Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on blaming Clinton?

Unfortunately there's not, which is why one of Chicago Tribune's unimpressive columnists, Steve Chapman, has the gall to say this:

If there's been chronic underfunding of hurricane protection and flood control efforts in Louisiana, as we are told, it's a safe bet the problem originated before George W. Bush took office.

Chapman could have tried to corroborate his "safe bet" with research, though that would show that the Clinton Administration had in fact been strongly funding hurricane protection and flood control:

After a flood killed six people in 1995, the Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project. Operated by the corps of engineers, levees and pumping stations were strengthened and renovated. In 2001, when George Bush became president, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely potential disasters - after a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war.

If Chapman had cited this research, he wouldn't be able to blame Clinton.

One thing that's been so comical is to see people who are still defending the administration on their Hurricane Katrina response asking people not to assign blame. These are the people who blame Clinton for everything from terrorism to kids having more sex, who blame poor people for their poverty, who blame government for everything, now saying, why must we blame? What use is blame? Can't we all just get along?