Katrina
I keep hearing the term “natural disaster,” that Hurricane Katrina was one of the worst “natural disasters” in our nation’s history, that the devastation in New Orleans is a “natural disaster.” Yes, this is a disaster, and yes, it is natural, given that water likes to flow downhill and much of New Orleans is below sea level.
But this is not a natural disaster. It is a federal disaster and the blame for it sits squarely on President Bush’s shoulders.
For ten years, the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project has been under way, with the Army Corps of Engineers spending $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations. After 2003, federal SELA spending dropped to a trickle. In 2004, Bush proposed spending less than 20% of what was needed for Lake Pontchartrain. The “war” in Iraq, homeland “security,” federal tax cuts — all these things were more important than protecting New Orleans from a “natural disaster.” And now New Orleans is underwater, a federal disaster.
People are dying there. People are starving there. People are trapped there. People are in desperation there. New Orleans is in anarchy. And where is the government? Where is FEMA? Where is any fucking help for these people at all??? We can “rebuild” a country that doesn’t want us there, but we can’t care for our own citizens, we can’t save our own people, we can’t count on our President to do anything more than mouth empty platitudes about how it’s going to be “hard work.”
I am furious and I am disgusted.
If you’ve ever gotten even a smile out of reading these pages, you can pay me back by donating to the Red Cross. Those people in the South need more help than they’re ever going to get from Bush. They need our help. So let’s help them.
Amen and Hallejuah.
I always thought that the National Guard was designed for just this type of situation. But instead they are over in some God-forsaken hell hole fighting for their lives against a country who simply hates us and wants us all dead.
Bring them back home in order to save the USA. Our HOME.
Succinctly put, Chuck. George Bush is a passionless cretin, devoid of any humanity whatsoever. He doesn’t belong in America, he doesn’t belong on this planet. I’ve added you to my blog entry…because I’m apoplectic with rage. In addition to all the other shit he’s not been doing, he doesn’t “believe” in global warming. Hello! Katrina should be his wake up call.
Hello- on the part of the the levys that broke, the project had already been completed. I’m no fan of GWB, but good Lord, you’re getting hysterical.
Bzzt! Wrong, asshole, try again.
FYI, a bridge project was completed, but the *levee* project at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach, was *not* completed due to a lack of funding.
Get your shit straight if you’re going to try to defend that smirking chimp of a President in here again.
“Bzzt! Wrong, asshole, try again.”
[spews diet coke all over monitor]
OMG that’s funny!!! You should write a pitch for a late evening game show built entirely around that line!
“Your fired” and “You are the weakest link. Goodbye!” pale in comparison to “Bzzt! Wrong, asshole, try again.”
BTW, I couldn’t agree more with the real point of your post… I’m just easily distracted. :-)
Except for the part about Bush being the one who is to blame I’m with you. The New Orleans levee project has been underfunded for closer to 30 years. That makes Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush #1, Clinton, and Bush # 2 all culpable. But this is really about how bad Bush is, isn’t it?
Get your shit straight before you start up in here, Don… The Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project did not begin until 1995. If you can’t get even the most basic facts right, then shut the fuck up. I’m not going to put up with any mealy-mouthed defenses of your boy on this one — it’s right in his lap and I’m keeping it there.
Facts straight? I pointed out the levee project has been underfunded since the 70s. Where did I mention SELA? There have been levees around New Orleans since the early 1700s. I guess you thought they didn’t need them until 1995.
Here’s an interesting link that shows Bush wasn’t the only one to cut money for the levees.
http://eurota.blogspot.com/2005/09/us-left-all-straws-clutched-every.html
*I* was talking about SELA, so when you responded talking about “the levee project,” just about anyone reading it is going to assume you’re talking about SELA too. Perhaps you weren’t — maybe, and if so you weren’t completely wrong.
But. None of the previous administrations cut levee project funding the way Bush did. None. Only Shrub decimated the funding to that extent — for all the very important reasons I listed in my post.
So: were *all* the levees underfunded for the last 30 years? Yes, that’s why Congress passed SELA in 1995. And SELA — protecting New Orleans — is what Bush de-funded. And now New Orleans is drowning.
So you go right ahead and blame everyone before Bush and pretend his hands are clean and keep on pretending he’s the bestest Prezzie we ever had. We don’t call you people “wingnuts” for nothing.
I actually think the government(Bush’s) took way too long to respond to the disaster. He should have done something on Tuesday. The fact he didn’t won’t affect him because he’s a lame duck but it might have a political affect on whoever runs as the GOP candidate.
That said, I happen to think the government really shouldn’t be building levees with public money to protect people who choose to live below sea level. I understand that has nothing to do with the recovery but we should think long and hard before we rebuild New Orleans with public money.
The Dem’s belief that the government is responsible for everyone’s finances is why I call you people “idiots”.
We can always count on you, Don, to chime in with your simpleton one-note argument that “They’ll spend my money” and completely ignore every other facet of any other issue.
So, yeah, let’s not hold back the Mississippi, let’s let the nation’s #4 seaport be washed away rather than spend public money protecting it because there will be people who choose to live on the dry ground that brings — because there are people who will develop it for a profit, thus making an attractive nuisance that induces people to choose to live below sea level, and other people to work there, and businesses to cater to them, and infrastructure built to serve them, and etc, etc.
You’re like a freakin’ Chatty Cathy doll on every single issue: Pull your string to hear “My money, my money, my money.”
Yeah, we’re the idiots. Right.
And right on cue Chuck ignores facts once again. Where does it say in the Constitution that the federal government is supposed to do all the things you idiot liberals want? Nowhere. But a fact to you is like Kryptonite to Superman. You can’t handle it even though you’ll spout how “you love facts”, “facts are your favorite tool”. Bullshit Chuck! You wouldn’t know a fact if came up and bit you on the ass. You and your touchy, feely crowd ignore the truth about who was to blame for the disaster. The mayor of New Orleans and the Governer of Louisiana are the people who should be feeling your ire. But you couldn’t do that because they’re democrats and heaven forbid you actually found fault with one of them. You’re a (relatively) bright guy. Maybe you should read the facts about what the chain of responsibilty is in a state disaster.
Oh yeah, you’re too busy donating and not talking about it. “I’ve given. I just don’t talk about it. I give because it’s the right thing to do, and I don’t talk about it because I feel that doing so somehow cheapens it, makes it more about getting attention than about doing the right thing. What’s the biblical quote? Something about “When you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets as the hypocrites do.” I keep it on the down low.”
If you don’t talk about it why the fuck did you?
I’ve already stated the facts, Don. Perhaps you read the post way up at the top of this screen? 3rd paragraph, chock full o’ facts. You probably missed it because you were too busy copy/pasting your “my money” argument from dozens of your comments before.
But now you want to ignore those facts and talk about the *response* and blame that on the local gov’t — when just one comment earlier you blamed it on BushCo. But I’m the idiot. I’m the one who can’t get my shit straight. I’m the one who can’t handle the Kryptonite of facts. Right, check, gotcha.
And then you somehow twist an already twisted brain cell around the fact that I might have donated some of — gasp! — my *own* money and you copy/paste a comment of mine from Grace’s blog (out of context, I might add) to insinuate there’s something questionable about that. So for the rest of my readers who didn’t see it, that was part of my response to someone who was exhorting others to give and was my segue into a comment on the Glenn Reynolds crowd’s braying about how much *they* have given. So, yeah, I talked about it. Once. Not here. While making a point. Period. Draw your own conclusions.
But I don’t expect you to understand anything about charity, Don. It’s about — gasp! — giving *your own money* to — gasp! — *others less fortunate than yourself.* And we already know how far that flies in your world.
Levees? Fuck ’em, they’re not in the Constitution.
Out of context but another example of how you state something and then do exactly the opposite.
As for your facts perhaps you need a simplified lesson in how our government works. The president submits a budget along with congressmen and senators. The budget gets voted on by these congressmen and senators. Whatever they pass goes to the president for signature or veto. If he signs, it becomes law. If he vetos, it goes back to the congress where they have the power to overide his veto. Perhaps you thought the president was all powerful and could do anything he wanted but you did mention he “proposed” spending 20% less. His “proposal” was approved by congress.
Since simple logic alludes you I’ll connect the dots. President –> budget proposal –> congress approves/disapproves/submits modified proposal –> president approves/vetos –> congress lets die/overides.
In case you missed that last point I’ll clarify. THE PRESIDENT CAN’T DO SQUAT ABOUT THE BUDGET WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL! Are you still going to say it was all Bush?
As for my charity you might check your wife’s blog in the right hand column.
Am I going to say it was all Bush? Yep, that’s exactly what I’m saying, just like all your bitching about Clinton wasn’t about Congress.
Now, I challenge you to address each one of my facts in paragraph 3 and disprove them. Go ahead, thrill me with that Kryptonite of yours.
I just reread paragraph 3 and I’ve already addressed it. Yes, Bush proposed spending less. Since you can’t seem to grasp that the president doesn’t have the power all by himself to cut funding I guess we’re at an impass on that.
As for my bitching about Clinton. I bitched about his lying to a grand jury. That’s a fact in case you forgot he admitted it. I never cared about the sex. In fact that should be a perk as the most powerful man in the US but to lie about it to a grand jury. Hmmm, illegal.
Anyways, it looks like you are going to believe Bush caused this because that’s what makes you feel all smug and happy. At least I’ll know the facts.
A couple of additional facts that don’t necessarily fit into Chuck’s world view.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200509\NAT20050907a.html
According to this article, the Orleans Levee Board, the local governmental organization responsible for maintaining the levees was unable to use federal money because it wasn’t able to generate enough local money. It seems that Federal money isn’t just given out, there’s this whole thing about providing matching funds.
But less than a year later, that same levee board was denied the authority to refinance its debts. Legislative Auditor Dan Kyle “repeatedly faulted the Levee Board for the way it awards contracts, spends money and ignores public bid laws,” according to the Times-Picayune. The newspaper quoted Kyle as saying that the board was near bankruptcy and should not be allowed to refinance any bonds, or issue new ones, until it submitted an acceptable plan to achieve solvency.
Blocked from financing the local portion of the flood fighting efforts, the levee board was unable to spend the federal matching funds that had been designated for the project.
I think it also needs to be pointed out that the levees were designed to withstand a Cat 3 hurricane, not a Cat 5 like Katrina. Whether they should have been designed for a Cat 5 hurricane is an argument for another time. The fact is that the levees were designed for Cat 3.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702462_pf.html
Here’s a fact for you:
In Katrina’s wake, Louisiana politicians and other critics have complained about paltry funding for the Army Corps in general and Louisiana projects in particular. But over the five years of President Bush’s administration, Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times as large.
The overall problem was that all that money was going to questionable, “pork,” projects. Projects Bush had nothing to do with. In addition:
But overall, the Bush administration’s funding requests for the key New Orleans flood-control projects for the past five years were slightly higher than the Clinton administration’s for its past five years. Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the chief of the Corps, has said that in any event, more money would not have prevented the drowning of the city, since its levees were designed to protect against a Category 3 storm, and the levees that failed were already completed projects. Strock has also said that the marsh-restoration project would not have done much to diminish Katrina’s storm surge, which passed east of the coastal wetlands.
The statement by the head of corps that the levees that failed were already completed projects certainly contradicts Chuck’s statement in comment 4 that the levee project hadn’t been completed. Or were you referring to the lock the Corps was adding to assist in canal traffic. A lock the article indicates was unnecessary since canal traffic has been steadily declining.
Don, Rog, all the weaseling in the world from you Bush-loving quislings can’t escape the answer to one simple question:
Who signed those budgets into law? (Hint: it’s in Don’s simplified lesson on Comment 14.)
Now, explain to me how Bush isn’t really in charge, that’s it’s *someone else* who bears final responsibility for anything and everything he signs. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said “The buck stops here.” I anticipate that your answer will suggest a similar one for W’s: “The buck starts here.”
Chuck: You completly ignored the facts Rog quoted didn’t you? It doesn’t matter to you liberal weenies that the funds received by New Orleans were higher during the past 5 years of the Bush administration than Clinton’s. It wouldn’t matter if Bush sent all our tax money except for $5 to New Orleans because then you’d be screaming about the $5 not getting there.
You amaze me.
I agree with Don. Chuck’s hatred for all things Bush blinds him to facts that contradict his conclusion.
Chuck, I take umbrage at being called a Bush-loving quisling (whatever the fuck that is). I’m no fan of Bush, for reasons that have nothing to do with this current situation. Chuck, the fact that you have to resort to an ad hominem attack on people who disagree with your position show how weak your position is. Next time, try looking at the facts of a situation before coming to a conclusion and not the other way around.
Don: Rog’s facts didn’t really address mine. He’s comparing apples to oranges. Perhaps Bush was spending more in New Orleans than Clinton did, I don’t know, but for the sake of argument I’ll stipulate that it’s true. It still doesn’t address the fact that he cut the SELA funding, which was put into place to make up for the previous funding shortfalls — including Clinton’s. Spending a nickel more than the other guy when you’re supposed to spend a dollar isn’t much to be proud of, not to mention a painfully weak defense.
Rog: Umbrage your little heart out. Like I said to Steve under another entry, if you’re arguing against an anti-Bush point, that makes you pro-Bush in my opinion. The shoe might be painful, but it sure looks to me like it fits.
And regarding your facts, the only thing you said that contradicted anything *I* said was the bit about the levee project in question being completed. You got your information from one news source saying it was completed, I got mine from another saying it wasn’t. If I’m wrong I’ll admit it, but I’ll need an independent source to convince me — and the WaPo ain’t it.
Chuck: It’s 11:00pm and it’s dark outside.
I blame Bush and his solar funding cuts.
Thank you. :)
So Chuck, what do you have to say to the environmentalists who successfully halted a congressionally funded Army Corps of Engineers project to build a massive flood control system not unlike that found in the Netherlands to protect New Orleans? This occurred in 1977 and experts looking back today say it would have prevented Katrina’s storm surge from even reaching Lake Ponchartrain in the first place.
Just another thing I have observed about haters of our President bent on scoring political points – their convenient amnesia!