We should hardly be blaming Clinton for denying Federal money for a local project because it MAY have prevented some of today's problems.
-----
Nice try. Deal with reality. If those levees and other areas had been built up, New Orleans would be mostly dry right now and you would not have a disaster. He is to blame because his politics, more than the money was far more important, as was the case with all of his moves.
Rationalize all you want. I deal in reality.
You might also want to pay attention to how the leftist complicit MSM, is trying to blame the whole mess on Bush -- what an atrocity. You are concerned about FAIR, HOW ABOUT THEIR ACTIONS?? Not only totally political, but totally unrealistic and UNFAIR.
The politics can work both ways -- the libs want to politicize (of course) --- OK let's politicize the other side too -- and do IT WITH FACTS, NOT LIES AND FANTASTIC, STUPID ACCUSATIONS.
Why were Clinton's politics to blame for his decison not to give money to NO? Bush faced to same decision when he came into office, and he also chose not to give them money (at least not as much as others, notably, liberals, claim he should have). Does this mean he is responsiblity for the disaster? Both Bush and Clinton made budgetary decisions, and in retrospect, it would have been wiser to invest more in NO, but are they to blame for not making that decision?
If that's true of Clinton in 98 wouldn't it be true of the following administration which hasn't done the project either?