U.S. Vows Stronger Levees in Big Easy(More billions down the proverbial rathole!)

The Washington Times ^ | December 16, 2005 | Bill Sammon and Audrey Hudson

[kellynla]

The White House yesterday agreed to spend $1.5 billion to strengthen levees in New Orleans, although it stopped short of saying the levees will be able to withstand a Cat egory 5 hurricane.

"The levee system will be better and safer than it's ever been before," said Donald Powell, the administration's reconstruction czar. "The federal government is committed to building the best levee system known in the world."

Mr. Powell made the announcement at the White House after meeting with President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin and Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, head of the Army Corps of Engineers.

"We understand that the people of New Orleans need to be assured that they're going to be safe when they get back home, that their city has an infrastructure that is capable of sustaining a possible storm next season or in the seasons afterward," Mr. Chertoff said.

He said the administration has spent $5.2 billion to help the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

But the additional $1.5 billion to strengthen levees did not satisfy Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat.

"The White House still doesn't grasp the magnitude of this disaster," she told CNN. "Speaking only of the city of New Orleans -- and leaving out the Parish of Jefferson, the Parish of Plaquemine, the Parish of St. Bernard -- I don't think that's what the people of our region want."

But Mr. Nagin thanked the president and U.S. taxpayers for the money and urged displaced residents to return home.

"It's time for you to come back to the Big Easy," the mayor said. "This action today says come home to New Orleans."

[gumboyaya]

I do know this, LA will be a memory before the Easy goes to sea.

[Mark was here]

I would wait untill the President and Congress find out how much the Judiciary is going to give away, before setting any spending levels. The Judiciary is probably going to bust the bank.

[Bogey78O]

Why rebuild the WTC when terorrists can just blow it up again?

weak argument.

[kellynla]

"Why rebuild the WTC when terorrists can just blow it up again?"


apples & oranges

and if you can't distinguish the difference then that's your problem. LOL

[Swiss]

Galveston Texas raised the city by 17 feet in places and built a seawall on their own without federal help. Chicago and San Francisco rebuilt themselves without federal help.

The Feds did rebuild Plattsburg Missouri after the floods of 1994 but they moved the town to higher ground.

[kellynla]

and moving N'awlins to higher ground seems like the obvious long term solution...
exactly why the clowns in D.C. & Louisiana won't do it. LOL

[WatchOutForSnakes]

"and if you can't distinguish the difference then that's your problem. LOL"

Hmmmmm, isn't that just another way of saying you've raised a good point that I have no answer for so therefore I'm just going to respond with this clever saying so I won't have to?

[RightWhale]

Why bother with that when the terrorists could just ship in a nuke and blow the whole Crescent City into orbit?

[kellynla]

"I have no answer for?"

Ohhhhhh, I pointed out the answer in my first post.

Now all you have to do is reread the next line.
"move the city to higher ground"

let us know when you catch up! LOL

[Bogey78O]

Not really. nything destroyed can be destroyed again. Citing realistic odds would be better then just throwing out what may happen.

[WatchOutForSnakes]

Maybe you should re-read my post. The thing I think you have no answer for is why is it apples and oranges. The poster said why rebuild the WTC if it can just be blown up again. You responded apples and oranges and then your cute little statement.

How is "move it to higher ground" an explanation of why it is apples and oranges? If you have a reasonable explanation why not just share it with us instead of writing in riddles?

[Roux]

The city is not completely destroyed and much of it is not below sea level.

Jeez. I wish the MSM would stop showing pictures of parts of the city underwater.

Older parts of the city are fine. The French Quarter and much of Uptown is fine.

I went Saturday.

[willyd]

I know this...I am talking about the parts that would be under water if there were no levee at all.

[WasDougsLamb]

Shouldn't they find out how many people are going back before we go to this expense?


-----Would we believe how many even if they told us? Some of their citizens/police didn't exist anyway. They were just means of extorting money. I have got so I only believe what the FREepers from down there say because you cannot trust the media or the politicians (they will say more people are coming back in order to get more money). If the FREepers can't tell us, then we will have to wait on an answer. (JMHO)

[kerryusama04]

Point taken. I would tend to believe the right wing acronym organizations in d.c. A little, but the right wing, gun toting, self sufficient FReepers in NOLA would certainly be the best source.

[Uncle Sham]

"move the city to higher ground"

Please tell exactly where YOU would move it. On what location are you going to build this "new" city, and how are you going to pay for it? Also, what are you going to do to displace the current landowners of your "new" location? The details, please.

[CajunConservative]

Would we believe how many even if they told us? Some of their citizens/police didn't exist anyway. They were just means of extorting money. I have got so I only believe what the FREepers from down there say because you cannot trust the media or the politicians (they will say more people are coming back in order to get more money). If the FREepers can't tell us, then we will have to wait on an answer. (JMHO)

It turns out that the phantom police is an urban legend based on a political spoof during the storm.

Snopes

[kellynla]

got a map?

pick a spot!

There's plenty of state and federally owned land in LA.

[H. Paul Pressler IV]

In order to "move the city" to higher ground you would first have to Condemn Private Property via Eminent Domain.


I did not think that concept of a Government seizing private property was advocated by many conservatives.

[H. Paul Pressler IV]

Oh yest it is ironic how many people here all of a sudden support Eminent Domain being used to seize private property.