A few days back, the New York Times wrote a scathing editorial blasting President Bush from every angle possible in regards to Hurrican Katrina, just falling thisshort of accusing him of intentionally steering the storm into the poorest, blackest neighborhoods possible. They concluded with this apparently rhetorical question:
Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?
Fair enough, but the far-left liberals that make up the Times editorial board are kin with most of the blue-state anti-Bushies - filled with mindless rage, but no real ideas of their own. And when they get an idea, it is usually (who am I kidding?Always!) a bad one. Why, let's go back to just April of '05, and see what the Times has to say about "correcting some of the holes in the flood protection":
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... [snip]This is a bad piece of legislation.
Now you know why President Bush, as well as most fair-minded Americans, cares not a whit about what is written on those once-hallowed pages. For Congress did in fact listen to the Times editorial board and reject the aforementioned bill, costing untold American lives. Remember that, when you next hear some bloated liberal extolling the virtues of what he read today in the Times. And when he/she emails you an editorial, send 'em back a link to this page...
Amd in the spirit of liberalism, I'll ask the following question: Why would the New York Times editorial board intentionally promote a policy that would do the most harm to poor and black Americans? If this was a white neighborhood imperiled by floodwaters, I'm sure the paper would have brayed loudly for the passing of the above bill. What does the New York Times have against Americans that are economically challenged? Americans of color? This is a disgrace; where's the investigative committee looking into the Times' failures in policy? Where are the resignations??
Many links to the Times editorials; mine here: http://media.nationalreview.com/075305.asp