the guy who managed the levee system said, "It would take $2.5 billion to build a Category 5 protection system, and we're talking about tens of billions in losses, all that lost productivity, and so many lost lives and injuries and personal trauma you'll never get over," Mr. Naomi said. "People will be scarred for life by this event."
i don't think it's proposterous to suggst that spending $2.5 billion to prevent against $20 billion in damage is a prudent course of action.
we live in a risky world, but here are ways to mitigate the risk of catastrophic damage. the threshold for undertaking preventative measures should not be 100% certainty that all damage will be prevented. that's ludicrous. we'd never do anything to protect ourselves. this is why risk management is important. we can rarely completely eliminate risk, but there are plenty of reasonable ways to minimize whatever risks are present; those are the things prudent people do.
the 100% figure came from her wanting to lay the blame solely at bush's feet. she would probably have been pissed if one drop got through.
I never said it was 100% Bush's fault. Where are you getting that from, exactly?
Are you saying instead that it's 0% Bush's fault? Is there no middle ground? Or is he immune from any responsibility, regardless of any mistakes he might make?
As I said before, there's probably nothing that would have completely averted this disaster. But there are some things that could have mitigated it, possibly avoided some
of the death and destruction. And I think that we should look critically at the mistakes that were made and hold those people responsible.
But I forgot, most Bush supporters really aren't big on personal responsibility, especially not for people in the government.