MoveOn.Org up to their usual shenanigans:
To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor
Contact: Trevor Fitzgibbon, Kawana Lloyd or Alex Howe, 202-822-5200, all for Moveon.Org Political Action
News Advisory:
— Katrina Evacuees to Tell President Bush His Administration Let Them Down
— Request Meeting with President to Demand Accountability
— Why Was Federal Funding Cut For Levee Maintenance?
Hurricane Katrina evacuees flew into the nation’s capital to tell President Bush to stop blaming local officials for his mistakes and acknowledge that budget cuts and indifference by his administration led to the disaster in New Orleans and along the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
They intend to ask him why he diverted over 40 percent of federal funding between 2001-2005 away from New Orleans. Hundreds are expected to rally in front of the White House at 1 p.m. EDT on Thursday.
“The President of the United States and his appointees let us down,” said Christine Mayfield, a New Orleans public school teacher and mother of three who was dislocated and now is staying in North Carolina…
EDITOR’S NOTE: Excellent Visuals — Signs reading “Shame” and “Help Hurricane Victims”
Shameless, and again, another reason why I have been beating down this levee funding bullshit from the instant it started.
Another Jeff
I never thought i’d say this, but I’ll give Moveon.org credit for one thing, although it’s a kind of backhanded compliment.
While they’re being the usual political hacks one would expect them to be, they’re also backing up their words with action and really helping out the victims, unlike a lot of others, who just wanna sit around, bitch, and point fingers.
Obviously, they’re doing a lot of that too, but at least it’s not empty rhetoric.
John Cole
The rapid response with Hurricane Housing was a great credit to their organization, and no minor feat considering how fast they got 200,000 offers.
This isn’t.
Trent
Still beating that dead horse?
John Cole
Trent- When it is finally put to rest, I will have no reason to keep rebutting it.
Trent
How about addressing the many other issues?
You’ve fixated on this one non-issue and refuse to engage in anything else.
John Cole
Clearly, I don’t think an accusation that someone’s budget-cuts led to a direct failure in the levee system, killing thousands, is a ‘non-issue.’ Neither, apparently, do all of the people promoting this horse-shit.
You guys claim to come here because I am a ‘straight-shooter.’ yet, when I point out obvious bullshit, you attack me, rather than the people spreading it.
It makes me think you might be more concerned with your own polticial agenda than with the truth.
Another Jeff
Well, John, I think you’ve got Trent’s answer to your “had enough” question.
Trent
So you admit you’re fixating?
Jeeze, John, i’m implicitly agreeing with you that the INDICTMENT of Bush over the levee funding is rather weak. I mean, yes, criticising Bush’s spending priorities are a VERY valid criticism. But it’s definitely a stretch to say that Bush is responsible for the levee breaking.
Happy?
Now, can you address the things that people are really mad about, and deservedly so? Namely, the half-assed response to the tragedy, something that was fully within Bush’s power to directly affect and completely within his role and duty as President.
Orogeny
John,
I’ve read your posts about the levee situation and I’m still confused about something. The CoE had recommended spending X-amount for necessary repairs and improvements on the levees and the associated flood control infrastructure in New Orleans. The Bush administration, in order to fund the Iraq war and a series of tax cuts that for the most part benefited relatively wealthy Americans cut that amount by approximately 80%, resulting in the cancellation of most of the recommended repairs/improvements. The CoE apparently felt that the repairs/improvements were necessary, but because of the budget cuts, they weren’t completed.
How could you possibly think that this wouldn’t become a political issue? I don’t think that anyone will ever prove one way or another that the lack of funding led to the failure of the levees, but the whole situation is an absolutely perfect illustration of what the final result of the success of the Bush/Norquist philosophy of shrinking government “get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub” will be. Do you honestly think that if the tables were turned Bush and Rove wouldn’t take advantage of the issue? Hell, if this were a Democratic administration, the “Core of Engineers Employees for Truth” would already have a book published by Regnery and Bob Novak would be raving about it in his column.
neil
And once again, John Cole is outraged that political advocacy groups are politicizing, while not seeming to care that the Bush administration is.
Perhaps he would feel more at home in Cuba, where the _only_ political advocacy comes from the executive government and all outside political groups are banned from this sort of shameless politicizing. Much more tasteful there, hmm?
p.lukasiak
what “levee funding bullshit” have you beaten down, John?
The only thing you have “beaten down” is your own reputation….taking SELECTIVE quotes regarding the complete reconstruction of the levee system (which would take 20 years) with the fact that funds needed to “shore up” and improve the levee system (which was not even meeting its Category 3 design specs) were being CUT by the Bush administration.
Stop lying. Stop selectively quoting. And stop looking for excuses for the fact that THOUSANDS OF POOR BLACKS WERE ABANDONED IN NEW ORLEANS FOR A WEEK WHILE GEORGE W. BUSH JOKED ABOUT HANGING OUT ON THE FRONT PORCH OF TRENT LOTTS MANSION THAT WOULD BE REBUILT WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS.
Scarpy
John–
(longtime reader, first time poster.) While I appreciate your frustration, I’m not sure the verdict is in on the levee issue. I saw a story a few days back that had some engineer guy who supposedly had knowledge of the project arguing that the reason the new levee sections gave way was because they had not been properly reinforced, and that that was directly due to the funding problems.
Of course, that was before the barge-crashing-through idea came up. So I don’t know if the theory has advanced or been discarded since.
Anyway, I’ll try and find a link for that. But I don’t think the levee question is as open and shut as you’re saying it is.
As for MoveOn, eh. Ugly, sure, but I’ll get outraged when someone shows me you can win at politics these days by being classy. Until then, I say don’t hate the player, hate the game.
p.lukasiak
don’t confuse John with the facts. All that he cares about is that Bush was not literally dynamiting the levee system himself the day after Katrina hit — the fact that FUNDING FOR NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS WAS CUT by Bushco is a fact for which John has set up a “direct deposit to the memory hole” system.
Trent
Very well said.
Tractarian
Mr. Cole, you are absolutely correct in that blaming Bush’s budget cuts for the levee failure is complete partisan BS.
Bush could have spent hundreds of billions on a “War on Inadequate Levees” instead of a “War on Terror” and it would have made no difference in Katrina’s devastation. Inadequate flood control is a long-term problem and it would have taken a long-term solution to fix it.
But, as I think you agree, that doesn’t mean flood control is a “non-issue”. Call it reactionary if you will, but I think we should all be talking about what kind of preventative measures can be taken to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen to other low-lying communities. The lesson to be learned from Katrina is not, as Bill O’Reilly says, “don’t be poor” – it is that flood control, and disaster prevention/mitigation in general, are wise investments.
Will our government learn this lesson and act on it? This is the pertinent question.
The real problem for Bush is it would take a 180-degree policy about-face for him to effectively start to deal with this problem. He would have to start emphasizing the restoration of wetlands and increased infrastructure spending – taxes might even have to be raised. These things, it is safe to say, will not occur while Bush is in charge.
Now, I have no doubt that some people find fault in Bush’s flood control policies because they want to do some political Monday-morning quarterbacking. That is unacceptable. But, having learned a lesson from this disaster, and having concluded that no way Bush can feasibly respond in the appropriate way, there is legitimate reason to be concerned about the future under Bush’s policies. That is where the criticism is deserved, IMO.
John Cole
I love getting ‘facts’ from P Lukasiak.
Orogeny
Is it not a “fact” that the Corps of Engineers recommended spending 5 times as much as the Bush administration finally budgeted for the flood control improvements in New Orleans?
Orogeny
Is it not a “fact” that the main reasons for the budget cuts were Mr. Bush’s elective war in Iraq and the tax cuts that went mostly to the wealthiest Americans?
rilkefan
I’m getting a better understanding of why John is a small-govt. Republican. He doesn’t believe in achievable solutions to likely scenarios when it’s possible they might fail in less likely scenarios. He doesn’t believe in spending money on air bags in compact cars because of the possibility of getting run over by an F350. He doesn’t believe in blaming the doctor who didn’t try to operate on a smoker’s lung tumor given that it turned out post-mortem that the cancer had unexpectedly metastisized. He doesn’t believe in keeping backups of his work because, hey, the whole building could get destroyedd by a meteorite.
John S.
John-
Are you just as outraged at Bush poltiicizing the tragedy? You know, those 50 firemen that were flown in to pose for the cameras with him, does that bother you too?
I haven’t really seen a thread with you outraged over that.
Trent
Don’t waste your breath. John refuses to speak on anything but the accusation that Bush CAUSED the levee to break.
p.lukasiak
Are you just as outraged at Bush poltiicizing the tragedy? You know, those 50 firemen that were flown in to pose for the cameras with him, does that bother you too?
no, of course not. Certain “facts” don’t provoke any outrage in John at all. (And lets not forget that these were firefighters who answered a call to volunteer to fight fires…..and while fires raged in New Orleans, they were being told that they would be doing PR work for the agency….)
as for John’s comment regarding my use of “facts”…..
gosh John, I’m still waiting for you to express some outrage about the LIE published by the Washington Post (which was retracted within hours) that you repeated and never retracted yourself…..
Its a shame that Josh Marshall already grabbed “Talking Points Memo”, because John’s blog really should be renamed “John Cole’s White House Talking Points Memo”
pmm
Orogeny wrote:
Given that money is fungible, isn’t it arguable that spending on any given project or department was money that could’ve gone to levee repair/construction? During the appropriations process, every department makes proposals on the assumption that their proposals have a higher priority among infinite spending options for finite funds.
And tax cuts are the flip side to this argument: I don’t recall anyone arguing that we couldn’t afford tax cuts because it would eat into wetlands preservation or would ultimately destroy an entire city. Any tax rate less than 100% means that we’ve prioritized a certain amount of personal income over government programs–whether they be levee repair, DoD missions, social security, stem-cell research, keeping Terri Shiavo alive, election reform, the FDA, HOV lanes, bike paths, pick your program.
Obviously, our spending priorities have been out-of-wack–for a lot longer than 5 years–but that opens up all spending priorities to renewed scrutiny, not simply those favored by the President or the Congress in the most recent sessions.
Don
I like sushi too but I wouldn’t want to eat it morning noon and night. I’m tired of hearing this levy thing from you not only for quantity of output but also because you seem uninterested in examining it as an -indicator- of a larger -trend-.
To me the levy issue brings to mind someone whose car breaks down after being told repeatedly they need to do basic maintenance like changing the oil. “See, it was a belt, not the oil!” they cry, refusing to see that neglect (and in this case, incompetence and crap priorities) is the real issue, not the precise nature of the failure.
JC
Well, in this case, while you have a point about the “levee strawman”, you are being a partisan shill, in other respects.
a. Not mentioning the lack of qualifications for all three FEMA officials.
b. Not mentioning the fact that the Republicans on the Hill have already started an “investigation”, and it is as FAR from an independent investigation as possible.
c. Not really talking about the long list of FEMA screw-ups, which includes refusing all sorts of help.
d. Not talking about people in groups walking, not allowed OUT of New Orleans, but turned away on the highway.
e. Not really admitting that the Bush administration HAS been cutting funds for safety and levee repair.
So for whatever reason, you are being a partisan shill here, mentioning some true points, but no truths that damage your side.
It’s your site, do what you will, but this is pretty clear.
tBone
I’ve never seen John say this. He has said repeatedly that he doesn’t understand why the levees weren’t upgraded to withstand a Cat 4/Cat 5 a long time ago. I bet he’d even agree that the Bush administration’s spending priorities in relation to this look short-sighted in retrospect.
That doesn’t mean he’s wrong when he says that funding cuts over the past few years probably didn’t have any impact on the Katrina situation. Most of the evidence supports him on that.
I think there are a lot of legitimate criticisms that can be made of Bush’s role in this debacle AND in John’s response to it, but this isn’t one of them.
Retief
Bush did cut levee funding. Levees did fail.
The particular levees that did fail don’t seem to have been weaker than they would have been with more funding. None of the levees are designed to survive barge impact. But none of these details matter. In retrospect cutting levee funding looks like a bad decision, regardless of the particular points of failure. Is pointing out the President’s decisions, the badness of which is now obvious, unacceptable partisan politics?
p.lukasiak
the point is that John is avoiding admitting that Bushco cut levee funding — in the hundreds (if not thousands) of words that John has been using to divert the attention from the failings of FEMA to the question of levees, its difficult to find him acknowledging the possibility that had levee funding been increased, this tragedy MIGHT have been averted.
More importantly, John is using the “levee” issue to distract from the REAL issue — the fact that catastrophe we witnessed last week was precipitated by the levees the broke AFTER Katrina had passed — at a point where only the Federal Government had the ability to take the necessary actions to save lives. If Katrina had made landfall as a category 5 hurricane a couple of miles west of where it did make landfall, the results would likely have been immediate, and catastrophic — and this whole effort to distract attention from the real problem would not be going on. And if Katrina had made landfall as a category 2 a couple of dozen miles east of where it wound up, the levees would not have been breached, the people in the Superdome would have gone home, and the people who were told to go to the convention center to await evacution would never have been told that.
John wants to use the levee issue as a distraction from criticism of Bush and the incompetent political hacks he put in charge of disaster management. He doesn’t want to discuss the real issue —- the tens of thousands of people stranded in New Orleans for a week without food, water, or sanitary facilities because FEMA did not do its job.
(One final point—-BECAUSE 80% of New Orleans is under sea level, the levee system is a perfect target for a terrorist attack, and strengthening AND securing that levee system should have been a priority of DHS. )
Steve
The irony of this posting makes me laugh. The White House is already out there claiming that we need to privatize Social Security because of Katrina, and yet it’s moveon.org that is “shameless” for “politicizing tragedy.” IOKIYAR.
tBone
Good grief. Sure, if money and time were no object and we lived in a perfect world, billions and billions of dollars and untold man-hours would have been poured into upgrading the levee system to withstand a massive storm like Katrina. It didn’t happen, and the reasons for that go far beyond the Bush administration’s short-sighted funding cuts. (You have no idea how painful I find it to defend the Bush administration on anything, BTW – you’re killing me here.)
Let me repeat:
goonie bird
And JESSIE JACKASSON is up on his soap box blaming bush what a idiot jackasson is
DougJ
It’s really is despicable that MoveOn is now offering 100,000 beds to hurricane evacuees. Have they no shame?
DougJ
Seriously, though, how about a moratorium on attacking people who aren’t in the government who are organizing private efforts to help the victims? That means MoveOn, it means Christian charities, it even means Curt Schilling.