriously than you do and don't view it as a way to regain lost glory for the Democrats nor as a vechicle to absolve Clinton.

I'm sure Shakespeare thought "methinks" was corny too, but again, I'll thank you for the personal attacks.

Good Day.

--Jason

jason,

i suspected before our discussion would be fruitless, now i am certain. you are not debating me; rather, your imaginary adversary the dems, liberals, msm, et al. for the record i am not a democratic, liberal, part of the mainstream media, nor did i, then or now, support clinton. if i were a democrat though, i would support a competent republican leader over an incompetent democrat and i would hope you would too vice versa. as for bush i just wish he was more competent in his management of this country than he has shown so far.

you will probably respond to this lastest post but i will not post again until much time has lapsed. you have allowed emotions to get in the way of our discussions and that is never productive in debates. (hopefully, in a few weeks or months we can reread each others points and see where each of us was coming from and where we were trying to get. don't forget we are both americans and we both want the best for america, we just have different ideas of getting there, right jason?)

i don't think i was insensitive to the people who were devastated by katrina b/c that contradicts my point of accountability of our leaders so that another failure in all levels of govt doesn't happen again. my sympathies to you and those directly affected by the devastation of katrina.

jk

p.s. my "attack" directed at your reading, writing, or comprehensive abilities was not personal in intent; just an attempt to add humor or make light of an increasingly hostile discussion. okay, shakespeare? (i know, i know very dry humor.) "good night, and good luck"

Au contrair mon frere.

I find this humorous, not "emotional" at all.

First you wanted to equate breaching to topping, after a few attempts, you failed. You also tried to bring in the Clinton card very early on. I dind't bring that card, you did.

You also tried to bring in various "incompetance" memes, again to no avail.

After the AP corrected itself for it's biased reporting (sorta; a Friday late PM "clarification" without putting it out there in wide circulation like their tape), you gave up on your false attemps at equating the two and insead began claiming that your posts were sarcasm and launched ad hominems upon me.

Come back whenever you like and debate anything you want. Just don't come here supporting lies and misinformation and then when you're shown to be seriously deficient in the facts and substance of the matter retreat into ad hominems upon me or claims that what you're actually doing is humor.

Especially don't come here spewing falsehoods, making accusations and lying, backtracking and lying again and then accuse me of being too emotional.

If anything you can accuse me of laughing at you too heartily.

As for competant management, that will be something for history to decide. We have a phenomenally good economy despite 9-11, two wars, and an inherited recession. I should point out that we've also won two wars and 50 million plus people are now free and standing up for themselves. Unemployment is at the lowest rate it's been in decades, home ownership is at an all time high, and minority small business ownership, home ownership and personal wealth is also at an all time high.

You accuse me of wanting to fight some grander war when I was specific about Katrina and it's media bias.

YOU, jk, brought in all the extremities about general incompetance, Clinton and much much more. Not me. Yet, you accuse me of it. I guess blind accusations irregardless of the facts and personal attacks (later attempted to be hidden as humor) are your regular modis operandi.

You're hilarious, and I suggest you get off your high horse before you fall off.

--Jason

JK, the key to understanding Mr. Coleman's modus operandus is to look at the comments on his posts. If he able to dredge up any contestable point to some readers comment - no matter how half-baked or dappled with erroneous conclusions - he will reply. But when he can't - ah, that's when he remains silent.

Hmmm, just took a look back through and I don't seem to see any comments by any "Edge City Mon" anywhere.

So is there some comment you made under some other name that didn't get a response or are you just some troll looking to scrap.

Please point me to some post you have a beef about that I didn't respond too if you're looking for one, otherwise, how bout sticking to one anonymous screen name, OK there skippy.

If there's some particular you take issue with, by all means, bring it.

Otherwise you're just another coward making little to no sense.

Thanks, and have a great day.

--Jason