Thanks, jd. So true.  Not all Canadians are blinded by hatred. iz

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 6:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fwd: FW: Canadian Press on Bush

 

George Bush, the man.
David Warren. The Ottawa Citizen Sunday,
September 11, 2005

There's plenty wrong with America, since you asked. I'm tempted to say that the only difference from Canada is that they have a few things right. That would be unfair, of course -- I am often pleased to discover things we still get right.

But one of them would not be disaster preparation. If something happened up here, on the scale of Katrina, we wouldn't even have the resources to arrive late. We would be waiting for the Americans to come save us, the same way the government in Louisiana just waved and
 pointed at Washington, DC The theory being that, when you're in real trouble, that's where the adults live.

And that isn't an exaggeration! Almost everything that has worked in the recovery operation along the US Gulf Coast has been military and National Guar d. Within a few days, under several commands, finally consolidated under the remarkable Lt. Gen. Russell Honore, it was once again the US military efficiently cobbling together a recovery operation on a scale beyond the capacity of any other earthly institution.

We hardly have a military up here. We have elected one feckless government after another that has cut corners until there is nothing substantial left. We don't have the ability even to transport and equip our few soldiers. Should disaster strike at home, on a big scale, we become a Third World country. At which point, our national smugness is of no avail.

>From Democrats and the American Left -- the US equivalent to the people who run Canada -- we are still hearing that the disaster in New Orleans showed that a heartless, white Republican America had abandoned its underclass.

This is garbage. The great majority of those not evacuated lived in assisted housing and receive food stamps, prescription medicine and government support through many other program s. Many have, all their lives, expected someone to lift them to safety, without input from themselves. And the demagogic mayor they elected left, quite literally, hundreds of transit and school buses that could have driven them out of town parked in rows, to be lost in the flood.

Yes, that was insensitive. But it is also the truth; and sooner or later we must acknowledge that welfare dependency creates exactly the sort of haplessness and social degeneration we saw on display, as the flood waters rose. Many suffered terribly, and many died, and one's heart goes out.  But already the survivors are being put up in new accommodations, and their various entitlements have been directed to new locations.

The scale of private charity has also been unprecedented. There are yet no statistics, but I'll wager the most generous state in the union will prove to have been arch-Republican Texas and that, nationally, contributions in cash and kind are coming disproportionately from people who vote Republican.  For the world divides into "the mouths" and "the
wallets."

The Bush-bashing, both down there and up here, has so far lost touch with reality, as to raise questions about the bashers' state of mind.

Consult any authoritative source on how government works in the United States and you will learn that the US federal government's legal, constitutional, and institutional responsibility for first response to Katrina, as to any natural disaster, was zero. Suppose natural disasters occurred in 5 or 6 areas at the same time. Local governmental bodies must, legally and morally, take charge.

Notwithstanding, President Bush took the prescient step of declaring a disaster, in order to begin deploying FEMA and other federal assets, two full days in advance of the storm fall. In the little time since, he has managed to coordinate an immense recovery operation -- the largest in human history -- without invoking martial powers He has been sufficiently residential to respond, not even once, to the extraordinarily mendacious and childish bl ame-throwing.

One thinks of Kipling's poem If, which I learned to recite as a lad, and mention now in the full knowledge that it drives postmodern leftoids and liberals to apoplexy -- as anything that is good, beautiful, or true:

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise"

Unlike his critics, Bush is a man, in the full sense presented by these verses. A fallible man, like all the rest, but a man.

"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."  George Orwell

Reply via email to