Sunday, September 04, 2005

Blame has a nice explanation of what's behind both sides of the dizzying argument about whether or how much blame for the New Orleans disaster can be placed on the Bush administration. The short version is, Bush did substantially cut funding for levee improvements and reinforcements, but the administration-allied Army Corps of Engineers says that the improvements wouldn't have made a difference, and it's basically impossible to tell whether they're right or not. The long version is here. Posting this link does not constitute an endorsement of this debate. Let's get things at least a little bit under control before we start worrying about whose short-sighted policies are to blame.

1 comment:

  1. You are right, Keith. In the passages quoted, the ACE says nothing stronger than "the proposed improvements would only have been designed for a category 3 hurricane."

    The article puts these quotes in a context which impies that ACE says it wouldn't make a difference, which is why I didn't notice the distinction you did on my first quick read.

    But you are right: the possibility that the improvements would have prevented the breaches, even though they were only designed for a category 3 hurricane, is not addressed in any of the ACE quotes in the article.