On the one hand, it appears that for the last two years the federal monies that were supposed to help fix the levies in NOLA dried up, quite possibly in exchange for funding the Iraq War.
And now that all those who aren't focused solely on helping those hit by the disaster are panicking about skyrocketing oil prices, Bush finally comes out and mentions the Iraq war and oil in the same sentence. Ah, the irony.
An interesting aside. As I wrote that previous paragraph, it occurred to me to go look up the actual transcript of Bush's speech. Many people are saying that Bush admitted the Iraq war is about oil - and really, he didn't. The exact quote (and the *only* quote referencing oil in a very tedious collection of hot air) is this:
"...[the terrorists] would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks; they'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions; they could recruit more terrorists by claiming an historic victory over the United States..."
Now, depending on your biases, this can be interpreted as either an honest admission of something that up to now would have gotten him thoroughly slammed by the liberal media, or a new invention to try to distract the bleeding-heart-liberal masses from the mounting death toll, or a truth that he just couldn't conceal any longer - but it's certainly not him "admitting that the Iraq war is all about oil".
I'll be the first to admit that checking sources is difficult in the modern information morass that purports to be news, but checking the original transcript of a public speech against the news report really isn't that difficult. (That said, I have no idea how to check out the first link about the levee-fixing money.)
I've done my share of reacting to news via article excerpts, and LJ reactions to said excerpts, without reading the source, I'll admit - but I think the reporting is messy enough without adding to the distortion. Will penetrating as far as I can make a difference? I'm really not sure it will, but I'll give it a shot.