Recently in Weather Category

Even the Washington Times' editorial board wonders:

Troops are finally moving into New Orleans in realistic numbers, and it's past time. What took the government so long?

Kevin Drum asks an excellent question: "Could the people in charge of managing the catastrophe in New Orleans possibly be more clueless?"

Just what, exactly, as the Bush Administration done with the last four years since the September 11 terrorist attacks?

As this astute e-mailer to Josh Marshall points out, any serious terrorist attack would result in a refugee crisis. Serious Homeland Security planning would account for this.

So, how in the hell do we explain the chaos in the Gulf states in Katrina's aftermath?

At a time when the Bush Administration is trying to push through another big tax cut, let's remember that this president and our raical Republican controlled Congress cut funding for levee repair and hurricane preparation in the New Orleans area.

Budgets, remember, are not just numbers. They are a reflection of priorities. Josh Marshall points to this Chicago Tribune story:

Despite continuous warnings that a catastrophic hurricane could hit New Orleans, the Bush administration and Congress in recent years have repeatedly denied full funding for hurricane preparation and flood control.

That has delayed construction of levees around the city and stymied an ambitious project to improve drainage in New Orleans' neighborhoods.

For instance, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested $27 million for this fiscal year to pay for hurricane-protection projects around Lake Pontchartrain. The Bush administration countered with $3.9 million, and Congress eventually provided $5.7 million, according to figures provided by the office of U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

And further down in the piece there's this ...

"I'm not saying it wouldn't still be flooded, but I do feel that if it had been totally funded, there would be less flooding than you have," said Michael Parker, a former Republican Mississippi congressman who headed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from October 2001 until March 2002, when he was ousted after publicly criticizing a Bush administration proposal to cut the corps' budget.

And one final point.

We're hearing again and again now that there just wasn't enough money for a lot of this stuff. Terrorism was our big focus. Some kinds of preparedness aren't simply a question of funds. They turn on less elastic resources. But most of what we're hearing about is dollars and planning. So when we hear, 'well, there just wasn't enough for this and terrorism', or 'we needed the money for Iraq', the real answer is 'nice try'.

The president cut taxes every year of his first term in office. He's trying to push through a major tax cut right now. So it's not terrorism that took away the money. It was tax cuts. And to a degree, same thing for Iraq.

Choices have consequences. And bad consequences require accountability.

The difference, according to the media, is all about skin color.

(Hat tip: KD)

What awaits the City of New Orleans? Chris C. Mooney, a former resident of the city, reminds us of an article he wrote in May describing what could happen if the city took a direct hit from massive hurricane. Mooney wrote:

A direct hit from a powerful hurricane on New Orleans could furnish perhaps the largest natural catastrophe ever experienced on U.S. soil. Some estimates suggest that well over 25,000 non-evacuees could die. Many more would be stranded, and successful evacuees would have nowhere to return to. Damages could run as high as $100 billion. In the wake of such a tragedy, some may even question the wisdom of trying to rebuild the city at all. And to hear hurricane experts like Louisiana State University's Ivor van Heerden tell it, it's only a matter of time before the "big one" hits.

Good luck to everyone connected to the area about to be hit.