Just like 9/11, we now see the Government failed to act with securing New Orleans

Forums: Politics, Political, American Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-levee4sep04,1,989132.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

Quote:

WASHINGTON — For years, Washington had been warned that doom lurked just beyond the levees. And for years, the White House and Congress had dickered over how much money to put into shoring up century-old dikes and carrying out newer flood control projects to protect the city of New Orleans.

As recently as three months ago, the alarms were sounding — and being brushed aside.

ADVERTISEMENT
In late May, the New Orleans district of the Army Corps of Engineers formally notified Washington that hurricane storm surges could knock out two of the big pumping stations that must operate night and day even under normal conditions to keep the city dry.

Also, the Corps said, several levees had settled and would soon need to be raised. And it reminded Washington that an ambitious flood-control study proposed four years before remained just that — a written proposal never put into action for lack of funding.

What a powerful hurricane could do to New Orleans and the area's critical transportation, energy and petrochemical facilities had been well understood. So now, nearly a week into the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, hard questions are being raised about Washington officials who crossed their fingers and counted on luck once too often. The reasons the city's defenses were not strengthened enough to handle such a storm are deeply rooted in the politics and bureaucracy of Washington.

With the advantage of hindsight, the miscues seem even broader. Construction proposals were often underfunded or not completed. Washington officials could never agree on how much money would be needed to protect New Orleans. And there hung in the air a false sense of security that a storm like Katrina was a long shot anyway.

As a result, when the immediate crisis eases and inquiries into what went wrong begin, there is likely to be responsibility and blame enough for almost every institution in Washington, including the White House, Congress, the Army Corps of Engineers and a host of other federal agencies.

For example, Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the Corps commander, conceded Friday that the government had known the New Orleans levees could never withstand a hurricane higher than a Category 3. Corps officials shuddered, he said, when they realized that Katrina was barreling down on the Gulf Coast with the vastly greater destructive force of a Category 5 — the strongest type of hurricane.

Washington, he said, had rolled the dice.

Rather than come up with the extra millions of dollars needed to make the city safer, officials believed that such a devastating storm was a small probability and that, with the level of protection that had been funded, "99.5% of the time this would work."

Unfortunately, Strock said, "we did not address the 0.5%."

Corps officials said the floodwaters breached at two spots: the 17th Street Canal Levee and the London Avenue Canal Levee. Connie Gillette, a Corps spokeswoman, said Saturday there never had been any plans or funds allocated to shore up those spots — another sign the government expected them to hold.

Nevertheless, the Corps hardly was alone in failing to address what it meant to have a major metropolitan area situated mostly below sea level, sitting squarely in the middle of the Gulf Coast's Hurricane Alley.

Many federal, state and local flood improvement officials kept asking for more dollars for more ambitious protection projects. But the White House kept scaling down those requests. And each time, although congressional leaders were more generous with funding than the White House, the House and Senate never got anywhere near to approving the amounts that experts had said was needed.

What happened this year was typical: Local levee and flood prevention officials, along with Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.), asked for $78 million in project funds. President Bush offered them less than half that — $30 million. Congress ended up authorizing $36.5 million.

Since Bush took office in 2001, local experts and Landrieu have asked for just short of $500 million. Altogether, Bush in his yearly budgets asked for $166 million, and Congress approved about $250 million.

These budget decisions reflect a reality in Washington: to act with an eye toward short-term political rewards instead of making long-term investments to deal with problems.

Vincent Gawronski, an assistant professor at Birmingham Southern College in Alabama who studies the political impact of natural disasters, said the lost chances to shore up the levees were a classic example of government leaders who, although meaning well, clashed over priorities.

"Elected politicians are in office for a limited amount of time and with a limited amount of money, and they don't really have a long-term vision for spending it," he said.

"So you spend your pot of money where you feel you're going to get the most political support so you can get reelected. It's very difficult to think long-term. If you invest in these levees, is that going to show an immediate return or does it take away from anything else?"

Nothing is going to change unless we make the people we put into office start using their common sense and stop wasting our damn money and time on stupid stuff.

It is just sad that we continue to allow this... maybe after this time we will wisen up? :nope:

Bush as disappointed me since 9/11, that was his high time and his glory.

My patience is gone with politicians in this country. I do not care what party you are with. You do stupid things and allow things to happen that are easily fixable then you lose my respect. Period.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,287 • Replies: 26

No top replies

@Brent cv,

The odds, according to a FoxNews source, of a Category 4 or 5 hurricane hitting New Orleans or near enough to New Orleans to cause this kinda damage was ONE in THREE HUNDRED YEARS. We developed a false sense of complacency.

Welcome to America.

1 Reply

@ndjs,

ndjs wrote:

The odds, according to a FoxNews source, of a Category 4 or 5 hurricane hitting New Orleans or near enough to New Orleans to cause this kinda damage was ONE in THREE HUNDRED. We developed a false sense of complacency.

Welcome to America.

I bet they had odds on the Terrorists hitting the WTC again.

Wonder what those were....

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

I don't care who was President, none of the **** people are complaining about now would have ever been fixed.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Brent wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-levee4sep04,1,989132.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

Nothing is going to change unless we make the people we put into office start using their common sense and stop wasting our damn money and time on stupid stuff.

It is just sad that we continue to allow this... maybe after this time we will wisen up? :nope:

Bush as disappointed me since 9/11, that was his high time and his glory.

My patience is gone with politicians in this country. I do not care what party you are with. You do stupid things and allow things to happen that are easily fixable then you lose my respect. Period.

Opps, i guess this isn't one of the i defend the president threads, LOL.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Drnaline, let's try to debate the topics, not the people, ok?

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

He said they were out here i'm just looking for them? You make a statement you should expect to be called on it. I can delete it or post it in the oppropriate thread with a link?

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline wrote:

He said they were out here i'm just looking for them? You make a statement you should expect to be called on it. I can delete it or post it in the oppropriate thread with a link?

Me defending the President

Me defending the President x 2

Me defending the President x 3

:bored:

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

1.The first example i can not find anything that resembles you defending Bush. You say people were booing but did not say you were one of them? Although you did find it disconserting that west was Booed? You were pleased that there were people there that expressed there distaste for West but again didn't say you were one of them?
2. example two you say the video maker is no better the the one he is making it after. Which way do you mean it? Either the person he talks about is a upstanding citizen and the videographer is bare minimum the same which is a fine upstanding citizen or it means Bush is a scumbag and so it the videographer? I can take it either way, in which case neither is defending Bush? You said twice how the guy is not better then bush, the only thing left for us to know is your personal opinion of bush? If he's a swell guy in your eyes so it the videogragher, i just don't think you hold Bush in that esteem?
3. Comes as close as you got to defending him. You say "All the hit is being put on Bush That is just wrong" I take it as you feel he is to blame but not solely by himself. Others are to blame as well. IMO i don't think this qualifies as defending him either? Then again it's just my opinion.

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

Failures on the part of local , state , and national government .
And now New Orleans and other parts of Louisiana are suffering again from a hurricane, along with a substantial number of locations in Texas .
None of the weather is any one's fault , but maybe the planning failures are .
Our Evacuation Plan here in the Houston area got a severe test from Rita . Some will say it failed , but most say it worked in a sense , just was not designed to serve so many people .

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Drnaline wrote:

1.The first example i can not find anything that resembles you defending Bush. You say people were booing but did not say you were one of them? Although you did find it disconserting that west was Booed? You were pleased that there were people there that expressed there distaste for West but again didn't say you were one of them?
2. example two you say the video maker is no better the the one he is making it after. Which way do you mean it? Either the person he talks about is a upstanding citizen and the videographer is bare minimum the same which is a fine upstanding citizen or it means Bush is a scumbag and so it the videographer? I can take it either way, in which case neither is defending Bush? You said twice how the guy is not better then bush, the only thing left for us to know is your personal opinion of bush? If he's a swell guy in your eyes so it the videogragher, i just don't think you hold Bush in that esteem?
3. Comes as close as you got to defending him. You say "All the hit is being put on Bush That is just wrong" I take it as you feel he is to blame but not solely by himself. Others are to blame as well. IMO i don't think this qualifies as defending him either? Then again it's just my opinion.

Number 2 I meant in the eyes of the person who made that video, he is no better than the things he claims of Bush.

Why the hell do I even have to prove to you that I like the guy anyway? I don't debate people I debate the issues. I don't agree 100% with one person.

The reason you see me saying so many negative things right now is because Bush is the main person in the spotlight right now.

If Kerry was President you better believe I would be criticizing the mess out of him.

Stop trying to prove I do not like Bush, that is just utterly stupid. :rolleyes:

I will say negative things about him when I feel he is wrong and I will be positive and defend him when it is warranted in my eyes. Why is that such a big deal to you?

Do you just want to call me a liberal? Is it getting to you that bad that you can't just say "He's a liberal, it explains everything?"

Sounds like it to me.

I can't believe I just had to type this bullshit out.

This site does not contain half the issues I debated in the past where I have rigoursly defended Bush, you want a good example outside this site?

Enjoy :rolleyes:

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

I blame Bush for some issues regarding the reaction to Katrina, however Nagin and Blanco are the big contributors to the mess. They are the ones that bare the most responsibilities, yet this is not happening because the media is out for Bush's head.

Wow I just defended Bush, would you look at that! :rolleyes:

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

I don't mean to be a smartass I just get really upset when people try to put me as left or right and debate that and then accuse me of not liking President Bush because I criticize him more than they think I should

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

Brent wrote:

Number 2 I meant in the eyes of the person who made that video, he is no better than the things he claims of Bush.

Why the hell do I even have to prove to you that I like the guy anyway? I don't debate people I debate the issues. I don't agree 100% with one person.

The reason you see me saying so many negative things right now is because Bush is the main person in the spotlight right now.

If Kerry was President you better believe I would be criticizing the mess out of him.

Stop trying to prove I do not like Bush, that is just utterly stupid. :rolleyes:

I will say negative things about him when I feel he is wrong and I will be positive and defend him when it is warranted in my eyes. Why is that such a big deal to you?

Do you just want to call me a liberal? Is it getting to you that bad that you can't just say "He's a liberal, it explains everything?"

Sounds like it to me.

I can't believe I just had to type this bullshit out.

This site does not contain half the issues I debated in the past where I have rigoursly defended Bush, you want a good example outside this site?

Enjoy :rolleyes:

Don't get riled. I'm not the one that said i defend Bush you did. Then tempt me to find them so i look. The first one i looked at you didn't make lite of and posted so. You don't owe me any explaination but for me to give you credit as an equal in debate or otherwise i use this process of creditility. I don't know you and you don't know me. All we know of is these words we write. Good, bad or indifferent. For us to debate we have to have common ground. You and i will pull on that ground back and forth. In debate one is forced to take people literal at there words. I expect you to do the same with me. The only proof for you to me is what you have writen. That is what i go by for your person. If you say you defended someone i expect to find some definition of that word in your context. I'm not doing it to be an asshole, i'm doing it to find out how credible at your word you are. it is up to you to answer if you like. A lawyer friend always told me if you don't want some thing ever repeated, Don't Write it Down. You will be called on it time and time again as i have found out in my resent life as a debater. On issues of dealing with just debating topics? I believe the persons credibility lends emencely to the argument. i mean if i can find general posts where you go two different ways on a specific topic( i don't mean you in general but as a process) depending on scenario you don't think that shows statuer for your argument? Example would be if i repeatedly find hipocritical remarks i am supposed to give him equality then some one who doesnot? In this world you will be judged far harsher then i, better for you if you expect it. I am not trying to prove you don't like Bush.
I'm not offended when you call us people religious right, it's just a name. I believe what you write, but i also will do a little research to as i expect you do too. Any thing i have writen to date on this site i expect to be held accountable for, hipocracy works both ways. Saying such i mean no offence.

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

Brent wrote:

I don't mean to be a smartass I just get really upset when people try to put me as left or right and debate that and then accuse me of not liking President Bush because I criticize him more than they think I should

Smartass away, i enjoy it. I come up with a few myself, LOL.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Drnaline wrote:

Don't get riled. I'm not the one that said i defend Bush you did. Then tempt me to find them so i look. The first one i looked at you didn't make lite of and posted so. You don't owe me any explaination but for me to give you credit as an equal in debate or otherwise i use this process of creditility. I don't know you and you don't know me. All we know of is these words we write. Good, bad or indifferent. For us to debate we have to have common ground. You and i will pull on that ground back and forth. In debate one is forced to take people literal at there words. I expect you to do the same with me. The only proof for you to me is what you have writen. That is what i go by for your person. If you say you defended someone i expect to find some definition of that word in your context. I'm not doing it to be an asshole, i'm doing it to find out how credible at your word you are. it is up to you to answer if you like. A lawyer friend always told me if you don't want some thing ever repeated, Don't Write it Down. You will be called on it time and time again as i have found out in my resent life as a debater. On issues of dealing with just debating topics? I believe the persons credibility lends emencely to the argument. i mean if i can find general posts where you go two different ways on a specific topic( i don't mean you in general but as a process) depending on scenario you don't think that shows statuer for your argument? Example would be if i repeatedly find hipocritical remarks i am supposed to give him equality then some one who doesnot? In this world would will be judged far harsher then i, better for you if you espect it. I am not trying to prove you don't like Bush. I'm not offended when you call us people religious right, it's just a name. I believe what you write, but i also will do a little research to as i expect you do too. Any thing i have writen to date on this site i expect to be held accountable for, hipocracy works both ways. Saying such i mean no offence.

When I say religous right as well that is not said to insult it is said to show who I am talking about.

Many use that as a way to somehow insult that and I want to clear up that is not my intention.

With that said... let's debate

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

Brent wrote:

When I say religous right as well that is not said to insult it is said to show who I am talking about.

Many use that as a way to somehow insult that and I want to clear up that is not my intention.

With that said... let's debate

Weather you mean malice, some people will still have issues with it. I don't, that's why i mention it. In those two words you group all religions to be right leaning, not even close. Muslims would take offence, Budist, Baptists, Jews, Catholics. You see what i mean? Sure you mean nothing but i gaurantee it will happen over and over. I'm not saying for you not to use it just be prepared for the cost of it's use. Time will tell if i'm right or not.
Religious right does not give enough definition for the term, my reasoning being all the above religions fall into the one catagory. I do not think you intend to do that. I may be wrong.
You can count on the same reaction like i got from you by implying a liberal leaning for your support of bush, see how easy it was for me to rile you? That will be tried on you many, many times. I guess you gotta expect it from all angles, cuz that's sure what it feels like it's coming from. But once you let emotion into the debate you will progress no further. IMO

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Holy crap what about the government and failure to act with New Orleans just like 9/11?

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Which government you talkin about? State or Fed? State failed miserably. I also believe 9/11 is clintons baby. Able Danger comes to mind.

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

Careful there ! Seems only the "Radical " Right is talking about Able Danger !

0 Replies

Just like 9/11, we now see the Government failed to act with securing New Orleans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know