Katrina aftermatch blamed on ... Bill Clinton?

[elmwood]

I knew it was coming.

Some red pundits are starting to put the blame for the Katrina aftermath not on Bush, not on local authorities, but on Bill Clinton.

It’s worth noting, too, that Democrats not from Louisiana have not always been enthusiastic supporters of New Orleans’ anti-flood efforts. The Clinton Administration held up a major New Orleans levee construction project in 1995, according to a June 23, 1995, article in the Times-Picayune (via EU Rota)

While conservatives criticize liberals for “politicizing”, they almost always find some way to blame anything that goes wrong on Bill Clinton. I don’t know what else to say about this, except by posting a hundred rolleyes smileys.

[flight]

To be fair, the last half dozen or so administrations bears some blame for this. Projects for improving the flood controls system have come up many times and are usually labelled pork. The major blame now is not for doing the same thing that all previous administrations have done in ignoring the problem, but in failing to respond to it well or timely.

[El_Kabong]

Personally, I blame the Lincoln administration. If he hadn’t prosecuted that damn fool Civil War, Louisiana would still be part of the CSA and the levees would have been their problem.

[Rufus_Xavier]

@El_Kabong

Personally, I blame the Lincoln administration. If he hadn’t prosecuted that damn fool Civil War, Louisiana would still be part of the CSA and the levees would have been their problem.

Well, if Jefferson hadn’t bought the damn place, it’d be France’s problem right now. And we all now what that means, right?

Down with Jefferson!!! Why did he hate America?

[cmkeller]

I don’t think it’s so much that they’re actually blaming it on Clinton, I think it’s more of a “Why blame Bush, all presidents ignored the danger to NO. Here’s an example from Clinton.” In other words, not a singling out of Clinton for blame, but an attempt to de-single Bush for blame.

[Jonathan_Chance]

And I suppose I can understand that. Certainly there’s a long policy history of neglect on the levee issue from the looks of things.

On the other hand…Bush is in office. And the political rule is generally: you get credit for what goes right and blame for what goes wrong while you’re in office…whether you had anything to do with it or not.

[kelly5078]

@elmwood

Some red pundits

I can’t help but be struck by the change in the meaning of “red” over the last few years.

[XT]

@elmwood

While conservatives criticize liberals for “politicizing”, they almost always find some way to blame anything that goes wrong on Bill Clinton. I don’t know what else to say about this, except by posting a hundred rolleyes smileys.

Well, yeah. Its a viscous ( ) cycle and all. In this case I think a large part of the Republican effort to shift the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of…well, the folks who knee jerk began attacking the Administration and attempting to place ALL the blame squarely in their laps from the get go. What did people think was going to be the response? What would be the response to attacking ANY administration…let alone THIS administration?

No administration would sit still and allow that kind of thing to build up without answering…nor would they, like the fantasy reality of many in the Pit in the last week, bravely and calmly take full responsibility for everything and hat in hand go to the American people and say ‘Yes, twas us who fucked up, screwed the pooch, dropped the ball…and we take full responsibility for everything from the storm (due to Global Warming), to the dikes breaking, to the slowness of our response, to using fire fighters for passing out pamplets and finally to making you use IE in order to fill out your forms online…and just to cover any future bases, we take full and unswerving responsibility for any and all other rants that may come up in the future. Sorry about the Arabian Horse thing too while we are at it. Thanks you and God Bless American (and we appologize for the God reference too)!’

No administation would do that…certainly not the Bush administration. So, its curious that now that they are hitting back with the same tactics that, well, this is surprising in the least. To summarize, the left went overboard with the finger pointing early on, the right is now returning the favor. Its politics as usual in the US…politicizing a major disaster is good old fashion American fun. :eek:

-XT

[ElvisL1ves]

@cmkeller

In other words, not a singling out of Clinton for blame, but an attempt to de-single Bush for blame.

Maybe, maybe not. Eric Boehlert comments:

The media’s telltale timidity early on was there for all to see. For instance, the day after the city was washed away, USA Today reported that experts had been warning about the possibility of a catastrophic flood in the region for years and that Louisiana legislators had been begging for funds to secure the city’s levee system. But the cold facts were that the Bush White House, stretched thin by the war in Iraq, drastically cut back funding for New Orleans’ flood prevention efforts. Yet here’s the generic, kid-gloved way USA Today, the nation’s most-read newspaper, chose to inform readers about the levee funding:

"Every year, the [US Army Corps of Engineers] spends tens of millions of dollars repairing and upgrading flood walls, levees and pump stations, setting priorities for which jobs it tackles. But Congress hasn't given the Corps the money it says it needs to make the upgrades needed to protect New Orleans from the most serious storms" (emphasis added). 

The Associated Press played the same game. Republicans control the House, the Senate, the White House and all funding appropriations, but somehow, according to AP, it was mostly unnamed "political leaders," "politicians" and "government leaders" who failed Katrina's victims. 

CNN's Wolf Blitzer interviewed former Louisiana Sen. John Breaux and pressed him about the issue of the levee funding. **Blitzer wanted to know specifically who was responsible for not getting the job done: "Who resisted? Was it the Clinton administration?" (Emphasis added.) Blitzer never bothered to ask about the Bush administration's role in neglecting the levees. ** 
Last week, while the federal relief efforts unraveled, MSNBC's Chris Matthews cheered, "Last night, we showed you the full force of a superpower government going to the rescue." His report would have been more impressive (not to mention more accurate) if a superpower government had actually gone to the rescue at the time. 

[zamboniracer]

The whole thing brings to mind P. J. O’Rourke once said that Republicans get elected saying government doesn’t work and then prove it by their actions while in office.

[Little_Nemo]

If the Clinton administration was wrong because they didn’t spend enough money on flood control in New Orleans, how does the Bush administration justify the fact that it spent less?

[tomndebb]

It’s worth noting, too, that Democrats not from Louisiana have not always been enthusiastic supporters of New Orleans’ anti-flood efforts. The Clinton Administration held up a major New Orleans levee construction project in 1995, according to a June 23, 1995, article in the Times-Picayune

This is really interesting. Someone tried this claim in a blog piece last week. The fact was that after the Clinton administration cancelled those funds, a flood ripped through the region in '95 or '96 and they began a whole new project to beef up the entire system. After spending over a half-billion dollars above New Orleans, the project was cancelled by the Bush administration after 2001 before it could be implemented for the city, itself.

[Lemur866]

Another thing to be careful of. There’s a lot of talk about cutting budgets for this, or cutting budgets for that. But what really constitutes a cut? Is it lowering the dollars spent? Is it lowering dollars spent adjusted for inflation? Is it lowering dollars spent as a percentage of tax revenues? Is it lowering dollars spent as a % of total expeditures? Is it lowering dollars spent as a % of GDP? Is it lowering dollars spent compared to what was asked for?

Lots of times you hear charges that a person “cut” or “slashed” the budget for a project, only to later learn that they funded it a higher rates than the last budget, but that the rate of increase in spending wasn’t as large as was expected.

I’ve heard the argument that congress cut the budget for flood control. I’ve also heard the argument that congress increased the budget for flood control, just not as much as the Corps of Engineers asked for.

In order to sustain a charge that the budget was cut we’d have to look at exactly how much was spent, which means digging those numbers out of the budget. Actuall numbers. I have have a feeling that “budget cuts” in this case didn’t actually mean a decrease in number of dollars spent, but some other meaning of the word “budget cuts”.

And of course, raw monetary amounts aren’t always a good proxy for how much work was done. It’s perfectly possible to spend money like a drunken sailor and get nothing in return.

[Triskadecamus]

Hey, those Repulicans have convinced me not to vote for Bill Clinton for president next time!

Tris

[ElvisL1ves]

Lemur866, before you get carpal tunnel syndrome from all that handwaving, do some reading. Like here.

New Orleans CityBusiness, Feb 7, 2005 by Deon Roberts
…In general, funding for construction has been on a downward trend for the past several years, said Marcia Demma, chief of the New Orleans Corps’ programs management branch.

In 2001, the New Orleans district spent $147 million on construction projects. When fiscal year 2005 wraps up Sept. 30, the Corps expects to have spent $82 million, a 44.2 percent reduction from 2001 expenditures.

Demma said NOC expects its construction budget to be slashed again this year, which means local construction companies won’t receive work from the Corps and residents won’t see any new hurricane protection projects.

But “nobody could have foreseen the levees breaking”, right?