• well if they weren't so fat they wouldn't had overflown the leeves....haha no i think it was just a matter of bad location. even with brand new reinforced leeves, it would''ve been a matter of time till it flooded again. New Orleans just isn't a great spot for a city
  • The flooding itself? No. The time it took to respond, the investigation, the cleanup, the rescues? All of that was pretty poor, so... maybe? I don't think it was his administration in specific, but just a long line of failures stemming from an uncaring attitude that has been prevalent in our management.
  • No I don't think so. For starts the Democratic, New Orleans Mayor, was the first guy in line that should have been paying attention to what was going on. But... and this won't be popular, I also think that all the people who wait around for their government to do for them and take care of them, are just as much to blame. If people took more responsibility for their own lives, in this country, there would be less people feeling like victims all the time, when shit happens.
  • Surely! -- the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina may not entirely be the result of an act of nature -- George Walker Bush indeed cut funding for projects specifically designed to strengthen levees. Indeed, Bush administration cut flood-control funding 'to pay for the Iraq war'. Karl Rove, who had seen Bush's approval ratings drop to all-time lows, knew days ahead that a Category 5 Hurricane was bearing down on New Orleans and a calamitous disaster was likely to unfold there if and when the levees were unable to hold back the water. What better way to improve those ratings than for Bush to be photographed the day after the disaster struck, standing on top of debris, bullhorn in hand, vowing that the government would help Gulf Coast states rebuild from the Katrina catastrophe? But none of that happened. They bungled their own political resurrection. Nearly a full week went by, while thousands were dying and starving or were kenneled in unbelievable filth in New Orleans. Nobody seemed to be in charge. Bush remained on vacation in Crawford, and traveled around to fundraisers, played golf, etc. the 66th United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice was buying expensive shoes on Fifth Avenue. What was going on? Did Karl Rove not understand the significance of what was happening? Was Bush... uh... "incapacitated?" What about Cheney, on vacation in Wyoming; was he "incapacitated," too? Are the Bush people really that politically obtuse?
  • No, the flood was caused by nature. Maybe the State should be held more responsible because they know they had a problem and didn’t act on the shoring up the laves. If they could not do that, maybe a lot of the low lands should have been given back to nature. Yeh, Uncle Sam could give them money, but is it the governments problem and not the problem of the people of that State. Anyway, this is just my opinion..
  • No nature is.
  • For the actual flooding? No. For failing to respond and help in a timely manner? Most certainly.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy