Bush's Ignorance

Chris and I have both written over the last few days about the implications of Bush administration policy for Hurricane Katrina. Some of you seemed to think this is politicization. Obviously, I strongly disagree. Even in tough situations -- and we both wrote those pieces before the full extent of the devastation became clear (in some cases, before it really started) -- it's important to speak truth to power. Especially when that power is as ignorant and arrogant as the Bush administration. In fact, it turns out that neither of us went far enough in pointing out the Bush administration's culpability in this disaster.

There's a story making the rounds in the blogosphere about the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project. The most comprehensive information comes from Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News.

New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

Bunch goes on to cite a number of articles in various publications that lay out a story about project funding that is, in retrospect, horrifying. As of early 2004, the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project was "about 20% incomplete due to lack of funds." The administration's 2005 budget underfunded the project by roughly $16 million. Last summer, with debts mounting on the project, the Army Corps of Engineers requested and received about $2.25 million from a local Louisiana levee agency (which had to be covered by a local property tax hike). This spring, the Bush administration proposed "the steepest reduction in hurricane- and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history." SELA's budget was slashed by over two-thirds. In late September, just after Hurricane Ivan, SELA sought to at least get more money for studies regarding hurricane preparedness. New Orleans' Times-Picayune pointed out the reason that the money was unavailable: "the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said."

To be fair, hindsight is 20/20. And stronger levees would have done nothing to prevent the massive destruction in places like Biloxi. But it's now clear that a number of warnings, ignored by the Bush administration, could very well have diminished the massive extent of the disastrous flooding in New Orleans.

Not to be redundant, but the Red Cross is really going to need help with this one.
Click here to donate.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Comments

13 Comments

Didn't Louisiana vote for Bush?
By golly, they sure did.

Louisiana also went for Bush in 2000.

I wonder how all those Bush voters feel about Fearless Leader now?

Randi Rhodes had a story about several states shipping out their prisoners to different states so the prison guards could fill in for the National Guard members who were in Iraq. The number of missing guard members just in the directly affected states is in the thousands. There could perhaps be tens of thousands that could have been called in from other states.

I wonder how all the members of the National Guard who are over in Iraq feel about not being able to do a job they have been trained for, because they are in Iraq doing a job they have not been trained for?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-30 07:30PM | 0 recs
Did New Orleans vote for Bush?
No, it fucking didn't.
by Drew 2005-08-30 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Did New Orleans vote for Bush?
That's a pretty strange reaction Drew. Why did you change my question from Louisiana to New Orleans?
by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-30 08:54PM | 0 recs
Because
It's New Orleans that's in harm's way, it's pretty obvious that your "nyah, nyah, red state" childishness was directed at those who were in harm's way - not those outside of it.
by Drew 2005-08-30 09:19PM | 0 recs
Nevertheless
Nice to see Bush show his true colors now that the election is passed. He'd be like flies over shit if this was Florida in 2004. It's a shame that this domestic tragedy will send a bigger message to people than Iraq...but at least there will be no doubt now about how big a tool this President is.
by risenmessiah 2005-08-30 10:43PM | 0 recs
It takes a hurricane
It's pretty obvious your childish outburst is irrational. I said Louisiana, because I meant Louisiana. This should be a wake up call to a whole lot of red state voters. Let's hope it's a wake up call to the Democratic Party as well.

Don't shoot the messenger for delivering bad news. Nothing I have ever said or done put anybody in harms way. Bush's decisions have repeatedly put American citizens in harms way and demonstrated that his policies show a callous disregard for the welfare of the very people who voted for him. Let's hope that this event finally puts the lie to Bush's claim of having an ounce of compassion.

The signs have been clear and repeated that Bush is willing to gamble with the lives, fortunes and welfare of average Americans to enrich his wealthy friends. This is just one more dramatic example in a long line of examples. The fact that it took a hurricane to get the attention of red state voters demonstrates a pride blindness on their part that is remarkable.

Michael Moore dramatically showed the world Bush's lack of compassion and lack of moral fiber with his "My Pet Goat" scene in Farenheit 9/11. Bush's lack of compassion and lack of moral fiber has been on open display for all to see for years now. Red State voters and Bush supporters in Blue States need to take a hard look at themselves and what they have wrought.

If you are upset by the devastation of New Orleans you should be turning your outrage on Bush, who has fiddled for five years, while America burns, to standing ovations from red state conservatives. It should not take a hurricane to point out the obvious. There are some problems that only the federal government can solve. Conservatives have been quoting Reagan's shallow mantra that "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem" for thirty years.

We can only hope that Democrats have the moxie to finally drive a stake through the heart of that canard. The common welfare of the American people is everybody's concern. There are really two questions that my simple, accurate and obvious observation raises:

(1.) Why does it take a hurricane to get the attention of red state Bush supporters?

(2.) Will Hurricane Katrina really wake them up?

It is perhaps the saddest commentary of all that I even have to ask the second question. It is still conjecture and presumption on my part that even Hurrican Katrina will get their attention. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Rush Limbaugh and the RWNM will blame Bill Clinton and Michael Moore for Hurricane Katrina? Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that red state apologists will be out in full force denying that Bush is in any way responsible for his reckless policies?

I just hope red state Democrats and DLC Democrats don't continue to help the RWNM blame liberals for Bush's failures. Even a hurrican can't get the attention of some people.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-31 03:00AM | 0 recs
How about I shoot the messenger
For being an ass.

You don't turn to a Louisiana voter - one-tenth of whom are New Orleans voters, too - and say, "Well, now that your family is dead and your home is destroyed, don't you think I'm right about Bush?"  Especially when most of New Orleans didn't like Bush to begin with.

This isn't about criticism of Bush policy, which is wholly appropriate.  It's about blaming the victim, which isn't, both because it's inappropriate and fucking stupid.

by Drew 2005-08-31 07:25AM | 0 recs
Here's a link to the article
Be sure to forward this article to friends and family in Louisiana.  They should know how this guy screwed them over.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313

by Ryan 2005-08-30 10:17PM | 0 recs
Old habits die hard
"But it's now clear that a number of warnings, ignored by the Bush administration, could very well have diminished the massive extent of the disastrous flooding in New Orleans."

Ain't it something how the last four words of that sentence could be swapped out with "attacks of 11 Sept" and the sentence would retain just as much meaning.

by mlanger 2005-08-30 11:18PM | 0 recs
Not politicization, but the truth
If we don't sharply hold BushCo to account for their priorities and actions (to avoid looking political) then the Dem. party has lost its reason for being.

The facts in this post (and articles) need to be widely understood.  There is no other basis for judging whether BushCo has, in fact, preserved and protected our nation.

by JimPortlandOR 2005-08-30 11:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Not politicization, but the truth
And let's just think about what things would be like if a Democrat were in office and precious federal dollars were being squandered on a war in a foreign country.

Can you imagine the Republican reaction? They wouldn't just speak truth to power, they would politicize it like they do everything else (ahem, Brit Hume).

Liberals and Democrats should not use kid gloves on Bush when a disaster strikes if criticism is warranted. We did so after 9/11, and look at the result.

by LiberalFromPA 2005-08-31 06:46AM | 0 recs
Kenneth Fair
Policies have consequences.  Bad policies have bad consequences.

No one's blaming George Bush or the Republicans for the hurricane; that's a force of nature.  But they chose to give massive tax breaks to the wealthy and to start a war in Iraq.  They chose to cut funding for infrastructure projects and disaster relief, and to move materiel and people that might have helped mitigate this disaster halfway around the world.  The policies they chose have made the situation worse.  The dots aren't that hard to connect.

Most of us - and I include myself here - are ignorant of things like the amount of spending on levee systems.  We don't have that sort of information at our fingertips.  We require those who do know such things to point them out to us.  Calmly, rationally, without rancor.  Give us the details.  Help us to see the consequences of our decisions, in who we elect and what they decide to do.  That's not politicizing the disaster.  That's helping us to prevent the next one.

by kenfair 2005-08-31 06:23AM | 0 recs
good
Good story!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by kevinliao 2005-09-17 07:33PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------