Opinion 4 Everything

Let me tell you about a man I know, I think you appreciate it:

I met this man as he was just starting to make his way in the world. Yes, he did come from a family of priviledge, and even though that opened doors for him, I never felt any superiority-complex when I was around him. I always thought that made him humble.

He was pretty much the life of the party when we were younger. He knew who was throwing the party and where it was. And when you got there, everyone wanted to talk to him. I think that quality is known as charisma.

He progressed through school with above average grades; although he certainly never broke any academic records. He made a number of missteps starting out in business, but he always seemed to recover and learn from his mistakes. As a business man profit was obviously his main motivation; but, he never earned a reputation as a crooked man. He had integrity.

At times my friend wears his emotions on his sleave. By reading his face I know how he feels. This makes him a poor poker player, but he shows genuine concerned when we speaking about unpleasant matters. And - we would always get a good laugh at this: he seemed to stumble through his stories and arguments as he got excited. Again, this would make him a bad lawyer, but at least I knew he had passion. I'm almost glad he didn't have the world's most polished speaking skills, then I would have been affraid I was getting sweet-talked all the time. We refered to this quality as conviction.

Just like my other buddies who where the "leaders" of our pack, my friend sometimes made bad decisions. And more than once we were caught in bind as a result. However, in the end, he would take ownership of his mistakes and help us make it better. He was always loyal to his friends like that. And beacuse of all the good times we had, and despite the rough times, when my friend has a grand idea I always listen. And usually I go along, if for no other reason, I know he has the best interest of us all in mind. That is definitly leadership in my book.

This guy sounds like someone all of you know. Each and every one of you has a friend like this.

Well, my friend is George W. Bush. And it is because of these qualities I listed (not despite them) that he connects with the American people.

Humility, Charisma, Integrity, Conviction, Leadership

These 5 characteristics re-elected "Dubya."
These 5 characteristics are what Americans want.
This is the friend we all know, and despite any flaws, this is the friend we all still have and love.

If I were to ask you, "Which city will respond better to a catastrophic disaster, New York or New Orleans?"

Before you answer I have a couple more questions to ask you:

Which city would better handle a snow storm, Buffalo or El Paso?
Obviously it would be Buffalo, they have the infrastructure for massive snow removal.

Which city would better handle a massive earthquake, Los Angeles or Charlotte?
Again, the obvious answer is Los Angeles because they have experience with earthquakes.

So, back to the first question, I feel the obvious answer is New York. Not because New York has better city planning for such events, which it does; not because New York has more experience with catastrophies recently, which it does too. New York will respond better and rebuild faster because New York has more money.

New Orleans was a city in financial ruins. It had a decreasing population. A significant number of their educated youth left for better jobs. New Orleans' biggest tourist attractions all revolved around the "authentic look" of New Orleans drinking areas. By authentic they meant to say old and dilapidated. Now, don't get me wrong, New Orleans was a great city with an amazing history. I've been there and love visiting. But thats the key, I loved to visit but didn't want to live there. Plus, not one person can argue that New Orleans was not filled with poverty and social-service-style programing.

So, given these facts, how can anyone be surprised at what happened.

Sure, it can be said that the federal government reacted too slowly. Yet, more importantly, the state and local government failed to be pro-active enough. Before the last hurricane hit Florida, Governor Bush arranged to have emergency relief in trucks waiting to go, and when they were not needed they were disbanded. Where was that this type of proacive behavior in Louisianna?

Now I do not want to get off track and start passing the blame. I'm sure everyone could have done better. The simple answer is that there was not enough money to get things done. There is not enough money in the city's funds (read: lack of financial planning); there was not enough money in the state's funds (read: lack of financial planning); there was not enough city planning to prepare for such an event (read: lack of far-sighted political planning) and there was not enough money in the hands of the average citizen of New Orleans (read: too much reliance on social programs).

The problem with the politicians and the media right now is that they are trying to blame everyone else. Newsweek and the USAToday both had polls which said that New Orleans was ignored becaue it was too poor, or too black or too southern. The simple truth is that there are not enough local citizens with enough money invested in the city to get anything better. When you have insufficient numbers of "prominent" citizens, you will get insufficient results. Now, going back to New York - New York has many, many "prominent" citizens who will make sure that things are done properly.

So, after all this blathering, there are a few facts people must understand:

1. Broke is broke, regardless of skin color. Do you think that predominantly-white and poverty stricken parts of West Virginia would have responded better? How about poor and hispanic parts of Phoenix?

2. Fixing state problems are primarily the state's responsibility. We should take this as a warning to strengthen out own states and not wait for the federal government to act; the feds are already too big, too strong and too slow. The federal government should be there to supplement and aid program, not to provide it.

3. Before New Orleans complains any more about the lack of attention and aid they are getting, they should ask themselves, "Why has New Orleans dominated the news while local areas and Mississippi have been back-burner topics, even though the other destruction has been just as horrible - just on a smaller scale?"
I'll tell you why, its because large-scale destruction sells papers (more profit) and fills news broadcasts (more advertising money). Yet, I don't hear anyone from New Orleans refusing the aid because Mississippi, which is blacker and poorer, isn't getting their fair share of attention.

And one last thing, before you read those polls in the papers and magazines, how many of those southern-urbanites voted for Kerry? Its a good thing to know before you read about them blaming Bush.

I can not think of a time in which an entire population of any civilization was 100% in favor of going to war. Even the great American wars which are taught in class rooms across the country, wars like the Revolutionary War or WWII, each of them had their detractors.

Now, today in America there is an ever growing group of citizens who are protesting to bring American troops home from Iraq. It is this mentality, this desire to get out before the job is done, which allows nations to think they can fight and win against America.

Read any revolutionary text, or any war on guerilla tactics, and you will find passages saying things to the effect of: Keep fighting, our willingness to fight for many years will eventually wear down our enemy. Nowhere was this more true than in the Vietnam War. The United States military won just about every major military engagement in that war; however, the will of the American people wore out and we left the area. Once we left, communist North Vietnam was free to take over South Vietnam. Don't get me wrong, there was much more to that war and I hope the historical parallel I am trying to draw does not over simplify the "Conflict in Vietnam."

Often times when a president must decide between going to war or not, they must make difficult and often unpopular decisions which are beneficial to our citizenery in the long run. This is where the true leadership of a president comes into play. Can the president lead the American people to do what is best for them, even in the face of mounting adversity? Everyone knows about the "big wars," but here are a few less-popular-wars (both at the time and in our memories) which were significant in forging the mightly nation we are today.

--> Without President Polk's anexation of Texas and the ensuing Mexican-American War we would not have Texas and much of the Southwest as States today.
--> In the Spanish-American War, we took control of the Phillipines, Manilla, and essentially drove the Spanish out of Central America, thus asserting ourselves as an international player.
--> Even in World War I many issolationist-Americans were completely against us enter "Europe's War." However, in the end, by joining the war we had a significant role in deciding the peace treaty and ultimately cemented our position as a global force.

Now flashforward to our last two presidencies. President Clinton bombed Serbia and President Bush bombed, invaded and now occupies Iraq. Compare Clinton's military legacy with the above mentioned historical examples and decide what President Bush should do:

~President Clinton bombed Serbia until Slobodan Milosevic was given over to the war crimes tribunal in the Hague. Now, No one is complaining that Milosevic was captured and once the American objectives were achieved we left. I argue that the objectives were too near sighted. With Milosevic gone, and with no aid in forming a new government Serbia still struggles (10 years later) to rebuild while Muslim portions of Bosnia have become hot beds for terrorist activity.

~President Bush is now in the middle of a messy situation in Iraq. Should Bush (1) remove the American military and leave the people of Iraq to defend themselves like we did in Vietnam, (2)do we remove our troops and let Iraq become a launching pad for terrorist activity like Clinton did with Bosnia, or (3) does America stay the course, establishing a new government in Iraq, and in the process further extinguish terrorist cells over seas?

Obviously, there are volumes of historical text outlining the politics, policy and nuance of America's military past. This comparison was not intended to gloss over these details, it was intended to show the American people what is at stake in Iraq. We must stay the course, we must prevail, we must maintain our status as a global power, we must spread democracy and fight terrorism - no matter what the cost.