Did Bush Sink New Orleans?
(Written evening of 08/30/05. Updated and posted early 08/31/05.)
Earlier today I cried for the tragic losses in New Orleans and surrounding coastal areas. Tonight I am bitterly angry for the same reason. And crying still…
The president told us that we needed to fight in Iraq to save lives here at home, and yet — after moving billions of domestic dollars to the Persian Gulf — there are bodies floating through the streets of Louisiana. What does George W. Bush have to say for himself now?
That closing paragraph of Will Bunch’s post When the levee breaks is the worst indictment yet of the greedy incompetent jerk we now call President. Here is another nugget to grab your attention:
The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it’s too late. One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer was a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach. The levee failure appears to be causing a human tragedy of epic proportions…
Do yourself a favor and read the entire article, which I summarize this way:
In order to provide funding for homeland defense, the war on terrorism, and his war in Iraq, Bush cut budgets of many departments and projects, including allowing less than 20 % of what the Army Corps of Engineers said was required for protection of New Orleans from subsidence of the levees. The levee broke. New Orleans no longer exists.
I understand these things can be screwed around and made to prove almost anything, but if there is any small thread of truth that the Army Corps of Engineers was denied over 80% of required funding for protection of New Orleans, then the hundreds or thousands that will eventually be declared dead are all on Bush’s already bloody hands. And if that turns out to be the case, then damn him to hell!
8 Comments so far
While I can easily see your point of view, and it is hard not to find fault with not fixing the levee, it is also true that no one could possibly have predicted a disaster of these proportions.
In hindsight it is easy to say, “See! He should have fixed this and shouldn’t have moved the money elsewhere!” It is much more difficult to plot a course for the future. Irrespective of one’s opinion of the president and the choices his white house have made, it is unreasonable to blame deaths on a fix that may or may not have been performed had situations been different. For all intents and purposes, repairs on the levee might have weakened it, making for a larger disaster.
No, I will not condemn a man for not being able to predict the future. I have my own differences of opinion from President Bush, but I won’t hold him to so high a standard as that.
And when I say repairs might have weakened the levee, I mean, “suppose the disaster came in the midst of said repairs, when the levee wasn’t yet completely butressed against the flood waters.”
Aaron, I always respect your opinion and welcome your comments. I realize that in posing these questions my position was extreme and my language harsh. That is precisely why I slept on it overnight before publishing.
You feel that “no one could possibly have predicted a disaster of these proportions.” I differ based on the fact that the possibility of THIS EXACT DISASTER has been predicted for years. That formed the rationale for the many years of studies, work and expenditures in the billions by the USACE and others. Not only was New Orleans a great and unique American city, but the Port of New Orleans has been so vital to our economy for exports, imports, and warehousing/stockpiling. Protection of the commercial aspects alone were enough to justify the building and maintenance of the levee and pump systems for many years.
We are already feeling the immediate short-term impact of the disaster. The local devastation is likely to carry with it a catastrophic impact on national and international trade, even our very survival, in the months and years to come. You think my position extreme and me an alarmist? I hope you are right, my friend!
Finally, if Bush had denied the funding for protection of New Orleans to fund a more noble cause than the unprovoked pre-emptive strike to overthrow a bad dictator and regime and the invasion/destruction/occupation of Iraq, his actions might be a bit more palatable and forgiveable. These are the reasons I stand by my thoughts, feelings and words in this post, harshness of opinion and language notwithstanding.
This is not just Bush’s fault, this is the fault of an American rush to irresponsibility brought into fruition by Ronald Reagan’s puppet masters. Americans are so quick to buy into magic thinking if it means they can get another tv/car/pool etc. that they voted for a man who promised to maintain it, who not so coincidentally, has the same masters.
It is not easy to put one’s neck out and make a statement which could be interpreted, accurately or not, as callous — especially in light of the inconceivable losses of life and livelihood, revealed so unyieldingly to our eyes these past few days. Could the secondary disaster of the levee breaking have been prevented? It would be folly to argue against that position, indeed.
I am still unsure of how much of this can be lain solely at President Bush’s feet, regardless of one’s position on the war in Iraq. Too many legislators are involved in budgetary concerns to permit me to blithely point all of the blame at President Bush. In light of the public fear of terrorist threats, both real and imaginary, much more attention has been directed towards preventing another 9/11-like scenario, which is to say: terrorist invoked, be it an attack on a nuclear power plant, another plane flown into a building, suicide bombers, etc. It seems in the rush to secure the public from those dangers the more temporal securities have been overlooked, such as the levee. It it certainly conceivable that terrorists could have attempted to destroy the levee to accomplish much the same thing, but then what preparations would have prevented that?
It is easy to point the finger of blame, especially when some must certainly exist, which I do not deny — the levee should have been shored up if there were concerns. My position still remains that while tragic beyond measure, these events cannot solely all be lain at the feet of President Bush.
right. It’s never bush’s fault to those who support him. He had no clue about bin Laden and planes used as weapons– who could have guessed… except they had been told by the previous administration and he had been given a report in August which he promptly ignored– after all on vacation, dontcha know! He, his administration and all those who decided to fund a war with a tax cut bear responsibility for all the cuts that damage our own infrastructure– not to mention the debt we owe to China and who knows how that’ll be paid back. this generation doesn’t care, doesn’t worry about it. Nothing to them and when something goes wrong– who could have known?!
to add to that, I agree totally with the blog Winston wrote. The followers of bush always seem to ignore facts to suit their desire to think they had to be right. It’s the Emperor’s New Clothes in my opinion. They don’t want to see their man is naked. And now he will run around trying to look presidential (think 9/11) and try to look the part of the hero and the ones who support him will go oh my how wonderful he is and ignore anything that doesn’t suit their preconception. One day they may all see that man is a fraud but it will be too late, already is for New Orleans, hopefully not for this country. It’s too early in the morning where I am for ranting but guess it’s too late for me to say that
For the record, I support the President because that is an office that the people of the United States ought to support, regardless of whether you voted for the current president or not.
Secondly, before you put words in my mouth and presume blindly that I am a “supporter” or “follower” of Bush the person, know this: I didn’t vote for him. I didn’t vote for Kerry either, nor for Nader. For whom did I cast my vote? I am not going to say, though if you knew me very well you could probably guess.
Beware blind assertions you have no way of backing up, whether observation seems to prove you right or not.