Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

A Metaphor for the GOP

Friday, February 27, 2009

WHY DID JINDAL LIE ABOUT THE KATRINA STORY?

He's not a stupid man. Why did he feel it necessary to make up the story about himself and Sheriff Harry Lee and how Jindal told Lee he could ignore the government bureaucrats' requirement for permits for the volunteer boats to rescue stranded Katrina victims?

According to Jindal, he told Lee, "that's ridiculous," which prompted Lee to tell the bureaucrat that the rescue effort would go ahead and he or she could arrest both Lee and Jindal.

In Jindal's rebuttal to Pres. Obama's speech, and in recalling this story, Jindal specifically states that he was there at the time this was happening.

After Sheriff Lee told him about the permit and insurance requirements Jindal states:

"I told him, Sheriff, that's ridiculous. Before I knew it, he was yelling on the phone, 'Congressman Jindal's here and you can come and arrest him too!"

Except...it is NOT true. Jindal was NOT there at the time of the incident. He did not tell Harry Lee anything of the sort.

Jindal Admits Katrina Story Was False
By
Zachary Roth - February 27, 2009, 12:39PM


But now, a Jindal spokeswoman has admitted to Politico that in reality, Jindal overheard Lee talking about the episode to someone else by phone "days later." The spokeswoman said she thought Lee, who died in 2007, was being interviewed about the incident at the time.

This is no minor difference. Jindal's presence in Lee's office during the crisis itself was a key element of the story's intended appeal, putting him at the center of the action during the maelstrom. Just as important, Jindal implied that his support for the sheriff helped ensure the rescue went ahead. But it turns out Jindal wasn't there at the key moment, and played no role in making the rescue happen.

There's a larger point here, though. The central anecdote of the GOP's prime-time response to President Obama's speech, intended to illustrate the threat of excessive government regulation, turns out to have been made up.

*********************

Why did Gov. Jindal fictionalize the real story and insert himself into it when he wasn't there? Are the Republicans so bereft of ideas that the only way to convince people that they are the party of solutions is to make up stories and hope people will believe that their fictions prove that they're anti-government heroes?

And why didn't Gov. Jindal think anyone would find out the truth? Telling the truth about that story would have made the point Jindal was going for. Finding out that he lied about his involvement brings everything else he said in his rebuttal into question.

18 comments:

Time said...

Republicans lie? Say it ain't so! WOW, what a revelation!

Another reason to prosecute Bush administration officials. To find out about and record all the lies. To keep younger officials from becoming important members of future administrations, or government officials, like a Cheney.

Did you hear what George Bush Jr. Jr. said the other day? If he runs for office years from know, we should have a detailed record of his Uncle's lies and to remind the voters.

Dave Miller said...

Shaw, this is just another in a long line of political exaggerations.

Since you are being pretty critical of Jindal, I hope you were equally critical of Hillary with her story of landing under fire in Bosnia.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dave,

Yes I was. Hers was waaaaay off the map, though. But in any event, a google search would have shown the reality of what happened that day? Why did she give that version of an easily verifiable story?

My point is that Gov. Jindal could have expressed the rescue story as it actually happened, and he would have made his point about bureaucracy.


Why did he change it?

TRUTH101 said...

The painful truth about Bobby Jindal is he is a boring schmuck and he knows it. He figured he had to embellish his stories to be more like the right wing god Ronald Reagan. And in true republican form, Bobby refused to allow the truth to get in the way of a good lie. Any republican would be proud of his channeling of Reagan in that regard.

libhom said...

I think it was like a frat ritual. Jindal had to tell a really big and stupid lie to prove he was one with the GOP boys.

Gordon said...

Shaw, Shaw, Shaw. You really need to get some more reliable sources.

"Hurricane Katrina, the day after, Bobby was in my office, said, 'What do you need?' And it wasn't phone calls, he was in my office... I know how involved he was... He was hands-on. I got him everywhere he had to go in my helicopter, and he was there all the time. When the thing was over, he'd got equipment for us. And I said, 'Bobby, where did this new equipment come from? I wanna thank somebody.' And he said, 'I took care of it, don't worry about it.'"

--Sheriff Harry Lee
The video is here.

Now, of course, when Obama lies repeatedly about earmarks in the budget and stimulus bills, why, then, we just misunderstood him, right?

Dave Miller said...

All good Gordon, except Jindals office has at least issued a mea culpa on some of the "facts."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/jindal_admits_katrina_story_was_false.php

Shaw Kenawe said...

All well and good, Gordon. But the quote you posted here doesn't refute what I posted and what Politico and TMP Muckraker has found out.

The only point I'm trying to make is that Gov. Jindal could have told the truth about the rescue boats--without inserting himself into the story--and still make his point about bureaucracy.

My question is--Why did Jindal lie about the actual events and insert himself into the incident?

Remember how upset people were over Hillary Clinton's story about ducking sniper fire in Bosnia?

This story seems to be the same sort of "embellishment" (and I remember the conservatives howling that she LIED!) that Hillary was vilified for during the campaign.

I think it's a good idea that politicians get called on this, Reps. and Dems.

PS. If you find Pres. Obama lying about earmarks then why don't you do a post about it?

THIS COMMENT is for my conservative friends (hello Patrick!) who snarkingly refer to President Obama as "Barry"--a name he toyed with when he was very young, but ultimately dropped in favor of his real given name, Barack:

Will you and other conservatives now refer to Gov. Jindal as Piyush?

See, Gov. Jindal did exactly the same thing Pres. Obama did, except Jindal kept his made-up name.

Barry is an accepted diminutive of Barack--say Barack out loud and you'll get it. Sorta like Robby is a diminutive of Robert.

However, Piyush in no way sounds like "Bobby."

I'll be waiting to hear you snark over Gov. Jindal's name, Piyush.

Heh.

Thayer Nutz said...

A lot of conservatives think it's funny to call Obama "Barry." Their level of maturity is about that of a 6th grader. Making fun of someone's name is lame and juvenile, but so is thier take on just about everything else, why expect more from them.

Piyush is a nice sounding name, why did Jindal change it?

But anyway a person ahs the right to be called what he wants. conservatives keep referring to Obama as "Barry." a name he stopped using decades ago. Typical little sniveling turds.

My Blog said...

Thayer Nutz said...
"A lot of conservatives think it's funny to call Obama "Barry." Their level of maturity is about that of a 6th grader. Making fun of someone's name is lame and juvenile, but so is thier take on just about everything else, why expect more from them."



President Bush endured the filthiest names directed at him and his family, especialy his daughters.
The libs called President Bush "Bush", Bushie, "W","Bushitler", "Commander-in-Chimp", etc, Using Chimp cartoon in all the newspapers etc. etc - never using the title "President"? and worse. They never used the work "President".
They set the tone.
I suppose that because of the great deal of disrespect shown towards the last administration, the favor is being returned
Do titles like king, the messiah your holiness bother you?

And I suppose the comment right here By TRUTH101 saying
"The painful truth about Bobby Jindal is he is a boring schmuck"
Is ok?
Well I say, suck it up, live with it. It has only just begun.

Shaw Kenawe said...

My Blog,
You don't remember "Slick Willie?" and "Hitlery?"

People who live in glass houses, and all.

Butyou have entirely missed the point. This is not about calling people names.

The point of my comment is that Both Pres. Obama and Gov. Jindal have asked to be called by a certain name. Pres. Obama used Barry for a time when he was young, then returned to his given name, Barack, when he was comfortable with who he was. But for some reason, conservatives believe they're being "cute" when they refer to Pres. Obama as "Barry." Go figure.

Gov. Jindal's given name is Piyush. He felt uncomfortable with it, so he adopted the more American sounding name, "Bobby," which has nothing to do with Piyush.

His choice to be called Bobby should be respected.

Will the noodleheads who insist on not calling Pres. Obama by the name he chooses now disregard Gov. Jindal's choice and refer to him as "Piyush?"

Or are y'all comfortable with your hypocrisy?

dmarks said...

Eek. I've been mispelling his surname for a while.

"Will you and other conservatives now refer to Gov. Jindal as Piyush?"

I've always called him by his preferred designation and name. If you've ever known me not to do so, point it out. No Barry. Not even a "Barrack". I know an anti-Obama liberal who liked to make some point by calling Obama "Barrack" instead of "Barack". I have no idea what the point was. He thought "Barrack" was some sort of major insult. He was a huge Hillary fan, to the end.

This guy used to be on the blogs bemoaning about how "Barrack Obama" would destroy the Democratic Party and lose in a landside to John McCain. He vanished completely after the election....

And he claimed to be a "futurist".

------------

Time: Who is "George Bush Jr"? I suspect he is as real a person as "Barrack Obama" is.

dmarks said...

Shaw: "My Blog,
You don't remember "Slick Willie?" and "Hitlery?"

I despised all such terms, including "Klinton". What's so hard about calling a President by his name.

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

I think Time is referring to George P. Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush

dmarks said...

Thanks, Shaw. I was wondering. And George P. Bush is not a Jr. either. Both George W and George P have fathers with different full names.

Gordon said...

Hmmm. "Slick Willie" was a term coined by a columnist in Arkansas during Clinton's days as governor. As it happens, that columnist was a Democrat, so I don't think you can blame that one on conservatives. It did turn out to be a very accurate moniker, though, if you know what is is.

But I consider myself fairly well-read, and I've never heard the term "Hitlery" until now. Never saw "Klinton" either, before this.

I hadn't blogged on Pres. Obama's own slippery use of words because it had already been covered pretty well by major news outlets. But since you asked so nicely, I'll do one just for you!

dmarks said...

Gordon: I tend to find all such playground insults to be lame. I was just listening to Monica Crowley, and she finds herself to be the great wit for always calling Vice President Joe Biden "Plugs". During the election, I found so many left-wing bloggers who dragged themselves into the gutter too by always calling McCain "McSame" or "McLame".... examples of the Left being as lame and immature as Rush Limbaugh can be.

You said "so I don't think you can blame that one on conservatives". Limbaugh and others embraced and perpetuated "Slick Willie". They are to blame for using it, even if they did not invent it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.