more interesting:

User Posted Link

This dates from last year and is eerily prescient. It also points out several things that rebut the common consensus that this is all Bush's fault or that he could have some how prevented it.
1) The study alone will take four years,
2) it is a decades old problem,
3) even when the study is complete and the plans approved and appropriated it could take more then 20 years to complete....

Meaning even if Bush had put this at the top of the list when he first took office, and had Congress done what they needed to to appropriate funds, NO would still be under water today, since they would only be at the most 2 years into construction....

And to repeat an earlier post - the Corps of Engineers' scheme, started in '95 under Clinton, was only ever intended to build defences to a Cat 3 standard. It was a Cat 4 hurricane that struck. So all the funding in the world would have made no difference. It's just plain wrong to say that Bush cutting it's funding is a reason wh the disaster has occured.

There are many reasons to villify Bush, a natural disaster is a very poor one to choose. There will be valid recriminations at all levels - Federal, and especially State and City - but to try to pin the blame on Bush, and Bush alone, as many seem to be trying to do, displays a singularly blinkered attitude.

Posted By: LEagle, Sep 3, 17:25:56