The disaster WAS bush's fault with PROOF

[Kristi]

An interesting theory, however, and as I stated in this thread before:

1) You have no way of knowing how much money it would have actually taken to repair it.

2) You have no idea whether it was Bush who personally cut the budget. Congressional budgets are initially created by, you guessed it, Congress.

3) There are a hundred sob stories every DAY from organizations and people who didn't get enough of a handout from the federal government. The care of NO's levees should be state funded. Do you have information about how much money they recieved from the state for this pursuit? I imagine the cut was probably made to try and wean NO and LA off the federal teat and get them to pay for state infrastructure with state funds.

4) Most of this funding cut was set to take place in 2006. It is 2005 now.

5) Reinforcing the levees is not an 'insert coin, *poof* they're fixed' type of situation. It's a years-long effort. Even if they'd gotten every cent they'd wanted, it would have taken years.

My question to you would be, then, why don't these things occur to you on your own? Do you ever question the information you recieve? Analyze? Do research?

It was to take years to fix the levee's - you are correct. The 'Council' heading up the replacement of these levees needed so many millions of dollars per year to get these fixed - they didn't get even half of what they were asking for this year. I also said the BUSH ADMINISTRATION (including Senate, etc.) cut the funding - I know it wasn't all Bush. It was the administration as a whole who cut the funding. The job and request for money was requested for a reason - because Louisana saw a problem and wanted to fix it. But since that funding was cut so drastically, the levees couldn't be repaired as needed.

[Brett]

It was the administration as a whole who cut the funding. The job and request for money was requested for a reason - because Louisana saw a problem and wanted to fix it. But since that funding was cut so drastically, the levees couldn't be repaired as needed.

And so the people who designed them in the 60's.... wasnt thier fault, and the fact from the start they knew it wasnt enough, but now Bush to you is liable for 40+ years of playing with fate? are you this fuckin stupid?

[malfeas99]

It was to take years to fix the levee's - you are correct. The 'Council' heading up the replacement of these levees needed so many millions of dollars per year to get these fixed - they didn't get even half of what they were asking for this year. I also said the BUSH ADMINISTRATION (including Senate, etc.) cut the funding - I know it wasn't all Bush. It was the administration as a whole who cut the funding. The job and request for money was requested for a reason - because Louisana saw a problem and wanted to fix it. But since that funding was cut so drastically, the levees couldn't be repaired as needed.

So they didn't get half of what they needed. Unfortunately there's no data that I know of that says how much it would have actually taken. These groups tend to request far more money than they need from the federal government for several reasons: They know they won't get it so they highball it, they want it for other pork projects, they're corrupt and want to line their pockets, etc.

As I said, care of the Levees should have been a state and city issue. It's not like the federal funds were the only source of money. They shouldn't have expected a single cent from the federal government, but they got millions.. just not as many millions as they wanted.

How does this make the federal government complicit in the disaster? It doesn't. There's a lot of holes in this story, and only people who have made up their minds about it already will accept it as legitimate 'proof' of anything.

[A.P. Photography]

It was to take years to fix the levee's - you are correct. The 'Council' heading up the replacement of these levees needed so many millions of dollars per year to get these fixed - they didn't get even half of what they were asking for this year. I also said the BUSH ADMINISTRATION (including Senate, etc.) cut the funding - I know it wasn't all Bush. It was the administration as a whole who cut the funding. The job and request for money was requested for a reason - because Louisana saw a problem and wanted to fix it. But since that funding was cut so drastically, the levees couldn't be repaired as needed.

The point is that no matter what they say now, it was too short of a time frame to repair the levee's before this happened. Even if they had started to rebuild them, yes they would have to do that in order to strengthen them, people would still be crying they did not do enough. If the levee's had been designed to withstand a Cat. 5 in the first place, this might not have been near as bad as it is now.

[Kristi]

The point is that no matter what they say now, it was too short of a time frame to repair the levee's before this happened. Even if they had started to rebuild them, yes they would have to do that in order to strengthen them, people would still be crying they did not do enough. If the levee's had been designed to withstand a Cat. 5 in the first place, this might not have been near as bad as it is now.

No one knows that if they had begun to be rebuilt if they would have held up better or not, but there is a chance that it might have and there wouldn't be such a problem now. The point is is that this administration had the opportunity to keep replacements going and they hindered the process and so now we won't ever know if they would have stopped anything or not. Experts say that even the slightest replacements could have helped some - and some is better than not at all. and you are probably right - even if they had been replaced - someone would still be bitching that it wasn't enough - but at least a step was taken.

[A.P. Photography]

No one knows that if they had begun to be rebuilt if they would have held up better or not, but there is a chance that it might have and there wouldn't be such a problem now. The point is is that this administration had the opportunity to keep replacements going and they hindered the process and so now we won't ever know if they would have stopped anything or not. Experts say that even the slightest replacements could have helped some - and some is better than not at all. and you are probably right - even if they had been replaced - someone would still be bitching that it wasn't enough - but at least a step was taken.

From an engineering stand point, no it would not have been done in time. Every single levee would have to be rebuilt and their are miles and miles of levee's there to rebuild.

[Kristi]

From an engineering stand point, no it would not have been done in time. Every single levee would have to be rebuilt and their are miles and miles of levee's there to rebuild.

Sorry - I was a little vague in that response. I didn't mean that all levee's had to be rebuilt, i'm jsut saying that maybe if some of them had been rebuilt, or at least some of them strengthened, then maybe there wouldn't be as big of a problem (with flooding).

[malfeas99]

Sorry - I was a little vague in that response. I didn't mean that all levee's had to be rebuilt, i'm jsut saying that maybe if some of them had been rebuilt, or at least some of them strengthened, then maybe there wouldn't be as big of a problem (with flooding).

Well then I don't think you're asking the right question, which is:

Why hadn't any of them been strengthened up till now?

The money was there. It was less money, but they had it. It doesn't even count the money that the state and city appropriated for it. Most of the funding cuts weren't scheduled to happen till 2006. So it's not as though these people were penniless and waiting for a check to get this started.

[A.P. Photography]

Sorry - I was a little vague in that response. I didn't mean that all levee's had to be rebuilt, i'm jsut saying that maybe if some of them had been rebuilt, or at least some of them strengthened, then maybe there wouldn't be as big of a problem (with flooding).

While I can understand your perspective, let me see if I can show you what I mean. Say that the area where the levee broke was strengthend up to a Cat. 5 level. That area is stronger now but the pressure moves on to the weaker area in the levee wall. Imagine you have a large swimming pool that is made to withstand 2000 psi but one section was only made to withstand 1000 psi. The pool sustains a constant pressure of 1700 psi. All of the pool would hold except for the 1000 psi area which would give way because it was not designed to hold that pressure. Same thing with rebuilding certain sections of a levee.