The Big Story: How Bush's War Caused New Orleans Destruction
The most shocking news item to come out of a week of horror is this:
1)
The old and decrepit levee system that protected New Orleans was sorely
in need of repair. However, Bush diverted the money
earmarked for flood control upgrades to pay for his boondoggle in Iraq
(according to Wayne Madsen, specifically, $250 million in New Orleans flood control money is now in Halliburton's pocket); and
2)
More people could have been quickly and effectively evacuated before
the storm hit if the National Guard hadn't been over in Iraq murdering
people for no reason.
Check out these sources:
Wayne Madsen Report
AlterNet.org – Why the Levee Broke
Blog For Iowa 
Yes, money might have been diverted. However, I question federal funding for making it possible for a city to exist below sea level on the shores of the sea. If a city wishes to have such a novelty, either the city or state may consider funding such projects. But when legislators from other states debate federal funds for a rainforest in Iowa, it's hard to justify why taxpayer money from people anywhere outside of Iowa would even consider handing over money.
The hurricane brought tragic outcomes, and I have some sympathy. However, I wish that areas in high risk would accept the costs of living in high risk areas. I doubt that FEMA would help me if I chose to build a hut on an active volcano and begged for help when it burns down.
New Orleans residents should recognize the constant risk of becoming a New Atlantis, and when a manditory evacuation is called for, they should have found any way out of town possible, even if they had to walk. Afterall, they had a few days to get some distance, and at the very least could have walked across town to get above sea level. New Orleans and the state could have decided to use their own money to upgrade the levy system after a decade of federal rejection; note that Bush wasn't the only President since they started asking.
We have become a nation of victims and a nation that realizes that if we don't want to pay for something or don't choose to act on something, the government will come and bail us out. All this said, I do agree that more could have been done to prepare greater rescue and relief services in advance. It looks like everyone is to blame, ranging from federal response time, the refusal of local and state agencies to look after themselves, and everyone else for not pushing for a government that rewards people for making poor decisions.
It is good to help others in need, and plenty of non-profit organizations exist to assist in that. And the government should try to assist the people that followed the directions to go to the dome, since they assume some responsibility once they give directions. Plus, it rewards people that abide by the directions given by governing bodies.
If states took over looking after its own people and such preventative projects, the taxes may be higher in regions of high risk, but shouldn't the cost of living in such areas be higher? In addition, insurance companies should be asking for high premiums if they even expect to cover areas with such high risk for damage. With higher costs to live in high-risk areas, fewer people will choose to live there. With fewer people in high-risk areas, we should find the devestation of future events much smaller.
I guess I just don't like people blaming a limited group of people when there is plenty of blame to go around. And I feel less concern for people that live on active volcanos, build homes across fault lines, or choose to live in an active hurricane region on the shores of the sea, below sea level. I only wish more people would consider risks of the places they choose to live, as it would do more to prevent such tragic situations than just about anything.
LikeLike
Dear Jim,
I do understand your frustration with the situation. It is true that people should realize the risk of living in high-risk areas, but I disagree that they have to blindly accept it. We do pay taxes as Americans and many of us like to see it invested in the country's infrastructure. The Army Corps of Engineers does just that along our waterways. New Orleans is an old city but has become the largest oil port in the US. The government actually has a stake in maintaining that infratructure. The city itself is historic.
In addition, Bush did reverse his policy on preserving the wetlands which serve to help break up the storms. When the people are impacted by the policies of their government, they need to hold the government responsible – then the government has an obligation to make amends, certainly from a moral standpoint at least. When government is quick to bail-out corporations who squander the retirement savings of their employees, yet pass laws to prevent average Americans from seeking forgiveness from their debt it should cause one to pause, particularly if they are unwilling to invest in the country's essential infratructure.
The fact that Bush had recently just diverted a significant amount of those funds to the war effort is eerily ironic and simply reiterates the exponential costs that this war forces us to bare.
Many of the families have lived there for generations. It is the only home they have ever known. Can you imagine losing everything you have ever owned? People do have to live somewhere… our population continues to grow. The coastlines have always been considered prime property throughout the history of man. I doubt that will ever change. That's not to say we shouldn't see the writing on the wall and respond accordingly. The fact that more devastating hurricanes were predicted underscored the importance of the completing the levee project. But we know how this President likes to ignore science. Where the need is greatest, particulalry when dealing with natural disasters, federal government should support the States. I would think that so much more could be accomplished that way. We know that preventative measures save both lives and dollars – It was illogical to not fully fund the levee project.
With regard to evaculation, many of the people in the hardest hit 9th ward were the poor and elderly. Without resources, it becomes very difficult to evacuate these people from the city – they need assistance, they need to be able to depend on help from someone. The fact that more devastating hurricanes were predicted.
LikeLike
The environmentalists long ago successfully sued to stop additional upgrades to NOLA levies.
It was also environmentalist lawsuits that led to the top 50 floors of the World Trade Center being built with not asbestos fire retardant. Though the towers likely still would have melted and fallen the stairwells may have survived for sometime allowing more to escape.
And then there is the Columbia distaster. An environmentalist lawsuit blocked the use of the foam adhesive after early shuttle flights. The result – the substandard foam used as a substitute fell off more frequently to the final detriment of the Columbia crew. They have changed foam again, but the recent flight of the Discovery shows that the newest stuff still does not appear to work as well as that banned under the lawsuit.
While worshiping the earth the greeners have forgotten about the people. Oh, that's right we are the virus on the 'planet' that needs eradication.
Don't forget that the greeners also have sued to stop new refineries from being built. Not that the fascists that now run the oil companies haven't come to appreciate it. They have become all too happy about the effect of regulatory restrictions on the market. Be careful what you wish for Marxists, you will likely get Fascism instead.
LikeLike