Phil Donahue

I listened briefly to an exchange between Phil Donahue and Bill O'Reilly about the Iraq war. Phil was demanding to know whether or not O'Reilly would send his own children to war in Iraq, this "false, unjustified" war. This is something that I've heard many liberals say, and there are several flaws with this argument.

Parents don't have the right to "send" their children to war or not. Their 18 year old "children" have the right to do whatever they want, and if they choose to sign up for the military, that is their right. Parents cannot sign their 18 year old "children" up for the military, but it sounds better for liberals' arguments to make it sound as though Bill has the power to send his children off to war. The goal is to make Bill, or another conservative in question, sound hypocritical because they support the war but won't "send" their own children over. If liberals have a problem with 18 and 19 year olds being able to enlist in the military, then they need to work on changing the enlistment age; but, of course, that would mean being proactive and not griping about something.

Another issue that hysterical liberals forget to address is exactly how they would like the president to protect the American people. On the one hand, we hear how angry and outraged they are that he didn't decipher the intelligence pre-9/11 to determine that lunatic terrorists were going to hijack our planes and slam them into buildings. The liberals were outraged at Bush over 9/11, saying the blood was on his hands. So, now that he had intelligence from several different countries, plus our own country, saying that Iraq still had WMDs, he decided to be proactive and protect the American people. After all, this intelligence was more specific than the pre-9/11 intelligence. So, Bush takes the US to war, but the WMDs are gone. The libs cry that Bush is a liar (how are you a liar for believing intelligence and acting on it?). Why aren't the libs concerned with what happened to the WMDs? We know Saddam had them; where are they? The libs don't care; it's just one more way to attack Bush.

On this same issue, I would also like to see an outline of an acceptable plan of action from the libs. Since Bush acted on specific intelligence regarding WMDs, but he didn't act on vague intelligence regarding 9/11, what would the libs have done differently? It seems to me that he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Let's take the vague 9/11 intelligence. Can anyone come up with a plan of action that the libs would find acceptable? We already know that we cannot target specifically Middle Eastern people, because that would be "racial profiling". So, let's go back to the pre-9/11 days. Did we really expect the security guards to confiscate a boxcutter from a Middle Eastern man? Sure, and then we would watch him lawyer up for discrimination and profiling. So what legal course of action would the libs have enacted pre-9/11 to ensure 9/11 didn't happen? How can we protect everyone's privacy, extend the same rights to everyone, not profile, but still catch the bad guys before they do something evil? Drawing a blank? Me, too.

Since Bush had the lessons learned from 9/11, what was he supposed to do with all of the specific intelligence on Iraq? Sit on it? Wait and see if the bad guys unleashed a WMD in the NYC subway so he could at least say that he didn't send America's children to an unjustified war? I'm tired of the libs having a stranglehold on the media, I'm tired of their relentless griping and their Monday morning quarterbacking. If there is a better way to do something, give us the solution. In the mean time, I have to believe that GW is doing something right. After all, how many terrorists attacks have occurred on American soil since 9/11?

More Thoughts

I have to wonder why the media is so quick to blame the federal government for all of the problems in this disaster relief. Isn't this a perfect example of why personal responsibility is needed? And why are the elected officials of New Orleans and Louisiana given a free pass? What have they done to help in this effort?

I live in tornado country. A tornado can strike at any time. We don't have a 24 hour notice that we are in the path of a tornado. Yet our local officials make sure that when tornado season strikes, we are aware that we need to be prepared with an emergency kit. Some water, some food, our meds, a flashlight, etc. Did anybody think, as they decided to wait out the storm, of packing a backpack with some emergency items?

I've seen reports of people dying because they don't have their medicine, yet I see no solutions offered up. One, if I have medicine that I take in order to sustain my life, why is it not on me? If I am not able to evacuate a storm but I know the storm is going to be a big one, wouldn't I make sure to have my pills on my person? Didn't know the storm was going to be that big? Then why the outcries of the injustice of those that had to stay behind because they couldn't evacuate? There is an implication that they would have evacuated if they'd had the means. That admission there implies a knowledge on some level that they understood the magnitude of the impending storm. With that understanding should also come some personal accountability. This complete and utter dependency on government has paralyzed these people. The very representatives that say they are FOR these people are the ones that have created this paralyzing dependency. This is the time for the victims remaining in New Orleans to understand the empty promises of those that exploit these people for their vote. What have those elected officials done for them? What they've done is ensured that these people do not know how to care for themselves, their dependence on government is so strong.

Another thought about the lack of life saving medicine: Again, the oft reported refugees that don't have their heart medication or some other daily medication. The media reports this with glee, as though the government is completely and utterly remiss in its duty. Is it common practice in America for someone to say, "Hey, I'm on blood thinners and I need it now." and the government promptly hands it over? How do those critics in the media propose that the relief workers verify that the victim is indeed on said medication, and how do they propose that said medication is given in the proper dose and also is not going to cause an adverse reaction given their current precarious situation? It's not as easy as handing over pills; maybe if some of our journalists worried less about their hair and more about accuracy they wouldn't seem so airheaded.

Do any of these critics know what is involved in disaster relief? I doubt it. Have they evaluated the many tasks currently at hand, facing our relief workers? How do they propose FEMA prioritize the relief? Are they all top priority? Our relief workers have had to drop 3000 lbs. bags of sand from helicopters into the levee breach to try and stop the city from further flooding. Should that have waited so those helicopters could drop food and water to the victims that are in the city of rising water? They've also had to evacuate THOUSANDS of people from their rooftops and attics, and from floating cars and doors. Is there a more efficient, Wal-mart way to do it? If so, would the media kindly enlighten us? They've had to make roads accessible for relief to come in. They've had to find shelters big enough to house the thousands of evacuees. They've had to dodge gun fire from those that would bully their way into rescue, those that think nothing of endangering the life of a life-saver. They've had to police the lawlessness, because some people think it's okay to act like primal beasts in the wake of disaster and rape their fellow victims. They've had two other states to think about: Mississippi and Alabama, who, for whatever reason, are receiving little media attention. Just take a look around at the enormity of the tragedy and try and figure out how to prioritize, how to save the most people in the safest and most efficient way possible, without making the disaster worse.

Journalists and humanity

Does anybody wonder why journalists turn in their humanity in the field? I believe in personal responsibility. I believe that rather than sitting around and asking, "Why doesn't somebody do something?" that we should rephrase it and say "What can I do?" If only our journalists believed the same thing.

I have seen reporter after reporter passionately reporting how many in New Orleans had not had food or water for days, and that they themselves know that the roads are passable because they have been passing through them with their crews for days. They report that people are dying for lack of food and water. The obvious question to me is, 'Why don't YOU bring in some food and water?' Even if they can't bring in enough for everyone, wouldn't some water for some victims be better than none? But the journalists don't see that as their responsibility. They see that their sole job is to report the story, to be an outside observer and not part of the story. How can you be in the midst of human suffering and not do something? How can you be next to the victims and complain about the government's response when you are next to the victims and doing nothing? I simply don't understand.

Dependence on Government

Unfortunately, Hurricane Katrina is showing us EXACTLY what happens when we depend on government and act as though they are to run our lives. For days I've been hearing that people that want to help the victims need to donate money and STAY HOME. If we came down to help, we'd only complicate matters and get in the way. So, like many Americans, I found my desired charity and made a donation, and then prayed. Then the next morning I'd tune in to the news and see that some people still have not eaten or drank anything for days. There's mass confusion. People don't know where to go and they have no communication. But we all wait for the government to come in and fix it. The victims are waiting to hear from the government and they're doing what the government is telling them to do: go to the SuperDome, go to the Convention Center, go to I-10, buses will be coming, food will be coming, etc. Caring people wait for the government to give these people some relief. In the mean time, the suffering continues.

What if we didn't depend on the government? People would do what one Florida man did-take matters into their own hands and help out. The Florida man brought four of his air boats and began rescuing people. He didn't wait for Uncle Sam to give the thumbs up. And the rest of us wouldn't either. Thousands of us would load up our cars and trucks with water, food, clothing, and supplies and we would head down there. How would the disaster look if we depended on each other? If we didn't depend on the government? Individuals don't have to wait to put together a coordinated plan. Individuals don't have to wait for clearance from upper level management. Individuals don't have communication problems with other branches. In the four days that I've watched people dehydrate and starve, how many caring individuals across the country could have gone in and taken care of these people?

Many people will say that we need more tax dollars and more government, but they fail to realize that more tax dollars and more people will not streamline a response, it will not make it more efficient. It will just make our government bigger. This is an opportunity to see exactly why we need a smaller government. I wouldn't be sitting behind my computer, immobolized and unable to help.