A University of Hawai’i political science professor explains why he thinks Iraq is the right war, at the right time.

Was Bush Right? By R. J. Rummel Ph.D.

I have been increasingly disappointed with the poll results on our war in Iraq. In December 2003, 63% of people in a CBS/New York Times poll thought the war was the right thing to do when asked, “Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U. S. Have stayed out?” Only 31% thought we should have stayed out.

However, in December 2005, just before the Iraqi election, the split was down to 48 to 48. By then, Democrats were turning against continuing the occupation, with Democrat National Committee chairman Howard Dean saying thet the “idea that we’re going to win in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.” Other notable Democrats called for either immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal. (See HJ Commentary 1)

The urge to end the war is powerful and understandable. People look at the cost of trying to nurture a democracy in Iraq and naturally ask, “What’s in it for us?” “What does this have to do with American security?” “Is it worth the deaths of more than 2,2000 American soldiers?”

By now some 10,000 military personnel fromHawai’i have served in Iraq. More than 1.000 are there right now. This August. About 7,000 more soldiers will deploy to Iraq. These very questions keep many of us in the islands up at night.

Why am I disappointed by the steady decline in support for the war? Because I believe President George W. Bush is right to stay the course in Iraq. My views come from a lifetime of studying totalitarian regimes–of which Hussein’s Iraq was certainly one–and the profound ways in which they threaten humanity. Success in Iraq would have equally profound and positive benefits for the world. This is omething I wish more people understood, and what I hope to explain here.

THE DEMOCRATIC PEACE
It has been three years since the United States invaded Iraq–with the support of 49 nations, with specific Congressional approval, and under UN Security Resolution 1441–to eliminate the threat posed by Hussein. No one has forgotten that the administration based its urgency for the invasion on the belief that Hussein possessed, or could easily assemble, weapons of mass destruction which could threaten the region. (See HJ Commentary 1)

Because these weapons have not been uncovered, manycritics of the war have come to see America’s attempt to foster democracy in Iraq as a post hoc justification for the war. This view disregards that liberating the Iraqi people was always a central component of Bush’s plan (just one more of many components), second only to thwarting Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction ambitions. In his speech on the eve of the March 20, 2003 invasion, Bush spoke repeatedly of “helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country,” of “restoring control of that country to its own people.

Nor is Bush’s interest in democratization limited to Iraq. Speaking to reporters in 2004 about his insistence that the Palestinian authority also become democratic, Bush explained, “The reason why I’m so strong on democracy is democracies don’t go to war with each other ... I’ve got great faith in democracies to promote peace.”

In other words, he had faith in what is called by students of international relations the democratic peace. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made this connection explicit in her December 11, 2005, Washington Post article, “The promise of Democratic Peace.”

This is the goal worth pursuing, that one makes Iraq the right war, at the right time. The long-term benefits of a democratized Iraq are inherently beneficial, to the Iraqi people, to the region and to us. This is because the theory of democratic peace simply works.
_________________________________________________________________________

INTERNATIONAL WARS 1816-2005

BELLIGERANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WARS (AT LEAST 1,000 KILLED)

Democracies vs. Democracies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

Democracies vs. Nondemocracies . . . . . . . . . . 166

Nondemocracies vs. Nondemocracies . . . . . . . . 205

Sources: Melvin Small and J. David Singer, SIPRI, PRIO, Monty Marshal, R. J. Rummel.
________________________________________________________________________

We know from research done over the last three decades that this is true. The table above shows that, since 1816–the end of the Napoleonic Wars–there have been no wars between two democracies, although there were 371 bilateral wars.

Since 1816, there have been only three cases of violence between democracies that ended in deaths. Two of these involved Peru and Ecuador. In 1981, Peru was only marginally democratic, as was Ecuador, but less so. This was also true of Peru and Ecuador in 1984. The only other case of violence over these nearly two centuries was marginally democratic Ecuador (initiator) vs. the United States, in 1954. Only three cases and none since 1984, despite there being122 electoral democracies today, 89 of them liberal democracies whose people have civil liberties and political rights.

There is much more to the democratic peace than avoiding war or international violence. Democracies have been involved in many wars, some they launched themselves (America’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq being the most recent examples). However, by an order of magnitude or more, democracies fight the least severe wars, in terms of numbers killed, compared to authoritarian or totalitarian regimes.

Moreover, on the average, democratic nations are the most internally peaceful–they have the least violence in numbers killed in rebellions, civil wars, civil unrest, anti-government riots, violent strikes and coups.
Perhaps most importantly, democracies seldom murder their own citizens. Democide (genocide and mass murder) is an evil of militarism (as in Burma), monarchism (Russia’s Peter the Great), theocratism (Iran), fascism (Hitler), and communism. (The last two are typical examples of socialist dictatorships) Over the whole 20th century, governments–almost all nondemocracies–murdered about 262 million people, eight times the number killed in combat in all the last century’s international and domestic wars.

In stark comparison to this horrible cost of dictatorships, no liberal democracy has systematically murdered its own people.

Saddam Hussein is up among the mega-murderers. He murdered close to a million Kurds, Sinnis and Shiites, and launched a war against Iran in which probably a million more died. Hussein and his form of government, regardless of its armament, were themselves threats to peace and security, and a proven disaster for the people of Iraq.

BUILDING THE DEMOCRATIC PEACE IN IRAQ
Of course, the democratic peace doesn’t just happen on its own. It takes hard work. Although baghdad fell to coalition forces within three weeks of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and Hussein himself was captured in December of that year, the path to democracy and stability in the country has been a long complicated one.
As the Bush administration did in Afghanistan, in Iraq it helped Iraqis rebuild and develop their country economically, and create from scratch a new army and security force. The United States has also helped them democratize, as it successfully did with Germany and Japan after world war II. Here are the four major events in that peace process thus far.

1) On June 28, 2004 Bush transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government which prepared for a national election of a transition government whose onmly purpose was to write a constitution.

2) In January 2005, the Iraqis voted this government into temporary power and, with much conflict, bargaining and negotiation, it wrote a constitution.

3) In an October referendum, Iraqis approved this constitution.

4) In December, under the new constitution and for the first time ever, Iraqis voted in a national, competitive election for a democratic government.

About 70% of iraqis turned out to vote and, according to foreign election observers and the United Nations, it was a fair election meeting international standards.

When you and I vote, we drive to a local elementary school, then safely and easily mark our choices. No one assassinates election workers, or threatens to murder voters simply for showing up. This hasn’t been the case for ordinary Iraqis, who have taken great risks to hold and participate in elections. Throughout Iraq’s pursuit of the democratic peace, there has been bloody opposition by foreign terrorists, who saw the American occupation of iraq as an opportunity to defeat American power, and who especially understood that a Muslim democracy in the Middle East threatened their ambitions to spread a fundamentalist theocracy.

Even more powerful opposition ha scome from Sunni insurrectionists, those who had most benefitted from Hussein’s rule (he is a Sunni himself). Every one of their roadside bombs directed against American forces is specifically meant to make those of us at home second guess our presence in Iraq in support of democratization. Judging from the poll results I opened with, the attacks have indeed taken their toll on our will to see through the reconstruction of Iraq as a functional democracy.

Nonetheless, Bush has refused to withdraw. He is convinced of the rightness of what he calls the Forward Strategy of Freedom and this war as I am.

IRAQ IN THE BIG PICTURE
On November 6, 2003, in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, Bush proclaimed his Forward Strategy of Freedom. Although focused on the Middle East, it was general in tone. He stated that, “As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace.” He emphasized that, “There are ... essential principals common to every successful society, in every culture.

“Successful societies limit the power of the stste and the power of the military–so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite.

“Successful societies protect freedom with the consistent and impartial rule of law, instead of selectively applying the law to punish political opponents.

“Successful societies grauntee religious liberty–the right to serve and honor God without fear of persecution.

“Successful societies privatize their economies, and secure the rights of property. They prohibit and punish official corruption and invest in the health and education of their people. They recognize the rights of women.

“And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people.”

These principals provide the foundation for the president’s new foreign policy–new in the sense that he had not so clearly articulated it before. He committed the United States to promote and foster freedom, and he put dictators on notice that they will no longer be “excused and accommodated.”

Two days after the speech, as if to double underline it, the president issued a proclaimation naming November 9 World Freedom Day. He proclaimed: “Fourteen years ago, freedom-loving people tore down the Berlin Wall and began to set a nation free from Communist oppression. On World Freedom Day, the United States joins with other countries in commemorating that historic day. The United Dtates is committed to liberty, freedom and the universal struggle for human rights. We strive to advance peace and demoracy and to safeguard these ideals around the world.”

So, why are we fighting in Iraq and fostering democratic freedom there and elsewhere? The answer is to promote an end to war, democide and famine, and to minimize internal political violence. In other words, it is to foster global human security.

Surely, creating a world in which there will never be a war or democide is in the American national interest, the vital interest of our children, and is worth fighting and dying for.

R. J. Rummel Ph.D. is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. He has published 32 books, received a number of awards for his contributions, and has been frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. His Web site is at www.hawaii.edu/powerkills and he keeps a daily blog at http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com.

Closing comments by Howard Johnson:

This factual presentation (proveable facts) is in stark contrast to the constant emotionally charged stream of non-facts being presented to the American people by the likes of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelozi and Ted Kennedy along with their dupes in the media who revel in their power to sway ignorant people to follow their agenda. I believe the real reason Democrats are so vocal against the war and blame every national problem (including natural disasters) on George Bush is twofold. First and foremost, American success in creating a democratic Iraq would so enhance Republican prestige and so damage Democrats and liberals in particular that a major shift to Republican political power would result. Democrats will do anything to prevent that from happening including scuttle America and aid totalitarianism in the world. Liberal Democrats are working diligently to destroy every valiant effort made by those who founded this country to promote freedom and democracy and protect us from our own government including our Constitution.

HJ commentary 1: This was a purely political effort aimed at discrediting America and the Bush administration in order to gain political advantage and power. Democrats seem to want to do as much damage to America and the cause of freedom and democracy in the world as is possible by blatant lies and deceptions. Aided by their biased, liberal, "drunk with power" fellow travelers in the media, liberal Democrats have mounted an unprecedented hate campaign of destruction against everything good America has stood for in the world including being the champion of democratic freedom and the "Guardian of Democracy." Apparently they believe they can regain power by working to destroy America and obliterate our influence in the world. They have done more to aid Al Queda, despotism and dictatorship in the world than those forces could possibly have done by themselves. This is to me a concentrated effort to destroy freedom and democracy and prevent peoples all over the world from enjoying peace and freedom. Hitler’s NAZIs and Stalin’s NKVD were far less effective if a bit more brutal.

The Bush message the media has forgotten or deliberately ignored are the numerous points (I believe there were seventeen) submitted to the United Nations in the original request for action against Saddam Hussein. The only one of those points ever mentioned in the media and the centerpiece of Democrat hate rhetoric is the WMDs mantra. Occasionally they mention one other point, his support and aid for Al Queda, but that one has pretty well been proven accurate by now. As to the lack of discovery of WMDs, why did the media ignore the discovery of MIG 25s buried in the desert sand? These advanced Soviet aircraft are clearly effective weapons of Mass destruction. All other WMD evidence discovered was either declared invalid, inconclusive or was completely ignored by our "objective" news media.

Some additional HJ commentary not directly related:
The intellectual elite who arm themselves against any thought that differs in direction or intent from their own tightly held beliefs are the blind driving force behind the "anti-war" crowd. These closed minds ignore the hundreds of millions slaughtered because of reluctance to engage in or even accept "constructive" or "preventive" wars against tyrants. They are like Neville Chamberlain who on September 30, 1938 reported on the Munich agreement saying, "My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time." How wrong he was then and how wrong the anti-war forces are now in precisely the same vein regarding Iraq. Should we pull out of Iraq now without establishing a democracy will the Muslim hordes do to Europe and America what they repeatedly did in India and what they promise to do now in all their rhetoric? History will provide the answer.

Some loosely related quotes from Stephen Jay Gould:

The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question.

Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic world view - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty.

These quotes of Eric Hoffer from many years ago still ring true and surely will always:

What the intellectual craves above all else is to be taken seriously, to be treated as a decisive force in shaping history. He is far more at home in a society that weighs his every word and keeps close watch on his attitudes than in a society that cares not what he says or does. He would rather be persecuted than ignored.

Every extreme attitude is a flight from the self.

The untalented are more at ease in a society that gives them valid alibis for not achieving than in one where opportunities are abundant. In an affluent society, the alienated who clamor for power are largely untalented people who cannot make use of the unprecedented opportunities for self-realization, and cannot escape the confrontation with an ineffectual self.

There are many who find a good alibi far more attractive than an achievement. For an achievement does not settle anything permanently. We still have to prove our worth anew each day: we have to prove that we are as good today as we were yesterday. But when we have a valid alibi for not achieving anything we are fixed, so to speak, for life. Moreover, when we have an alibi for not writing a book, painting a picture, and so on, we have an alibi for not writing the greatest book and not painting the greatest picture. Small wonder that the effort expended and the punishment endured in obtaining a good alibi often exceed the effort and grief requisite for the attainment of a most marked achievement.

The Secret Service Tells it like it is

Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:15:58

Subject: Presidential Observations by the Secret Service - By Dave Kulow

We had a neighbor when I lived in DC who was part of the secret service presidential detail for many years. His stories of Kennedy and Johnson were the same as those I heard from the guys who flew the presidents' plane

Yes, Kennedy did have Marilyn Monroe flown in for secret "dates," and LBJ was a typical Texas "good ole boy" womanizer. Nixon, Bush 41, and Carter never cheated on their wives. Clinton cheated, but couldn't match Kennedy or LBJ in style or variety.

The information below is accurate: The elder Bush and current president Bush make it a point to thank and take care of the air crews who fly them around. When the president flies, there are several planes that also go, one carries the armored limo, another the security detail, plus usually a press aircraft. Both Bush's made it a point to stay home on holidays, so the Air Force and security people could have a day with their families.

WHAT WAS: Hillary Clinton was arrogant and orally abusive to her security detail. She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from exchanging pleasantries with them. Sometimes Chelsea, miffed at her mother's obvious conceit and mean spiritedness ignored her demands and exchanged pleasantries regardless, but never in her mother's presence.

Chelsea really was a nice, kindhearted, and lovely young lady. The consensus opinion was that Chelsea loved her Mom but did not like her. Hillary Clinton was continuously rude and abrasive to those who were charged to protect her life. Her security detail dutifully did their job, as professionals should, but they all loathed her and wanted to be on a different detail. Hillary Clinton was despised by the Secret Service as a whole.

Former President Bill Clinton was much more amiable than his wife. Often the Secret Service would cringe at the verbal attacks Hillary would use against her husband. They were embarrassed for his sake by the manner and frequency in which
she verbally insulted him, sometimes in the presence of the Secret Service, and sometimes behind closed doors. Even behind closed doors Hillary Clinton would scream and holler so loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying.

Many felt sorry for President Clinton and most wondered why he tolerated it
instead of just divorcing his "attack dog" wife. It was crystal clear that the Clinton's neither liked nor respected each other and this was true long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Theirs was genuinely a "marriage of convenience."

Chelsea was much closer to her father than her mother, even after the Lewinsky scandal, which hurt her gravely. Bill Clinton did in fact have charisma, and occasionally would smile at or shake hands with his security detail.

Still, he always displayed an obvious air of superiority towards them. His security detail uniformly believed him to be disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without a motive that in some way would enhance his image and political career. He was polite, but not kind. They did not particularly like him and nobody trusted him.

WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN: Al Gore was the male version of Hillary Clinton. They were more friendly toward each other than either of them were towards former President Clinton.They were not intimate, so please don't read that in. They were very close in a political way. Tipper Gore was generally nice and pleasant. She initially liked Hillary but soon after the election she had her "pegged" and no longer liked her or associated with her except for events that were politically obligatory.

Al Gore was far more left wing than Bill Clinton. Al Gore resented Bill Clinton and thought he was too "centrist." He despised all Republicans. His hatred was bitter and this was long before he announced for the Presidency. This hatred was something that he and Hillary had in common. They often said as much, even in the presence of their security detail.

Neither of them trusted Bill Clinton and, the Secret Service opined, neither of them even liked Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton did have some good qualities, whereas Al Gore and Hillary had none, in the view of their security details.

Al Gore, like Hillary, was very rude and arrogant toward his security detail. He was extremely unappreciative and would not hesitate to scold them in the presence of their peers for minor details over which they had no control. Al Gore also looked down on them, as they finally observed and learned with certainty on one occasion. Al got angry at his offspring and pointed at his
security detail and said, "Do you want to grow up and be like them?"

Word of this insult by the former Vice-president quickly spread and he became as disliked by the Secret Service as Hillary. Most of them prayed Al Gore would not be elected President, and they really did have private celebrations in a few of their homes after President Bush won. This was not necessarily to celebrate President Bush's election, but to celebrate Al Gore's defeat.

WHAT IS: Everyone in the Secret Service wants to be on First Lady Laura Bush's detail.
Without exception, they concede that she is perhaps the nicest and most kind person they have ever had the privilege of serving. Where Hillary patently refused to allow her picture to be taken with her security detail, Laura Bush doesn't even have to be asked, she offers. She doesn't just shake their hand and say, "Thank you." Very often, she will give members of her detail a kindhearted hug to express her appreciation.

There is nothing false about her. This is her genuine nature. Her security detail considers her to be a "breath of fresh air." They joke that comparing Laura Bush with Hillary Clinton is like comparing "Mother Teresa" with the "Wicked Witch of the North."

Likewise, the Secret Service considers President Bush to be a gem of a man to work for. He always treats them with genuine respect and he always trusts and listens to their expert advice. They really like the Crawford, Texas detail. Every time the president goes to Crawford he has a Bar-B-Q for his security detail and he helps serve their meals. He sits with them, eats with them, and talks with them. He knows each of them by their first name, and calls them by their first name as a show of affection. He always asks about their family, the names of which he always remembers.

They believe that he is deeply and genuinely appreciative of their service. They could not like, love, or respect anyone more than President Bush. Most of them did not know they would feel this way, until they had an opportunity to work for him and learn that his manner was genuine and consistent. It has never changed since he began his Presidency. He always treats them with the utmost respect, kindness, and compassion.

Please pass this on. It is important for Americans to have a true inside understanding of their President.

Hal Johnson

Ben Stein Tells it like it is

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary, Sunday, 12/18/05.

Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart: I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important? I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife. Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are. If this is what it means to be no longer young. It's not so bad.

Next confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. I don't like getting pushed around for being a Je w, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution, and I don't like it being shoved down my throat. Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke, it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this Happen?" (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?" In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school . the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spa nk our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK. Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW." Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

A Black Minister Tells it like it is

By Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

c 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Say a hurricane is about to destroy the city you live in. Two questions:

What would you do? What would you do if you were black?

Sadly, the two questions don't have the same answer.

To the first: Most of us would take our families out of that city quickly to protect them from danger. Then, able-bodied men would return to help others in need, as wives and others cared for children, elderly, infirm and the like.

For better or worse, Hurricane Katrina has told us the answer to the second question. If you're black and a hurricane is about to destroy your city, you'll probably wait for the government to save you.

This was not always the case. Prior to 40 years ago, such a pathetic performance by the black community in a time of crisis would have been inconceivable. The first response would have come from black men. They would take care of their families, bring them to safety, and then help the rest of the community. Then local government would come in.

No longer. When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out. This, as we know, did not turn out good results.

Enter Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. Jackson and Farrakhan laid blame on "racist" President Bush. Farrakhan actually proposed the idea that the government blew up a levee so as to kill blacks and save whites. The two demanded massive governmental spending to rebuild New Orleans, above and beyond the federal government's proposed $60 billion. Not only that, these two were positioning themselves as the gatekeepers to supervise the dispersion of funds. Perfect: Two of the most dishonest elite blacks in America, "overseeing" billions of dollars. I wonder where that money will end up.

Of course, if these two were really serious about laying blame on government, they should blame the local one. Responsibility to perform legally and practically fell first on the mayor of New Orleans. We are now all familiar with Mayor Ray Nagin the black Democrat who likes to yell at President Bush for failing to do Nagin's job. The facts, unfortunately, do not support Nagin's wailing. As the Washington Times puts it, "recent reports show [Nagin] failed to follow through on his own city's emergency-response plan, which acknowledged that thousands of the city's poorest residents would have no way to evacuate the city."

One wonders how there was "no way" for these people to evacuate the city. We have photographic evidence telling us otherwise. You've probably seen it by now the photo showing 2,000 parked school buses, unused and underwater. How much planning does it require to put people on a bus and leave town, Mayor Nagin?

Instead of doing the obvious, Mayor Nagin (with no positive contribution from Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the other major leader vested with responsibility to address the hurricane disaster) loaded remaining New Orleans residents into the Superdome and the city's convention center. We know how that plan turned out.

About five years ago, in a debate before the National Association of Black Journalists, I stated that if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder.

President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks. Had New Orleans' black community taken action, most would have been out of harm's way. But most were too lazy, immoral and trifling to do anything productive for themselves.

All Americans must tell blacks this truth. It was blacks' moral poverty not their material poverty that cost them dearly in New Orleans. Farrakhan, Jackson, and other race hustlers are to be repudiated they will only perpetuate this problem by stirring up hatred and applauding moral corruption. New Orleans, to the extent it is to be rebuilt, should be remade into a dependency-free, morally strong city where corruption is opposed and success is applauded. Blacks are obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them. We are all obligated to tell them so.

The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is founder and president of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, and author of "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America."