what is certain is that the levees failed for lack of maintenance . not poor design ! the storm did not even hit New Orleans it hit to the east of the city and the levees failed after the storm was long gone . because bush cut the funds for the SELA project . On Jan 21, 5:10 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > I get he cut the funds. What I don't get is how you are connecting the > dot between his cutting funds and the levees failing. Have you read > anything about this? Exactly how many people need to tell you the > levees would have failed, even if in perfect condition? > > It's like you blaming me for not funding the shutters on your home > which caused the house to collapse when the tornado hit it. The house > was going to go down either way. The levees were not designed to > handle that size storm. It's pretty straight forward Mike. You're just > choosing to ignore it for political gain. > > On Jan 21, 4:38 pm, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > what don't you get about bush cutting the funds for the SELA project > > which caused the levees to fail ? > > > On Jan 21, 1:29 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Mike, you just don’t get it (or you don’t want to). And apparently, > > > you also refuse to read. So let me post part of what you aren’t > > > reading; > > > > “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) > > > official storm surge model SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from > > > Hurricanes) was developed in the late 1960s, and Leuttich and several > > > collaborators have created a more sophisticated model called ADCIRC > > > (Advanced Circulation) that has been adopted by the Army Corps of > > > Engineers and other groups. Last year, in an exercise simulating a > > > direct hit by a slow-moving category 3 hurricane, both models showed > > > that the levees would not prevent the flooding of New Orleans.” > > > > “We asked the Corps about that “design issue.” David Hewitt, a > > > spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, said McClellan was > > > referring to the fact that “the levees were designed for a category 3 > > > hurricane.” He told us that, consequently, “when it became apparent > > > that this was a category 5 hurricane, an evacuation of the city was > > > ordered.” (A category 3 storm has sustained winds of no more than 130 > > > miles per hour, while a category 5 storm has winds exceeding 155 miles > > > per hour. Katrina had winds of 160 mph as it approached shore, but > > > later weakened to winds of 140 mph as it made landfall, making it a > > > strong category 4 storm, according to the National Hurricane Center.)” > > > … > > > “The levee upgrade project around Lake Pontchartrain was only 60 to 90 > > > percent complete across most areas of New Orleans as of the end of > > > May, according to the Corps' May 23 fact sheet. Still, even if it had > > > been completed, the project's goal was protecting New Orleans from > > > storm surges up to "a fast-moving Category 3 hurricane,” according to > > > the fact sheet.” > > > … > > > “We don't know whether the levees would have done better had the work > > > been completed. But the Corps says that even a completed levee project > > > wasn't designed for the storm that actually occurred.” > > > > So, the true bottom line is that the levee system was not designed to > > > withstand a storm surge like Katrina. Period. No one (except you) > > > denies this. The funding Bush cut was for work to restore some of the > > > levees that had sunk to their previous height, which would still have > > > been insufficient to protect New Orleans. Obviously, any additional > > > work that could have been done had funding not been cut would have > > > helped, but when it’s unanimously agreed by those responsible for the > > > levees that the current design, if in perfect condition, couldn’t > > > protect against a storm like Katrina, then it’s being disingenuous to > > > continue to insist the Bush cuts caused the disaster. > > > > As for Bush refusing aid and rescue, you might want to go back and > > > look over the records. It was Governor Blanco who would not allow > > > supplies from the Red Cross to be delivered to the Super Dome. > > > > On Jan 21, 2:38 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > the bottom line is the levees failed because bush cut the funding for > > > > their repair and maintenance ! the shelters worked just fine until the > > > > levees failed AFTER the storm was over and in fact the storm came > > > > ashore east of New Orleans . But even if i ignored all of the facts > > > > and excepted your view that bush was blameless and Nagain was at fault > > > > which i don't ! that still does not excuse bush for refusing aid and > > > > rescue to the people of New Orleans because the Governor would not > > > > turnover control of the State to bush . > > > > > On Jan 20, 3:04 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > No, I am quoting the ACoE which has said all along the levees were > > > > > designed for a fast moving cat 3 storm. Not my words. I had nothing to > > > > > do with their design. And btw, I noted "fast moving cat 3" two posts > > > > > ago, so it's not dishonesty on my part but rather your poor reading > > > > > comprehension. > > > > > > The fact is, Katrina was a cat 5 one day before landfall. It was so > > > > > massive and powerful that it kicked up a cat 5 storm surge. The ACoE > > > > > expected a storm of this size to overrun the levees, though they did > > > > > not expect them to be breached. A simulation in 2002 predicted a storm > > > > > the size of Katrina would devastate New Orleans. Again, this is not my > > > > > word.. I am only paraphrasing, or quoting, depending on which post. > > > > > > The ACoE has indicated the work impacted by the Bush cuts was not > > > > > something that would have prevented the devastation Katrina inflicted. > > > > > The LA Times article (link provided) gives a pretty good historical > > > > > perspective of the 20 years leading up to Katrina. This is the genesis > > > > > of the failure of the levee system, not the Bush cuts. I’m sure the > > > > > Bush cuts didn’t help, but they should not be presented as the cause > > > > > of the disaster. > > > > > > And no, what I said was the death toll could have been significantly > > > > > reduced had people been evacuated in a timely fashion. The city had a > > > > > dysfunctional evacuation plan, despite a review of the plan a year > > > > > earlier. To argue Nagin didn’t have drivers for the buses only > > > > > enforces that the plan was dysfunctional. > > > > > > I did not tie the death toll to the Bush cuts so I’m not sure where > > > > > that comment is coming from. I’m saying the disaster was going to > > > > > happen with or without the cuts, but the death toll could have been > > > > > significantly reduced if the people had left the city before the > > > > > storm. Pretty simple concept. > > > > > > None of this absolves FEMA and the Bush administration’s response to > > > > > Katrina, both before and after. I’ve been clear, fwiw, that I thought > > > > > the response was poor and often embarrassing. I only object to those > > > > > who try to lay all the blame on FEMA and Bush. The disaster was the > > > > > culmination of many mistakes, starting 20 years before Katrina, and > > > > > the blame is shared by many at all levels. > > > > > > On Jan 20, 2:09 pm, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > so now you wish to change your claim form the levees were made for > > > > > > a > > > > > > fast moving storm instead of just a storm . and the death toll would > > > > > > been almost none if bush had not cut the funding SELA ! > > > > > > your dishonesty is noted ! > > > > > > On Jan 20, 12:28 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > As expected, you completely ignore everything that doesn't place > > > > > > > blame > > > > > > > on Bush. The storm made landfall as a strong cat 3, that is true, > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > the storm surge was 28-29' and typical of a cat 5. Further, the > > > > > > > storm > > > > > > > was massively wide and slow moving, so it battered the area for a > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > long time. The levees were designed to withstand a fast moving > > > > > > > cat 3. > > > > > > > That means a much lower storm surge and a storm that passes thru > > > > > > > quickly. The ACoE has concluded the levee system was not designed > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > withstand what it was hit with. The ACoE has said the work that > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > affected by the Bush cuts wouldn't have made a difference. It was > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > reengineering project, scheduled to complete 10 years later, > > > > > > > which was > > > > > > > going to make a difference. I'm guessing you didn't read the > > > > > > > article > > > > > > > at the link I provided. Why worry about facts when anti-Bush > > > > > > > rhetoric > > > > > > > is much more fun. > > > > > > > > And the death toll would have been MUCH lower had the people been > > > > > > > evacuated properly. The best way to survive a storm is to not be > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > when it arrives. You ignore that because the fault for that is > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > Nagin and Blanco. > > > > > > > > On Jan 20, 11:32 am, "liberal mike532 !" > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > check again it was a cat three when it came through New Orleans > > > > > > > > . and > > > > > > > > the SELA project was designed to maintain the levees which > > > > > > > > failed > > > > > > > > because the bush administration cut the funding and the repairs > > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > not done ! > > > > > > > > and even after the levees failed the death toll would have been > > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > > less fi bush had not blocked any aid from getting to the people > > > > > > > > trapped by the flood . > > > > > > > > On Jan 20, 10:27 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > VT, > > > > > > > > > > > Mayor had no one to drive the buses, maybe if their had > > > > > > > > > > been some National Guard to help evacuate the Poor, elderly > > > > > > > > > > and sick, you know the ones without the ability to leave > > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > assistance? > > > > > > > > > > In case you weren’t aware, there ARE local, city and state > > > > > > > > > government > > > > > > > > > agencies whose responsibility is to take care of their people > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
