Replies

WOW! You sure are good at listening to and parroting the MSM lies!

The section of levee that failed was recently upgraded. Even if it hadn't, it takes years to move money from the feds and get any USACOE project through design, solicitation and contracting into an actual construction phase.

From this thread:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1475340/posts

Not until the ninth paragraph does the story imply (but fail to state) that budget cut – even if the intended work could have been done instantaneously, had nothing to do with the flooding. It quotes an expert “at the University of New Orleans, [who] said that was particularly surprising because the break was ‘along a section that was just upgraded.’ ”

The implication, gleefully trumpeted by rabid Democrats, is that George Bush caused the destruction of New Orleans. Not until paragraph 16 does the article note the system was only designed to protect against a Category 3 storm. It neglects to mention that decision was made by local officials, all Democrats.

For the truth, see a Chicago Tribune article the same day. Its lede says: “The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Thursday that a lack of funding for hurricane-protection projects around New Orleans did not contribute to the disastrous flooding that followed Hurricane Katrina.”

The Tribune notes the decision to build the levees for a Category 3 storm was “made decades ago.” Next, it says, “ ‘I don't see that the level of funding was really a contributing factor in this case,’ said Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, chief of engineers for the corps. ‘Had this project been fully complete, it is my opinion that based on the intensity of this storm that the flooding of ... [New Orleans] would have still taken place.’ ”

Here’s the source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1475305/posts

I didn't make myself clear. I'm not blaming the President, his budget or the war in the Middle East on this. Improvements wouldn't have - couldn't have - happened instantaneously (especially given the slow rate of government), and certainly not in time to guard against Katrina. And even it may not have been enough; I don't know if anything could have adequately guarded against a Cat 5 storm (especially if only designed for a Cat 3).

But my point is this:

If the President blames a lack of preparedness, he had better be willing and able to respond to such criticisms, and he had better have a good justification for WHY the funding was cut. Because you KNOW the accusations will be there.