Redstate

don't let logic and truth stop a good partisan rant.

its Bush's fault.  Didn't you know that Bush is on par with God when it comes to power to prevent natural disasters, overcoming the inherent stupidity of the average human (i.e. lack of common sense - which suprisingly enough isn't common), and knowing all the future events that will occur years before they happen and thus making decisions specificly designed to make a natural disaster much worse than it might have been?

His comment about the unexpected nature of the breech into perspective?

Not that he does not have the obligation to explain himself clearly. The leftywacks had best think really carefully about this strategy of blaming someone when the largest relief effort in domestic history is underway in the shortest amount of time in our experience. NO has been a deluge waiting to happen since before any of us were born. The dems  had best be careful or they will experience yet another Sen. Wellstone moment over the dead suffering of the Gulf Coast.  

Who were the contractors on that job? Plaintiffs bar, take it away.

You can fix a breached levee by, like, bringing materials from the more likely to be breached portions to the actually breached portions, was this done?  

Many of the people who stayed, and are now up on their roof, have cars floating next to their house. Whose cars are those?????

I suspect they didn't leave because they knew they'd get stolen blind if they did leave. Some people were more worried about their stuff than about their lives, but that's not George Bush's fault.

the area that a breach was expected....(did you read the article linked to start this thread?)

BTW...what would have kept the material there when the wind and water was ripping through the area?

Prepositioning might have just meant more debris.

MSM to acknowledge this fact. They think this is the "tipping point", since Harkin Energy, Jobless Recovery, Richard Clarke, The Jersey Girls, TANG memos, al-QaQaa, Valerie Plame, Kevin Sites, Abu Ghraib, The OH-2 special election, Cindy Sheehan, and Jeff Gannon all failed. Don't expect them to veer from this latest bout of moonbatitis.

Erick's point was that the breach occurred in the most recently fixed point, therefore Bush cannot be blamed.  I'm asking whether the supplies that Bush sent to the most likely breached points were shifted over to the actually breached point when that point was discovered.

My underlying point is that Bush sent no such supplies.

The area that did in fact breach, had been upgraded recently...which I think means someone had done something right...and you are still trying to blame the President for the area that did breach did not receive even more supplies..even though it was not an expected area to be breached?

btw...on the day after the breach, the ACOE started dropping in supplies to fill the breach...so even that seems to dispute your statements.

Bush should not be blamed for the breaches in this case, the funding he cut would have done little to stop flooding-- even if it had somehow been put to use immediately.

But budget hawks will have to face this sort of critique at some point-- eventually there will be budget cuts that directly impact an area's ability to deal with a disaster.  Even the most penny-pinching politician is sure to think twice before voting against FEMA funding in the next year or so.  

that would indicate that the failure had been recently reconstructed, but had not been properly reinforced or compacted yet, which may be due to budget cuts.  However, there are enough mixed signals that I think it safe to say that the jury is out on whether more could have been done to prevent this kind of catastrophe.  It's worth noting that the New Orleans Times Picayune had been complaining of lack of funds for construction and maintenance on the levees and other barriers for quite some time, though.

.. but I fail to see why someone would think that the federal government's pre-storm response would consist to sending materials to shore up the levees; how it is the President's reponsibility to "shift supplies" around on the levees.

I fail to understand what you are getting at so a) I must be stupid; or b) you are being sarastic and I'm not running on all cyclinders tonight.

an idiot tonight.

But the notion that NOLA's levee system, if not structurally improved to withstand a Cat5 Storm a la ANDREW, could withstand the pounding visited upon it by KATRINA, simply doesn't pass the laugh test.

I mean, if he's supposed to be moving around levee repair supplies, he'll need a forklift...right?

</sarcasm&gt

... that's right. Tomorrow is my night.

Anyone interested in understanding the danger N.O. was facing before Katrina, what was known, what were the options, who was doing what, etc., read the Times-Picayune's five-part special report published in June 2002.  http://www.nola.com/hurricane/?/washingaway/index.html

One plan that would have come far too late would have seen a build-up of the protecting marshlands while others surmised that levees could be built that  could withstand a 30 foot surge.  (Interestingly, the greatest fears at that time seemed to come from the threat of a huge storm surge which would appear to have had no role in the recent levee breaches.)

The $14 billion, 30-year Coast 2050 plan being pushed by a governor's committee and Louisiana members of Congress seeks to rebuild the coast, primarily by diverting water and silt from the Mississippi River across marshes and rebuilding barrier islands. Its promoters say it would begin to reverse some of the losses of the past 100 years and restore natural hurricane protections.

But at best, that would provide only partial protection from hurricanes. Even if the entire coast could be restored to the way it was a century ago, large storms could still devastate the area with flooding, rain, wind and tornadoes far inland. Scientists and engineers say additional fixes are needed.

"We are not going to stop marsh loss. Subsidence is too dominant," said James Coleman, a professor of coastal studies at Louisiana State University. Coastal restoration "is a temporary fix in terms of geological time. You will see results of massive coastal restorations in our lifetime, but in the long run they are also going to go."

Naomi is looking at whether to upgrade levee protection from Morgan City to the Mississippi border to withstand Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, which can have storm surges 30 feet high. Corps officials say most current federal hurricane levees protect up to the level of a fast-moving Category 3 storm.

Though building levees and floodwalls to any height is theoretically possible -- "if we can build a 50-story building, we can build any kind of wall," Naomi said -- any realistic proposal will involve complex trade-offs. Levees can be built only so high before they either take up too much space or begin to collapse, for example. The alternative is to build more walls, but they are much more expensive and also heavier, meaning they would sink faster in relation to sea level.

So the breech may have occurred on a part of the levee that had just been upgraded. Gosh, do you know what that means? It means that the upgrade WASN'T ENOUGH.

Would the upgrade have been better, would the defences have been stronger and would the impact of the disaster have been lessened if the govt. had not slashed funding for flood defences and not allowed developers to destroy marshland? Let's face it, the answer is yes.

Bush said 'Step One' was to secure 10 billion in funding from Congress. Wow, Mr. President. I would have thought 'Step One' would have been to get some buses, food and water to the Convention Centre where American citizens were starving and dehydrating.

When he talked about rebuilding New Orleans, and rebuilding Trent Lott's house, you knew what he was really thing about: Construction contracts and who to hand them out to.

This is face-in-the-trough politics, people. Just wait for the feeding to start.

"I don't see that the level of funding was really a contributing factor in this case. Had this project been fully complete, it is my opinion that based on the intensity of this storm that the flooding of the business district and the French Quarter would have still taken place." — Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, chief of the Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago Tribune interview.

I think the irony of invoking federal corruption and pork-barreling in a discussion of New Orleans speaks for itself.

 . . . your confusion, which would seem to be a monumental task in itself. The other readers may benefit from the attempt.

The 17th Street Canal levee was originally an earthen berm. It was desired to raise the height of the levee by a few feet. One way would have been to add more dirt to the top, but that would necessitate widening the levee considerably. Instead, millions of dollars were spent to extend the height of a concrete floodwall atop the levee. It appears that the concrete floodwall failed.

Now, why don't you do something productive & contribute to the relief effort?

Bush said 'Step One' was to secure 10 billion in funding from Congress. Wow, Mr. President. I would have thought 'Step One' would have been to get some buses, food and water to the Convention Centre where American citizens were starving and dehydrating.

When he talked about rebuilding New Orleans, and rebuilding Trent Lott's house, you knew what he was really thing about: Construction contracts and who to hand them out to.

Perhaps you should breathe into a paper bag for a bit.  Let the Bush hatred meeeeelt away.  Keep taking deeeeeep breaths until lucidity returns and you remember that you can't get buses, food, and water without money!  Really, did you stop to re-read your post before you sent it?  Are you really, honestly suggesting that Bush can magically create buses (and presumably the clear roads to drive them on), food, and purified water for free, and that he can re-build New Orleans without signing contracts to do so?  If he did nothing you'd obviously attack him, and you're attacking him when he does something.  Is your hatred for the President so ingrained that nothing he does will satisfy you?

So, let me get this straight.  FEMA identifies a major hurricane impacting New Orleans as one of the three greatest possible catastrophes facing this country in 2001, hurricane activity begins spiking in its decades-long cycle, Bush repeatedly cuts funding for hurricane protection projects in New Orleans, and, yet, Bush has no responsibility whatsoever.  Is that about right?

In 2003, the N.O. Army Corps of Engineers requests $11 million for hurricane protection projects.  Bush gives 'em $3 million for FY2004.  In 2004, the Corps asks for $22.5 million.  Bush gives 'em 3.9 for FY2005.  And for 2006?  Bush allocates $3 million.

Yet, how much did Bush budget for wetlands restoration in Iraq, half a world away?  $100 million.

Or should we look at the third straight failure of his beloved (yet completely inoperable) missile defense system in February at a cost of $85 million per test?

If he wants to be a strong President, let him start standing up for his own decisions.  Let him say to the American people that $255 million spent on three failed missile tests was the right decision rather than funding hurricane protection for the most vulnerable city in the country.  Let him tell the residents of New Orleands that the wetlands of Iraq were worth more than protecting their lives.

Let him stop side-stepping the question and start accepting responsibility.