The Times pulled a Kerry - they against flood control before they were for it.
Posted on 09/06/2005 12:22:45 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
A New York Times editor, oh, by the way, asked, "Why New Orleans’ levees remained so inadequate? Where 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?"
The answer may be that they were reading old "Times" editorials. In 1993, the Times wrote that Washington should, "resist pressure to spend more on flood-control projects." In 1997, the Times praised moderate Republicans for protecting the environment by blocking flood-control spending.
And in April of this year, the Times ripped a Senate bill that would have injected $17 billion into flood-control measures, including what the Times called a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River, saying that bill was "bad legislation."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The Times pulled a Kerry - they against flood control before they were for it.
I think Rush mentioned this on his program today.
LOL... they didn't pull a Kerry. Them and Kerry are one...
Great post. The flood waters being removed from New Orleans contain a mixture of chemicals, oil and gas, and raw sewage. All of these are just dandy for the birds, fish, and plants in the waters around Louisiana.
For flood control.
Against flood control.
Another Dramamine, please.
And finally, upon hearing the plight of New Orleans residents, actor and political activist (Say what???) Sean Penn sprang into action, flying to the beleaguered city to help in the rescue effort. But it was Penn who wound up needing to be rescued after the boat he was piled in sprang a leak just seconds after launching. Penn and his entourage, including a personal photographer, were seen frantically bailing the water out of the shrinking vessel with a plastic cup.
Adding insult to injury, the boat’s motor failed to start, forcing Penn to paddle himself down the flooded streets of New Orleans.
Cripes!!! They're letting Sean Penn's personal photographer take up space! I guess it's offically not-a-crisis anymore. Dead bodies? Yeah, we'll get to them. Let's get a shot with Mr. Penn in the foreground looking resolute.
bravo Brit!!!!
Between the NY Slimes and the Democrats, it's like having Forrest Gump in charge of public policy.
So do our lawmakers, that are building bridges to no where in Alaska with our tax dollars ,follow what the times says or are they supposed to be independent thinkers?
bookmark
Brit and his staff really do their homework. Oppose that to the empty non-sensical accusations and lies that other networks spread.
Part of their homework must be reading Free Republic because I'm positive I read all the articles he quoted as posts here before Brit reported it.
: D. One more example of why Brit and his team are America's journalists.
The Times pulled a Kerry - they against flood control before they were for it.
LOL! Good job Brit! :D
I wouldn't be surprised at all. FR is a great resource for whomever wants to use it.
A talking head on an investment radio show said that the voters of NO had , on three separate occasions, voted down bond issues to address flooding.
I have been trying to source, but, have been unable.
Maybe NO Freepers can verify or debunk.
Gump lost to W in the first election.
BTTT
BTTT
Here's to ya, Bret.
Rush did mention it today.
He praised Freepers for getting the story out(and Powerline).
save
The voters may have been smart to turn down the bonds. I would bet the democrats used and abused the more tax/bonds to prevent flooding (like education is often used) in the past, and the residents probably knew that the money would end up in the hands of corrupt democrats and with no real change in the flood problem. The politicians always have a good excuse to raise taxes or issue more debt, and taxpayers are learning to say no to the same old excuses.
ping
Brit is a treasure. I'll take him and Cavuto, and Bill OReilly can go for a ride with Sean Penn in his boat.
Any way to get copies of the actual editorials? Are they archived that far back? (1997)
Got Lexus-Nexus?
nope. I be cheap. I am googling, but a lot to wade thru.
bttt
HUUUGE bttt!!!!!!!
Sean Penn was complaining about a shortage of bullhorns, yes bullhorns on Greta's show last night. OReilly would help cure that shortage.
This is nearly the identical mixture that makes up the NY Times.
Was that Money Talk?
Is any one else having trouble getting the rest of the article to come up? Says this page cannot be displayed, or can't be found. Has foxnews.com been hacked? Or just busy?
Where has Kerry been on this issue? I bet he had a plan for this. Every person get a surfboard!
To: COEXERJ145
NYTimes' Editorials About The Corps of Engineers are a bit Dishonest
I've been hearing a lot concerning the Army Corps of Engineers and budget cuts that the administration has forced upon them.
Yesterday I heard Former Congressman Livingston of Louisiana complain that environmentalists have fought hard to keep all money out of the Corps hands, so I went looking.
Yesterday the NYTimes economic (though unqualified) writer Paul Krugman asked:
"Second question: Why wasn't more preventive action taken? After 2003 the Army Corps of Engineers sharply slowed its flood-control work, including work on sinking levees. "The corps," an Editor and Publisher article says, citing a series of articles in The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, "never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security - coming at the same time as federal tax cuts - was the reason for the strain."
However, The NYTimes has been against the Army Corps of Engineers in the past as demonstrated here on July 14, 1993 Mother Nature and Ol' Man River
The billions of Federal dollars spent to construct dams and levees have doubtless prevented billions of dollars of damage to the areas they serve. But a dam or a levee in one place creates problems somewhere else. Also, by offering protection, they encourage people to live and work and develop farming in flood plains that are inherently risky.
Budget constraints and environmental concerns have slowed new flood control projects in recent years. Congress should resist pressure to spend more now because of this year's floods; these projects need closer evaluation than they've gotten in the past.
Another editorial dated June 24, 2003 states:
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a rare opportunity tomorrow to strike a blow for both fiscal sanity and the environment. Before the committee is a bill that would bring a measure of discipline and independent oversight to the Army Corps of Engineers, an incorrigibly spendthrift agency whose projects over the years have caused enormous damage to the nation's streams, rivers and wetlands.
The Untouchable Corps
(NYT) 415 words
Published: April 13, 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.
The bill would also weaken civilian control over the corps, a fiercely independent agency that operates in what amounts to a parallel universe in Washington, spending billions on public works projects ordered by members of Congress. The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands -- usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress's appetite for pork.
This a bad piece of legislation. Key Democrats on the committee -- including Hillary Clinton of New York, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut -- should make sure it does not emerge from the committee without significant changes.
So it appears that the New York Times whose editorial board was opposed to a bill that would funnel 17 billion dollars to the Corps of Engineers to beef up levees and such is today questioning why the administration listened to them.
Strange isn't it?
!
59 posted on 09/04/2005 3:52:04 PM CDT by HawaiianGecko (Liberals believe common sense facts are open to debate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
"Incredible catch by Brit and the crew at Special Report."
It was Gecko's credit card that purchased the archived NYTimes editorials and Gecko's MS Outlook that emailed the post to all foxnews shows over an hour before you saw it on special report. It did have it's intended effect and the Gecko is very happy.
BTTTT!
Where has Kerry been on this issue? I bet he had a plan for this. Every person get a surfboard!
Good one!!!!
Well, well, well!!!!
Lexis-Nexis is forever!
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.