Factcheck.org has taken on the issue of whether Bush set New Orleans up for the fall caused by Katrina. [Hat tip: Jonathan Ichikawa] The best summary I can come up with is that there's no clear evidence that anything Bush did or didn't do had any significant impact on what happened. The proposed budget increases wouldn't have protected against anything greater than a category three hurricane anyway, and Bush's proposed cuts didn't even happen in the first place. The level of funding was kept where it was and neither increased nor decreased.
My growing sense that Factcheck.org isn't really non-partisan (or at least that they don't treat everyone equally) has another piece of evidence. This criticism of an ad against John McCain repeatedly complains that a whole bunch of true statements in the ad are misleading. But then the immediately previous piece defends the second NARAL ad a few times against John Roberts on the grounds that its statements are true, with no mention that they're misleading (which they certainly are, given that they fail to mention that all the statements they quote were involved in his arguments representing the government). When it's against a moderate like McCain, it's bad because it's misleading even if it's true. When it's against a conservative like Roberts, it's perfectly fine ("no distortion", according to the headline) because it's true, even if it's misleading.
Oh, and two of the three writers on one of these pieces wrote the other one. So these very same writers think true but misleading can mean something very different depending on who it's about. I suspect it's the primary writer of both articles who was responsible for this double standard.