:D
This looks like something I've tried to read from a bathroom stall...they have nothing better to do while they dump from the mouth....
If there's any intelligent life on this planet, we'd leave it that way.
Don't you get it? EVREYTHING IS BUSH'S FAULT!
That's what is sad about this event, people are blaming GW Bush prior to saving the victims?
The Dem pols can say anything they want, it the mass DNC media that promotes the lies.
They are the enemy. They need to be destroyed.
for later. I'm tired of this crap.
Too bad FactCheck has their facts wrong. A little digging would have told a different story:
In 1998 the Army Corps of Engineers provided a Draft Request to pursue the protection of noted areas in the Gulf region, to enhance their ability to survive heavy hurricane damage. The project was summarily REJECTED BY BILL CLINTON as not important.
Well they can't blame the one who they say they don't believe in, since that would 'kinda' blow a central component of their politics.
Sacts mean nothing to the left. They shout and holler for awhile, call for impeachment, and then when their charade is revealed, they move on to the next "outrage".
Isn't it the Mayor's fault?
Did the levees only become a concern on the day that Bush first took office?? Puh-leeze.
I'd be willing to bet that President Bush thought that Willard Clinton had taken care of the levees when he RAISED our taxes.
"It was scheduled to be completed in 2015."
It's 2005.
I saw an interview with an Army Corps of Engineers official who said the levee projects were started in 1975 and came to a standstill in 1996. He said a lot of the money allocated has been diverted by local N.O. politicians for other pet projects. No work has been done on them since 96. When he spoke out about it in 96 he was fired.
If he never beat his wife why did he pay drudges legal fees and not let discovery go forward?
When accounting for government red tape, environmental impact studies, environmentalists lawsuits, affirmative action-sensitive contractor bidding and general bureaucratic incompetence, the levee still would have taken YEARS to be upgraded (The Big Dig anyone??).
This whole "if Bush hadn't cut the budget, the flooding wouldn't have happened" canard is shamefully dishonest.
No it's not. Their complaints start in 2001 (conveniently after Bush took office) but the funding cuts go much further back than that.
February 17, 1995Source: EU Rota
An Army Corps of Engineers "hit list" of recommended budget cuts would eliminate new flood-control programs in some of the nation's most flood-prone spots - where recent disasters have left thousands homeless and cost the federal government millions in emergency aid.
Clinton administration officials argue that the flood-control efforts are local projects, not national, and should be paid for by local taxes.
Nationwide, the administration proposes cutting 98 new projects in 35 states and Puerto Rico, for an estimated savings of $29 million in 1996.
Corps officials freely conceded the cuts, which represent only a small portion of savings the corps ultimately must make, may be penny-wise and pound-foolish. But they said they were forced to eliminate some services the corps has historically provided to taxpayers to meet the administration's budget-cutting goals.
June 23, 1995
A hurricane project, approved and financed since 1965, to protect more than 140,000 West Bank residents east of the Harvey Canal is in jeopardy.
The Clinton administration is holding back a Corps of Engineers report recommending that the $120 million project proceed. Unless that report is forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget, Congress cannot authorize money for the project, U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office said Thursday.
On June 9, John Zirschky, the acting assistant secretary of the Army and the official who refused to forward the report, sent a memo to the corps, saying the recommendation for the project "is not consistent with the policies and budget priorities reflected in the President's Fiscal Year 1996 budget. Accordingly, I will not forward the report to the Office of Management and Budget for clearance."
July 26, 1996
The House voted Thursday for a $19.4 billion energy and water bill that provides $246 million for Army Corps of Engineers projects in Louisiana.
The bill, approved 391-23, is the last of the 13 annual spending measures for 1997 approved by the House.
One area in which the House approved more financing than the president requested was for flood control and maintenance of harbors and shipping routes by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Flood control projects along the Mississippi River and its tributaries were allotted $303 million, or $10 million more than the president wanted.
June 19, 1996
The Army Corps of Engineers, which builds most flood protection levees on a federal-local cost-sharing basis, uses a cost-benefit ratio to justify a project. If the cost of building a levee is considered less than the cost of restoring a flood-ravaged area, the project is more likely to be approved.
For years, the Jean Lafitte-Lower Lafitte-Barataria-Crown Point areas couldn't convince the corps they were worthy of levee protection. But the use of Section 205 and congressional pressure has given the corps a new perspective, Spohrer said.
But even so, when the Clinton administration began to curtail spending on flood control and other projects a year ago, the corps stopped spending on Section 205 projects even after deciding to do a $70,000 preliminary Jean Lafitte study, Spohrer said.
July 22, 1999
In passing a $20.2 billion spending bill this week for water and energy projects, the House Appropriations Committee approved some significant increases in financing for several New Orleans area flood control and navigational projects.
The spending bill is expected on the House floor within the next two weeks.
For the New Orleans District of the Army Corps of Engineers, the panel allocated $106 million for construction projects, about $16 million more than proposed by President Clinton.
The bill would provide $47 million for "southeast Louisiana flood control projects," $16 million for "Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity hurricane protection," $15.9 million for the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock on the Industrial Canal in New Orleans and $2 million for "West Bank hurricane protection -- from New Orleans to Venice."
Most of the projects received significant increases over what the Clinton administration had proposed. The exception: general flood control projects for southeast Louisiana, which remained at the $47 million suggested by Clinton. Local officials had hoped for double that amount.
February 8, 2000
For the metropolitan New Orleans area, Clinton's budget was seen as a mixed bag by local lawmakers and government officials. For instance, while Clinton called for $1.5 billion to be spent at Avondale Industries to continue building LPD-17 landing craft, his budget calls for significantly less than what Congress appropriated last year for Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity hurricane protection and for West Bank flood control projects.
September 29, 2000
The House approved Thursday a $23.6 billion measure for water and energy programs, with sizable increases for several New Orleans area flood-control projects. The Senate will vote Monday, but it may be a while before the bill is enacted.
President Clinton is promising to veto the annual appropriation for the Energy Department and Army Corps of Engineers, not because it is $890 million larger than he proposed, but because it does not include a plan to alter the levels of the Missouri River to protect endangered fish and birds.
It looks like this is another of the "history started in January 2001" articles.A Category IV hurricane could have come any time after the levee was built, and it would presumably have had the exact same result.
If the levee had been upgraded any time from its initial construction through the Carter and Clinton Administrations it would have made just about as much sense as it would have to upgrade it during the War on Terror. In fact given the historically relaxed attitude toward the problem, who is to say that a decision to upgrade, even if taken, would have been completed in time? After all, the particular section which failed had itself been recently "upgraded." Maybe that would have been the last section reworked!
