and once again just for you ! but if you still refuse to except the facts you will just have to sail on in your ignorance ! i don' wish to waste anymore time on you . [ "IT'S MORE THAN THAT," EXPLAINS WILL BUNCH Will Bunch is a senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News. http://www.alternet.org/story/24871/1 September 2005. "Washington knew exactly what needed to be done to protect the citizens of New Orleans from disasters like Katrina. Yet federal funding for Louisiana flood control projects was diverted to pay for the war in Iraq." On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security (furthering the USA police state…ed) and the war in Iraq, (furthering their new world order agenda…ed) and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."
Levees are sinking: That June, with the 2004 hurricane seasion starting, the Corps' Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for. >From the June 18, 2004 Times-Picayune: "The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don't get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can't stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn't that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can't raise them." The panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain. Federal Government funds reduced: The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane- and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs. According to New Orleans CityBusiness this June 5: The district has identified $35 million in projects to build and improve levees, floodwalls and pumping stations in St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson and St. Charles parishes. Those projects are included in a Corps line item called Lake Pontchartrain, where funding is scheduled to be cut from $5.7 million this year to $2.9 million in 2006. Naomi said it's enough to pay salaries but little else. "We'll do some design work. We'll design the contracts and get them ready to go if we get the money. But we don't have the money to put the work in the field, and that's the problem," Naomi said. There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. (Please note there was no mention of lack of resources to do the job - just 'no money'…ed) As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22: That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But 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. 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 on Monday. The levee failure appears to be causing a human tragedy of epic proportions: "We probably have 80 percent of our city under water; with some sections of our city the water is as deep as 20 feet. Both airports are underwater," Mayor Ray Nagin told a radio interviewer. The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed: "The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need." Washington knew that this day could come at any time, and it knew the things that needed to be done to protect the citizens of New Orleans. But in the tradition of the riverboat gambler, the Bush administration decided to roll the dice on its fool's errand in Iraq, and on a tax cut that mainly benefitted the rich. Now Bush has lost that gamble, big time. The president told us that we needed to fight in Iraq to save lives here at home. 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?" (emphasis added…ed). http://www.alor.org/Volume41/Vol41No35.htm ] On Jan 23, 9:58 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > No, you've provide YOUR opinion, and an ignorant one at that. > > Why don't you tell us then, since you're such the expert, the precise > causes for the failures. I don't mean your worthless "..maintenance > wasn't done" rhetoric, but the actual cause of the failure in > engineering terms. What's that? Oh, you don't know that. Just what I > thought.. another bullshit artist with an oversized ego. It also > proves you haven't read one damn thing on the subject. Hell, I did all > the leg work for you and posted you links to all of the information. > I've netted out the findings, just for you, because of your obviously > limited reading comprehension skills. I do all this for you and still > you continue to embarrass yourself. > > Maybe you can get your friends at daily kos or truthout to draw you > some crayon drawings.. maybe that will work. What a dolt. > > On Jan 23, 9:27 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > i have provided you with the truth not bush administration propaganda > > and lies . > > what you know about how and why the levees failed would fit in a > > thimble . have you even looked at what the SELA project was ? i rather > > doubt you have or you wouldn't keep making a fool of yourself ! > > On Jan 23, 9:20 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ACoE Documents, Engineering Studies, NOAA Documents.. all posted here > > > that support my position. > > > > And what have you contributed? Your opinion. > > > > Which proves one thing... that you don't know shit about what you're > > > talking about. > > > > On Jan 23, 2:48 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > you have yet to provide anything but excuses for bush ! pull your head > > > > out of your butt and face the facts . the levee failure was because > > > > the maintenance was not done ! > > > > > On Jan 22, 4:49 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > You never change. I continue to provide you PROOF, via quotes, web > > > > > links and documents, that this is not the case. What we get from you > > > > > is insults, followed by personal opinion. Why don't you post some > > > > > evidence that the levees failed because of funding cuts. You haven't > > > > > and you can't because there is none. No one from the ACoE is on record > > > > > as having said the funding cuts had anything to do with it. Is General > > > > > Strock full of shit too? I mean, he's only the head of the agency > > > > > responsible for the levees. > > > > > > At this point I can only conclude you don't know jack shit about the > > > > > levees. > > > > > > Being that I’m such a nice guy I’ll go so far as to provide you two > > > > > more links. I’m going to pretend you actually care what caused the > > > > > failures, and at these two links you’ll find lots of good information > > > > > on this from people with lots of qualifications and who actually > > > > > investigated the failures. I point this out just in case you want to > > > > > suggest they too are full of shit. > > > > > >http://www.ewrinstitute.org/files/pdf/katrinalevees.pdf > > > > > >http://kerrn.org/pdf/IPETBEAreview.pdf > > > > > > And in an honest effort to keep you from embarrassing yourself > > > > > further, let me remind you the projects affected by the funding cuts > > > > > were intended to bring the levees back to their original design > > > > > specifications. This is important because, assuming you read the > > > > > reports above, you will find that the original specifications were > > > > > severely lacking. They were doomed to failure. In fact, several > > > > > failure points were sections that had been recently repaired. > > > > > > I’ve also discovered something else; you have no reading > > > > > comprehension. I have never said the Mayor or Governor did any work on > > > > > the levees. I have said a dozen times or more it's the ACoE that > > > > > designed and maintained them. No wonder you get things so screwed up. > > > > > > On Jan 22, 3:09 pm, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > frank to put it bluntly you are full of shit ! > > > > > > if you had done any research at all you would know that the levees > > > > > > failed because the maintenance on them was not done. and the reason > > > > > > it > > > > > > wasn't done was because bush cut the funding for SELA . and if you > > > > > > had > > > > > > bothered to think or read anything at all about the levees system > > > > > > you > > > > > > wold know that the corps of engineers does the work on the levees > > > > > > not > > > > > > the mayor or the Governor . > > > > > > On Jan 22, 11:52 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I've done extensive research on this, but I seriously doubt you > > > > > > > have. > > > > > > > Unlike you, who thrives on blaming Bush, I’m indifferent. If he’s > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > fault, I’ve got no problem pointing that out. But unlike you, I > > > > > > > look > > > > > > > at the facts and make informed decisions without any preconceived > > > > > > > ideas on who to blame and no incentive to falsely assign blame for > > > > > > > political gain. > > > > > > > > You ignore the role that Blanco played in the disaster. > > > > > > > You ignore the role that Nagin played in the disaster. > > > > > > > You ignore the history of the levee system and the role the levee > > > > > > > commission played, via its corruption, negligence and > > > > > > > mismanagement. > > > > > > > You ignore what the ACoE and NOAA said concerning the design of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > levees and its basic inability to resist a storm the size of > > > > > > > Katrina. > > > > > > > > The only thing you pay attention to are the Bush cuts - cuts I > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > consider shortsighted and ill-advised - but which, by all 'expert > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > official' accounts - played little to no role in the disaster. > > > > > > > You've > > > > > > > never posted anything that supports your argument other than your > > > > > > > own > > > > > > > opinion. The ACoE is responsible for the levees. Can you post > > > > > > > anything > > > > > > > from them saying the cuts caused the failure? Do you understand > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > history of the levee system and do you understand that if not for > > > > > > > corruption and mismanagement, this would never have been an issue > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > debate? Have you read the details of the actual projects affected > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > the cuts and do you understand what they were designed to > > > > > > > achieve? Do > > > > > > > you understand the impact of the eradication of the wetlands that > > > > > > > created a natural barrier for New Orleans, and what impact that > > > > > > > had on > > > > > > > the disaster? I doubt you understand any of this. You just want to > > > > > > > blame Bush.. screw the details. > > > > > > > > Quote: > > > > > > > You might want to talk to General Strock, who is the commander of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > Army Corps of Engineers, because I think he's talked to some > > > > > > > reporters > > > > > > > already and talked about some of these issues. I think some people > > > > > > > maybe have tried to make a suggestion or imply that certain > > > > > > > funding > > > > > > > would have prevented the flooding from happening, and he has > > > > > > > essentially said there's been nothing to suggest that whatsoever, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > it's been more of a design issue with the levees. > > > > > > > > Quote: > > > > > > > The worst has happened in New Orleans and not everyone is > > > > > > > surprised. > > > > > > > For years, specialists have warned that the city, built partly > > > > > > > below > > > > > > > sea level and in an area of radically depleted wetlands, was a > > > > > > > natural > > > > > > > disaster waiting to happen. And when it did, they said, we would > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > no one to blame but ourselves. > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > But, according to the US Geological Survey, Louisiana has lost > > > > > > > 1,900 > > > > > > > square miles of wetland in the past seven decades - an area larger > > > > > > > than the state of Rhode Island. > > > > > > > > The draining of the wetlands to make way for roads, malls, beach > > > > > > > communities, marinas and condominiums has also meant shrinkage of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > shoreline. Louisiana, in fact, loses 25 square miles of coast > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > year. > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 10:33 am, "liberal mike532 !" > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > like it or not the actions of G W Bush when he cut the funds > > > > > > > > for SELA > > > > > > > > caused the deaths of thousands of Americans ! > > > > > > > > and i would suggest you do some research before you blindly > > > > > > > > except a > > > > > > > > report written by one of bush's administration . > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 10:22 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > No one ever said it was poor design; it simply was an > > > > > > > > > inadequate > > > > > > > > > design for something other than a fast moving cat 3 storm. > > > > > > > > > The ACoE > > > > > > > > > has said it wasn't designed for that type of storm, and would > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > failed regardless. There are storm simulations that were done > > > > > > > > > by NOAA > > > > > > > > > prior to Katrina that indicated that under exactly the > > > > > > > > > conditions > > > > > > > > > Katrina presented, New Orleans would flood. All these experts > > > > > > > > > tell us > > > > > > > > > New Orleans would flood, but Mike knows better. Your > > > > > > > > > arrogance is > > > > > > > > > impressive, if nothing else. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, the center of the storm was to the east of New Orleans. > > > > > > > > > That > > > > > > > > > spared it the worst of the winds, but had little bearing on > > > > > > > > > the storm > > > > > > > > > surge, which was over 28', yet you choose to ignore that > > > > > > > > > fact. I > > > > > > > > > provided you a link to give you a 20 year history of > > > > > > > > > corruption and > > > > > > > > > mismanagement regarding the levees - proof that long before > > > > > > > > > Bush was > > > > > > > > > president the seeds to disaster were being sewn, but you > > > > > > > > > choose to > > > > > > > > > ignore the facts. It's public record that the levee committee > > > > > > > > > routinely channeled funds to casinos and other 'more > > > > > > > > > important' > > > > > > > > > projects, but you choose to ignore the facts. You're not > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
