Guest Column
Can disapproval on the war be shown without damaging the country and president?
By Pete Martinez
Rush Limbaugh’s caller asked, “What is a proper way for those opposed to the Iraq war to show their disapproval without damaging the country or our president?” The great one was momentarily left speechless finally saying it was an interesting question and asking whether the caller was one opposing the war. She said no in fact was a Republican who voted for and supports Bush and the war in Iraq. Limbaugh by now composed, went into a long winded answer, which was in fact nothing more than a diatribe attacking those who oppose the war. But, he did bring up an interesting point, charging those who oppose the war don’t want a US victory in Iraq.
He suggested that people like Cindy Sheehan, the ‘anti-war mom,’ as well as Sen. Kennedy and all other anti-war activists could not stand to see Iraq find peace and forge a new Hussein-free, sustainable democracy capable of protecting itself. Such results would vindicate Bush. So that the burning issue within the group is anti-Bush as a cause greater than the war in Iraq. The Iraq war is nothing more than the movement’s high profile issue providing justification for Bush attacks. As to the high-profile Republicans opposed to the war including on-and-off Republican Pat Buchanan, Limbaugh suggests that these folks voice concerns about the war’s failures, seemingly slow progress and high rate of casualties, but not one of those Republicans wishes the US be defeated as do the anti-Bush, vis-à-vis Iraq war groups.
As further fuel for discussion, Limbaugh commented that American civilians have been kidnapped and killed, some beheaded, but not one voice from the anti-Bush-Iraq-war sector has been raised against these barbaric tortures. Yet, they go through great lengths to expose and accuse the Bush administration for acts of torture perpetrated by a few US soldiers as though it is Bush’s declared policy and not individual criminal acts. Nor that on numerous instances wherein accused military personnel have been brought to trial and when found guilty have been punished is not part of the anti-Bush/Iraq-war sector’s language.
This same sector is quick to blame all national tragedies on Bush, in the case of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation of New Orleans for instance, both the war on Iraq and Katrina “disasters flow from the criminal behavior of the Bush administration and are closely related” tied to long term policies such as denial of the existence of global warning and permitting greedy developers to destroy protective offshore islands and wetlands,” statements found on the United for Peace & Justice web site.
One might assume ‘long term’ includes the pre-Bush presidency, but there is no mention of Clinton, Bush-father, Reagan and Carter administrations, thus it can be deducted that Limbaugh may be onto something.
On the other hand, it is almost universally accepted that Bush did take the country into the Iraq war under false pretenses and his administration’s reasons soon after the invasion were soundly and irrevocably refuted. Bush obtained a quick victory over Hussein’s army, but since then, military operations are bogged down in the attempt at winning the peace at a high cost of US military and Iraqi lives.
There is also little doubt that US’s foreign policy based on what we call ‘National Interests’ and ‘National Security’ very often run counter to the national interests and national security of countries targeted by our nation’s policy. Since interests and security are very elastic policies shaped by each new administration’s advisors and special interest groups entering into power, there are periods in which our foreign policy is confusing to other countries. Such for instance was the case with the Carter administration, countered by Regan, countered by Clinton, and countered again by present Bush.
With Carter and Clinton, the US political right went into convulsion, and ecstasy with Reagan and Bush I and Bush II, conversely the left was in heaven with Carter and to a lesser degree with Clinton but that was due to his personal taste on matters of sex, and predicted the end of the world with Reagan and the two Bush presidents.
- Getting back to the interesting question posed by Limbaugh’s caller – the unfortunate answer is no, there is no way that those against Bush can do so without hurting and embarrassing the nation. Just as there is no way that the antics of the Republican extreme right can not help but embarrass and hurt the US’s image both at home and abroad.
- __________________________________________________
- Pete Martinez is a Republican and an occasional contributing columnist to HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com). Contact at EditorHVC@aol.com