NY Times Blasts New Orleans flood control $$$

The Corner-Media Blog ^ | 9/2/05 | Stephen Spruiell

[chiller]

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]

This is a bad piece of legislation. Lesson: Don't listen to the NY Times editorial board. (via Don Luskin)

[chiller]

I'm speechless.

[msnimje]

This has already been debunked. I think Michelle Malkin did so on her site recently also.

[BenLurkin]

Agreed.

Anyone who respects the opinion of the NYT lacks good judgment.

Would make a for a good early assessment of someone you are just getting to know.

[MNJohnnie]

OH WOW, IS THAT EVER GOING TO LEAVE A MARK!

[atomicpossum]

A comprehensive disaster/exac plan would have cost a lot less and been written in weeks. NYT hasn't complained about that.

[ml1954]

Dear NYT,

Let's all look at the millions (and billions) of dollars that are spent on pork in the 'blue' states and ask those legislators how they could have spent that money on those things knowing New Orleans needed just $17 million to save thousands of lives.

[bronxboy]

MSM in full Bush bashing mode. Always backfires.

[ml1954]

Ooops, just $17 billion.

[God luvs America]

I'd love a link to the full story of that final paragraph...I'd fax it to the Times day and night...

[MaxMax]

What has the NYT offered to this crisis they're trying to promote?

[ml1954]

Is GWB the unluckiest Prez ever or what? The two greatest tragedies in my lifetime that took the most lives on US soil happened in his Presidency.

[MNJohnnie]

This has already been debunked.

Can you be a bit more specific. I cannot find anything on her site. In fact SHE argues pretty much the same point only using the New Orleans paper.

[Texas Eagle]

...the President offered "a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast."

Obviously the only thing President Bush could do to placate The New York Times Editorial Board is to sign emergency legislation outlawing hurricanes and/or floods.

Wait. That's not quite right. Let me try again. Obviously the only thing President Bush could do to placate The New York Times Editorial Board is resign from The Republican Party, denounce Christ, call Rush Limbaugh a right-wing wacko fundamentalist extremist poopy-head and THEN sign emergency legislation outlawing hurricans and/or floods.

[gondramB]

Which part was debunked?

[MNJohnnie]

GWB the unluckiest Prez ever or what

No, GW Bush is a sign of just how blessed the USA is. Despite the welter of political incompetents and posturer's filling the halls of our Governments, at this moment in our history, just like it always has in the past 230 years, the Country has produced EXACTLY the man to lead us thru tough times.

[msnimje]

I am sorry, I read about it on Powerline and they mentioned Michelle. This is what is on Poweline:

The blame game continues, with most attention being focused not on the local and state officials who have responsibility for disaster preparedness, but on the federal government.
Even at the federal level, I've not seen any informed criticism of FEMA or any other relevant federal agency, or any detailed analysis of the formidable logistical problems that make the relief effort painfully difficult.
No, the critics aren't interested in such targets or such details. What they want is to bash President Bush, and we'll hear more and more of it as the days go by.

So far, though, the left has had a hard time finding a theory. Michelle Malkin has a definitive deconstruction of the "underfunded levee construction" theory, which yesterday seemed like the left's most promising line of attack. The Army Corps of Engineers says the "underfunding" theory is bogus:

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.

In a telephone interview with reporters, corps officials said that although portions of the flood-protection levees remain incomplete, the levees near Lake Pontchartrain that gave way--inundating much of the city--were completed and in good condition before the hurricane.

However, they noted that the levees were designed for a Category 3 hurricane and couldn't handle the ferocious winds and raging waters from Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 4 storm when it hit the coastline. The decision to build levees for a Category 3 hurricane was made decades ago based on a cost-benefit analysis.

Maybe the left will have to go back to global warming.

[ml1954]

No argument there. I was just making an observation.

[skimbell]

The U.S is the luckiest nation simply because Bush was there when these things happened.

Just imagine if Algore was in the drivers seat today...

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Here is today's liberal question:

The levees in New Orleans are inadequate. They have been inadequate during the following admininstrations:

1. Hoover
2. FDR
3. Truman
4. Eisenhower
5. Kennedy
6. Johnson
7. Nixon
8. Ford
9. Carter
10. Reagan
11. George H. W. Bush
12. Clinton
13. George W. Bush

Whose fault is it?

(Answer) George W. Bush, of course.

[jocko12]

It's to bad the NYS can not get there facts right before they print anything.