|
Freedom to Act Against Real Threats
By Bob Davidson, Canton
Presidents Bush and Kennedy Would Agree
I hope those who have demonized our current President and likely worshipped former President John F. Kennedy will forgive me for mentioning the two public servants in the same line. I know you see the former President as a handsome, articulate war hero, a loving family man and a charming, charismatic, successful leader of our nation. I'll concede that some of this fits the facts.
Those who compare the two men will find many differences, but on a point critical to our nation's future they would completely agree. In 1962 Cuba did not, as Iraq is now, violate any agreements with the UN. It was not, as Iraq is now, shooting at our aircraft. Cuba was involved with what was called a "Missile Crisis." At that time, President Kennedy made the following statement: "This nation is prepared to present its case against the Soviet threat to peace, and our own proposals for a peaceful world, at any time and in any forum—in the Organization of American States, in the United Nations, or in any other meeting that could be useful—without limiting our freedom of action." (emphasis added)
Now that Iraq has, for ten years, violated its agreements with the UN and is almost daily firing missiles at our aircraft while they police a no-fly zone, our current President has made almost an identical proclamation: Let the UN take appropriate action—but without limiting our freedom of action.
In other words, President Bush and former President Kennedy would agree that the U.S. must be free to act unilaterally when threatened. Regardless of your choice of President, when our national security is threatened, politics don't matter. When courage and statesmanship are required, true leaders rise to meet the challenge.
There is another option available to President Bush which would also be consistent with the policy of another Democratic President—Franklin D. Roosevelt. President Bush could wait for a Pearl Harbor-like incident to make it politically correct to respond to a known threat.
It's About Life — Not the Economy
Based on his past actions and the way in which he currently treats the civilian population in his country, Saddam Hussein is at best a cruel, evil dictator or, even worse, a madman. He is known to have used chemical weapons on his own people, and has used international aid intended for his people to purchase weapons of mass destruction. He has killed two sons-in-law who he considered a threat to his power. He has amassed biological and chemical weapons and appears to be within approximately one year of having nuclear weapons. He has for ten years ignored and/or violated treaties he made with the UN after he lost the Gulf War. He has insulted all Americans, especially our past and current Presidents. This man is not predictable. He is not a man who can be trusted; he is an egomaniac or perhaps simply insane.
I keep hearing people say we should ignore the above and concentrate on solving "the real threats to our country" like the poor economy and environmental concerns. To them I offer this question: If those who died in the terrorist attack of 9/11 could speak, would they tell us the environment or the economy is what our government should be making its highest priority? Would they say that being financially secure is worth the risk of being incinerated?
Some Americans have been so spoiled they seem to think they can have it all—without paying anything at all.
| 
