NY Times Was Against Fixing the Levies ! - GoFuckYourself.com

spunkmaster · 09-04-2005, 02:03 PM

NYTimes Wasn't Always So Pro-Army Corps of Engineers

Why wasn't more preventive action taken? After 2003 the Army Corps of Engineers sharply slowed its flood-control work, including work on sinking levees. "The corps an Editor and Publisher article says, citing a series of articles in The Times-Picayune in New Orleans" never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security - coming at the same time as federal tax cuts - was the reason for the strain In 2002 the corps' chief resigned, reportedly under threat of being fired, after he criticized the administration's proposed cuts in the corps' budget, including flood-control spending.

This is from a Times editorial on July 14, 1993:

Budget constraints and environmental concerns have slowed new flood control projects in recent years. Congress should resist pressure to spend more now because of this year's floods; these projects need closer evaluation than they've gotten in the past

And how about June 24, 2003:

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a rare opportunity tomorrow to strike a blow for both fiscal sanity and the environment. Before the committee is a bill that would bring a measure of discipline and independent oversight to the Army Corps of Engineers, an incorrigibly spendthrift agency whose projects over the years have caused enormous damage to the nation's streams, rivers and wetlands

Finally, this one from April 13, 2005:

Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects -- this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences.

The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands -- usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress's appetite for pork.

This is a bad piece of legislation.

So, less than five months ago, the Times editorial staff was opposed to a bill that would give $17 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers. Yet, today they are questioning why Bush and Congress have cut such funds.ha Isn't that convenient?

http://newsbusters.org/node/869

pocketkangaroo · 09-04-2005, 02:27 PM

Last I checked the NY Times wasn't an elected official making decisions for the betterment of the United States. Who cares what they think or thought?

jawanda · 09-04-2005, 02:29 PM

Wow, it's basically their fault that New Orleans is so fucked right now. They should be shot. Wow. Fault. Theirs.

lol

spunkmaster · 09-04-2005, 02:56 PM

No, what it points out is that there were many who didn't want the levies "fixed"
for environmental reasons. Even Clinton turned down funding to fix the levies because the environmentalists were against fixing the levies because they want water to overflow for the marshes because they need the silt to stay alive.

pocketkangaroo · 09-04-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spunkmaster

No, what it points out is that there were many who didn't want the levies "fixed"
for environmental reasons. Even Clinton turned down funding to fix the levies because the environmentalists were against fixing the levies because they want water to overflow for the marshes because they need the silt to stay alive.

Well as I said, the NY Times isn't elected to make those decisions. I could care less what they feel.

Clinton was in office 6 years ago? I don't see how that plays a role in what happened last week.

tony286 · 09-04-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Last I checked the NY Times wasn't an elected official making decisions for the betterment of the United States. Who cares what they think or thought?

THank you

Webby · 09-04-2005, 04:16 PM

I never knew a newspaper was elected to have the responsibilty of maintenance in Louisanna.

Ya learn something new every day...

The Truth Hurts · 09-04-2005, 04:21 PM

and if it said the opposite, the usual sheep (see above) would be here saying SEE EVEN THE NYT TOLD YA SO.

MattO · 09-04-2005, 04:23 PM

60 Minutes just reported that no levies failed. The storm walls did.

Webby · 09-04-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Truth Hurts

and if it said the opposite, the usual sheep (see above) would be here saying SEE EVEN THE NYT TOLD YA SO.

There is meaning in ya having taken the time to respond.. think on it.

And.. no, irrespective of the opinions expressed in the "media" - they were never elected to perform the responsibilities of a government.

Tho... at the rate a government may take to respond, they might as well have done the job themselves.

69pornlinks · 09-04-2005, 04:32 PM

war is very expensive, so you must divert funds to pay for it...do you get it now...

09-04-2005, 02:03 PM	#1
spunkmaster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 2,052	NY Times Was Against Fixing the Levies ! NYTimes Wasn't Always So Pro-Army Corps of Engineers Why wasn't more preventive action taken? After 2003 the Army Corps of Engineers sharply slowed its flood-control work, including work on sinking levees. "The corps an Editor and Publisher article says, citing a series of articles in The Times-Picayune in New Orleans" never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security - coming at the same time as federal tax cuts - was the reason for the strain In 2002 the corps' chief resigned, reportedly under threat of being fired, after he criticized the administration's proposed cuts in the corps' budget, including flood-control spending. This is from a Times editorial on July 14, 1993: Budget constraints and environmental concerns have slowed new flood control projects in recent years. Congress should resist pressure to spend more now because of this year's floods; these projects need closer evaluation than they've gotten in the past And how about June 24, 2003: The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a rare opportunity tomorrow to strike a blow for both fiscal sanity and the environment. Before the committee is a bill that would bring a measure of discipline and independent oversight to the Army Corps of Engineers, an incorrigibly spendthrift agency whose projects over the years have caused enormous damage to the nation's streams, rivers and wetlands Finally, this one from April 13, 2005: Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects -- this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences. The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands -- usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress's appetite for pork. This is a bad piece of legislation. So, less than five months ago, the Times editorial staff was opposed to a bill that would give $17 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers. Yet, today they are questioning why Bush and Congress have cut such funds.ha Isn't that convenient? http://newsbusters.org/node/869 __________________

09-04-2005, 02:56 PM	#4
spunkmaster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 2,052	No, what it points out is that there were many who didn't want the levies "fixed" for environmental reasons. Even Clinton turned down funding to fix the levies because the environmentalists were against fixing the levies because they want water to overflow for the marshes because they need the silt to stay alive. __________________

09-04-2005, 04:16 PM	#7
Webby Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Far far away - as possible Posts: 14,956	I never knew a newspaper was elected to have the responsibilty of maintenance in Louisanna. Ya learn something new every day... __________________ XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

09-04-2005, 04:32 PM	#11
69pornlinks Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Heranus Posts: 5,560	war is very expensive, so you must divert funds to pay for it...do you get it now... __________________ It IS what it IS

09-04-2005, 02:27 PM	#2
pocketkangaroo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 8,452	Last I checked the NY Times wasn't an elected official making decisions for the betterment of the United States. Who cares what they think or thought?

09-04-2005, 02:29 PM	#3
jawanda Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 6,040	Wow, it's basically their fault that New Orleans is so fucked right now. They should be shot. Wow. Fault. Theirs. lol

09-04-2005, 04:21 PM	#8
The Truth Hurts Zph7YXfjMhg Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: In Your Skull Posts: 15,334	and if it said the opposite, the usual sheep (see above) would be here saying SEE EVEN THE NYT TOLD YA SO.

09-04-2005, 04:23 PM	#9
MattO The O is for Oohhh Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: AUSTIN TEJAS Posts: 10,861	60 Minutes just reported that no levies failed. The storm walls did.