|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
holy accountability, batman! | by cybergeek | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| want someone to blame? |
by ducimus |
2005-09-11 10:27:27 |
Start here:
Democrats, and some former government engineers, blamed President Bush for cutting the budget for the Army Corps of Engineers (search), claiming the cuts left New Orleans unprepared for a major storm.
But The Washington Post reports the Bush administration has granted the corps more funding than the previous administration over a similar period and that Louisiana has received far more money for civil works projects than any other state. The paper says much of the funding has been spent not on flood control, but on lawmakers' pet construction projects, including a brand new $750 million canal lock in New Orleans unrelated to flood control.
Or here:
Neither the administration or its critics are saying this, but one reason anti-flooding measures failed to stop Katrina from inundating New Orleans is that some environmental groups successfully resisted new flood control projects. The Sierra Club (search) and other groups sued the Army Corps of Engineers to stop a 1996 plan to raise and fortify Mississippi River levees because the plan would jeopardize Louisiana forests.
And the New Orleans Times-Picayune has reported that "Save our Wetlands" successfully sued the corps of engineers three decades ago to stop construction on floodgates to block storm surges from the Gulf of Mexico into Lake Pontchatrain (search), saying they were too damaging to the lake's eco-system.
Or here:
The Red Cross is confirming to Garrett that it had prepositioned water, food, blankets and hygiene products for delivery to the Superdome and the Convention Center in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, but were blocked from delivering those supplies by orders of the Louisiana state government, which did not want to attract people to the Superdome and/or Convention Center. Garrett has no paper trail yet, but will follow up on his verbal confirmation from sources at the highest levels of the Red Cross.
It's a little more productive than screaming at Bush. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I'm not screaming at Bush. | by cybergeek | 2005-09-11 10:31:34 |
|
they did both? | by ducimus | 2005-09-11 10:43:10 |
|
Do me a favor - from now on, when you reply, | by cybergeek | 2005-09-11 10:46:41 |
|
pot? we've got kettle on line two. (n/t) | by ducimus | 2005-09-11 10:54:15 |
|
A big, fact-filled article | by Kickstart | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Odd | by DesertRat66 | 2005-09-11 10:47:24 |
|
I suppose you'd prefer a link from, like, | by cybergeek | 2005-09-11 10:49:11 |
|
Just one that's actually heavy on facts instead of | by DesertRat66 | 2005-09-11 11:14:32 |
|
*giggles* | by Arivia | 2005-09-11 11:15:14 |
|
And I suppose you've got | by Pic | 2005-09-11 12:17:21 |
|
Nope, no solution. | by Arivia | 2005-09-11 12:22:03 |
|
that makes you 10 times worse | by ducimus | 2005-09-11 12:48:42 |
|
On the other hand | by Kickstart | 2005-09-11 18:50:06 |
|
He can't help it. | by LionsPhil | 2005-09-11 12:22:49 |
|
She, please. (n/t) | by Arivia | 2005-09-11 12:24:18 |
|
OK, she. | by LionsPhil | 2005-09-11 12:26:55 |
|
I don't know... | by Arivia | 2005-09-11 12:28:57 |
|
dude, there's no such thing as a non-biased report | by cybergeek | 2005-09-11 11:17:55 |
|
you misread obviously | by ducimus | 2005-09-11 11:27:08 |
|
you misread obviously | by cybergeek | 2005-09-11 11:28:51 |
|
uh, nooo.... | by ducimus | 2005-09-11 11:45:14 |
|
No, you can't get an article without bias... | by Arivia | 2005-09-11 11:48:20 |
|
"Every article has the same amount of bias." | by LionsPhil | 2005-09-11 11:51:59 |
|
Nope. | by Arivia | 2005-09-11 12:02:47 |
|
Gee ya think? | by DesertRat66 | 2005-09-11 12:04:05 |
|
Eh. | by Ravenlock | 2005-09-11 13:38:27 |
|
Odd. Look again. | by Ravenlock | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
