Skip to comments.NY Times Ed Board: Fairweather Flood-Control Fans
Posted on 09/04/2005 7:37:25 PM PDT by F-117A
Yesterday the New York Times editorial board wrote a fire-breathing editorial that for almost 24 hours ranked as the "most-discussed story" on Technorati and the "most e-mailed article" on nytimes.com. The board wrote that "George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday." Instead of "consolation and wisdom," the President offered "a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast." The board went on to offer a long laundry list of angry accusations. The editorial board doubted that Bush "understood the depth of the current crisis" unlike the wizened board, which had been following the crisis on CNN.
The editorial built up to this penultimate paragraph:
While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?
Good question. Maybe because Congress listened to the NY Times editorial board in April of 2005:
Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences... [snip]Lesson: Don't listen to the NY Times editorial board. (via Don Luskin)
This is a bad piece of legislation.
Wasn't it the liberals, too, who used to complain about paying big agri-businesses to"not grow crops"? That big Ag was cashing in on CRP money, collecting fed funds to not grow stuff. Didn't that used to be a problem? And now, there should have been more CRP wetlands? Maybe someone with a better idea of ag subsidies can help me out here.
Everybody at the Times seems to be a politically motivated huckster. They should have learned journalism.
Old Grey Lady Losing Her Memory
They may soon need to get real jobs.
That is so perfect.
Thanks for posting this. The NYTimes gets roasted, by their own words.
LOL! Do they not have access to Lexis Nexis?
This is so yummy.
Don't you understand.... The New York Times Editor in Chief has finally realized that the people on the NYT Editorial Board make up stories just like the New York Times reporters do.... so it is perfectly permissible for today's Editor-in-Chief to ignore what his Sub-Editors said in April, because he knows it probably wasn't true when they wrote it!
It's all so very simple!
NY $li/\/\3z = p\/\/Nt
Great find! The days when the Marxist Media could get away with this are OVER!
Another Dan Rather moment.
The New York Times rhymes with Crimes, so appropriate for the crap this rag puts out on a daily basis.
What sane person would pay earned wages for this rag?
The days of the New York Times and other RAT mouthpieces spewing lies and distortions and 180 degree turns to fit RAT talking points of the day (as in this case) are over.
Is it possible that the Left can be more transparent about their hatred of Bush by easily tracked position flip-flops like this?
Of course, in the past, there wasn't a blogosphere to catch and publicize them.
Or in the words of their hero: "They actually voted for flood control before they voted against it."
I thought I read somewhere that Bill Clinton had turned
this down also in 1996 or so.
Wonderful find. The MSM is so over.
Yeah Baby! Good work exposing the lunatic habitual liars!
This is so great that words fail me!!
Thanks for posting this.
NYTimes and MSM is at war with Bush.
They used Katrina to score a big PR victory.
And the truth and honesty are the last things on their minds. They will sell their mother if this will somehow hurt the President.
Typical Slimes/MSM chicanery.
Exactly what I've learned to expect from the Slimes.
They're not stupid, they're nuanced.
The Times.... the Times... Are they some media organization or something?
Ha ha ha.... Why am I not surprised????
Sweet post! So, they must agree with Bush while disagreeing with him. No problem. They are schizoid.
Oh man, we gotta get this out!
Oh man, we gotta get this out!
I e-mailed this info to assorted Fox Cable News talk shows. Hope they bring it up.
Great. And it illustrates one of the most annoying memes I hear about this issue. To put federal budgeting into household budgeting terms - it's not about whether or not you fix the roof - it's about whether you fix the roof or fix the water heater. If you fix the roof, the water heater could burst. If you fix the water heater, the roof could break. But of course in liberal-land, federal money (i.e. your tax dollars) is infinite and thus no choices have to be made.
Great find and post. The lunatics who run the NY Slimes must hate the internet. No longer can they say something in April in their editorials and take the opposite side in Aug/Sep to smear our President.
They really have contempt for their readers.
Probably the same ones who don't "earn" wages, they are the gimmee crowd, to them govt is there for one reason...to support them and their families for generations.
(1) Somebody needs to show me where a barrier island or wetland was eliminated in the LA/MS area. And New Orleans, in particular is actually 50-70 miles inland. It's problem was clearly the levee breech.
(2) Barrier islands, in and of themselves, do little to hold back a 20-30 foot storm surge. In their "natural state", they are merely flat sand bars 1-3 feet above sea level that the water crosses with little effort.
(3) Developed barrier islands, one could argue, would actually help slow the storm surge from reaching the mainland with such ferosity -- particularly with large, wide casinos being in the way. But even this didn't really help.
(4) Wetlands? Used to "hold back" a hurricane's surge? LOL! It's written as if they believe the entire Mississippi River Delta was drained! Actually, such a move might have saved New Orleans, but of course the enviro-whackos would have freaked.
(5) Finally, the NYT owes an explanation about what specific barrier island programs were on the chopping block that would have had any impact whatsoever to stopping a Category 5 hurricane in this area. Crickets chirping...
(P.S. - I know it was 'officially' a Cat 4, but I'll bet a gallon of gas that it will eventually be reviewed and upgraded -- maybe in a few years).
Rush will parade this one for everyone to hear - he likes the NRO.
Great find by NRO! NYT hypocrites. Better bookmark this one for all the sanctimonious NYT stories that are sure to follow.
No wonder the Republicans chose the elephant.
I believe it was Ann Coulter who once pointed out that democrats and the MSM assume that conservatives don't have access to Lexis Nexus. (How is that spelled, anyway?)
The NYTimes was always liberal but it actually was well balanced 20-30 years ago. Now the news articles have that annoying leftist slant. I stopped reading it years ago. The Washington Post is a much better liberal rag
It was a Cat 5, but storms always slow down when they hit land, and Katrina started hitting land a full day before the eye passed over. It's a matter of interpretation, but it was a Cat 4 when the eye made landfall.
It wasn't wind, however, that did in NOLA.
very few people actually do. Lexis-Nexis is like, incredibly expensive, isn't it?
Reason for that declaration: the central pressure at landfall was lower than Andrew's, which was upgraded after-the-fact. Both that and the damage profile fit a '5' storm... It's very difficult to capture the sustained wind speeds. But that's simply a side issue ennyhow.
Of course NY times is being consistent: Protecting folks in americas heartland from flooding in 1993 and 1997 was a waste of money but it is not a awast of money for Jesse jacksons proletariat
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.