Darned
if He Does ...
by Robert Yoho, Columnist and Senior Editor
"Eye on Conservatism"
The events of the past year should have eliminated any doubts that the presidency
of the United States is indeed the toughest job in the world. And in the end,
it does not matter what the margin of victory might have been. The weight of
the office can be an enormous chore for all those who occupy the Oval Office.
.jpg)
In
the past few weeks, President George W. Bush (right) has been roundly criticized,
second-guessed, and subjected to unsolicited advice from every corner of the
globe regarding what we should or shouldn’t do about Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Much of the speculation and conflicting advice has come from those in his own party or previous administration officials of his father, former President George Bush. No doubt many of these people are pursuing a personal agenda or just protecting their "legacy."
And in matters such as these, President George W. Bush faces a no-win situation. He is darned if he does and darned if he doesn’t.
His detractors have desperately sought to portray him as an intellectual lightweight or merely a puppet of his father. Last September’s terrorist attacks have made it much more difficult to pass along that perception to the American public.
If he heeds the cautious advice of his father’s former advisors, then the president will be accused of weakness or failing to do enough to oust Hussein from power. If he attacks Iraq, then he will be criticized for being a warmonger.
Sen. Tom Daschle, who leads the always-whiny wing of the Democratic Party, openly criticized President George W. Bush for his inability to prevent the 9/11 attacks. However, he is now urging restraint in dealing with Saddam Hussein.
Which is it, Tommy?
Sen. Daschle’s response to Iraq reminds me of something Wayne LaPierre, of the National Rifle Association, said about Bill Clinton:
"I believe Clinton needs a certain level of violence in this country," the NRA official said to Cokie Roberts. "He's willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda."
.jpg)
No
matter what the cost, Tom Daschle (left) doesn’t want Bush to succeed with the
economy or our national security. In short, the senator would rather see American
citizens killed and impoverished than risk the chance that President Bush might
successfully drive another evil, dictatorial madman from power.
Daschle is much more concerned with the political implications of Bush’s decision than he is the safety of the American people. Should Bush succeed where his father did not finish, then Daschle fears that his party will suffer in future elections. In his mind, the nation’s security simply isn’t worth the political risks.
I am also weary of the pacifists who think appeasement will work now, when history is replete with examples where it has always failed in the past. Moreover, why should we stand idly by and wait for the next international thug who wants to take a free shot at us?
Now is not the time for our country to turn the other cheek.
So what if America is forced to "go it alone!" We’re used to it. Our country was built on independence. The United States doesn’t need to build an international coalition of weak-kneed socialists who cannot whip a Girl Scout brownie troop.
European cities suffered none of the terrorism and carnage of September 11th. Terrorism cost them nothing. It is easy to use caution and restraint when it is not your ox being gored. It was not France or Germany that saw their citizens killed, their buildings destroyed, or their way of life threatened.
Sooner or later, it must be realized that nations like France and Germany are not our allies; they are our obstacles. Their shortsighted meddling and interference in our international affairs is a serious threat to freedom’s continued preservation.
Some are saying that President Bush needs the consent of Congress before going to war. It is my contention that the essential Constitutional mandates have already been sufficiently met.
The events of the past year have shown us that President George W. Bush is capable of making the right decision in whether we should strike at Saddam Hussein. His detractors are not good at anything other than talk. ***
© 2002 Robert Yoho
COPYRIGHT © 2002 BY THE AMERICAN PARTISAN. All writers retain rights to their work.
Home | About Us | Archives | Forums | Links | Resources | Submissions | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer