|
With
the deafening sounds of outrage at President Bush's approach to
dealing the Middle East crisis continuously blaring from the mouths
of many conservative radio talk show hosts and cable news program
hosts, and with angry, loathsome words pounding the pages written
by conservative columnists on a daily basis, I find myself even
more intrigued by President Bush. I cannot help but wonder if
this president is starting to feel that perhaps his victory in
November 2000, was an insidiously cruel joke devised by restless
imps eager to engage in a little mischief. But then again, knowing
what we know of President Bush's religious convictions, it's probably
more likely that he finds himself kneeling by his bedside nightly,
pondering the same heartwrenching question as Jesus, "My God,
my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"
After
all, his path to the White House was anything but auspicious.
Surely, the win in 2000, put a damper on what would have been
for any other president, the most luxuriating moment of gloating
in one-upsmanship that any individual could ever hope to experience
for succeeding in his chosen profession. However, that opportunity
was not to be. How could he? Can you imagine the reaction of half
the nation if the president would have stated publicly, "Sure,
it was a tough fight, but the best man won?" Instead, that once-in-a-lifetime
experience was greatly diminished. No public gloating. Instead,
a few high-fives all around for the family and only the most trusted
confidants was probably the extent of any self-congratulatory
display. Sheesh.
And
even today, in certain quarters around the country, there are
those who still are unable to address Mr. Bush by his rightful
title, President. Eventhough it's clear, that he won – the
votes were counted, recounted, irradiated and then counted again—there
are those who refuse to give even a little by referring to him
as "Mr. Bush", or "Chief Executive", nope.
Instead, they will only refer to him as President if it is hyphenated
with the word "select". Though I am sure, the President
has not spent very much time lamenting over that fact that some
Americans continue to engage in this verbal revolt. Such an easy-going
guy as President Bush likely chalks it up as being nothing more
than an often-repeated bad one-liner. I mean, you cannot take
those things too seriously, especially when you are in the game
of high-stakes politics. It comes with the territory. Those who
did not support you are never really expected to sing-your praises
or refer to you in an endearing manner. (Still, is it too much
to ask for a little respect?)
But
his supporters, now that's a different matter. You couldn't
have paid me to think that during a time when the face of terrorism
has grimaced to a frighteningly hideous level, that the efforts
being made by the President to temper, if not resolve the situation
are coming under stunningly harsh criticism. Had you paid me,
it would not have been money wisely spent. Because I would have
only imagined that such virulent criticism could have, certainly
would have, come from the opposition—the democrats, the liberals
for goodness sake! No. President Bush's smartly-cautious
(I'll reserve the King Solomon comparison if and when an
accord is reached) approach to the most volatile conflict in recent
Arab-Israeli history has triggered a wave of conservative-outrage,
not seen since, well, Bill Clinton was president. This is no exaggeration.
Actually,
the rumblings of disgruntlement began with the September 11th
attacks. Merely days following the assault, a campaign was started
by a cadre of neo-conservatives in an attempt to force President
Bush to vastly expand the nation's counter-attack from tracking
down the crazed Ossama Bin-Laden, and his mindless minions, to
immediately waging war against numerous Arab nations. In a letter
signed by some 40 neo-conservative stalwarts including The Weekly
Standard's Bill Kristol, former Education Czar Bill Bennett
and former UN Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick among others, the letter
offered a thinly-veiled threat of withdrawal of support for Bush,
if he didn't wise up and kick the needlessly diplomatic (huh?)
Secretary of State Colin Powell to the curb, and get on with the
business of edging the planet closer to Armageddon.
But
in a show of amazing commitment to national security (this nation's
that is), Bush remained keenly focused on the business at hand.
And it truly is amazing that a modern-day politician would choose
to do that which is in the best interest of his constituents,
over that which would certainly have enhanced his personal political
stock. But this rather minor rankle for the most part went unnoticed.
Few likely paid attention to the dissenters during the aftermath
of September 11th, as the nation had officially declared itself
a unified force.
The
middle-east crisis is a different case. Americans, while concerned
about world events, naturally are not as engaged with the turmoil
occurring on foreign soil. But according to most polls, we basically
believe that the president is doing a good job in handling this
crisis. Perhaps the pollsters should do a bit more fragmenting.
Clearly, they would find that an overwhelming majority of conservative
media finds the president's handling of the situation, well…bush-league.
To be precise, true conservatives appear to be in support of the
president. True conservatives? Yes, those who embrace conservative
ideals on principle. Their commitment is nearly akin to something
spiritual. As opposed to neo-conservatives who apparently wear
the label as a political means to an end. Not that supporting
the president in this crisis is a litmus test on conservatism,
but take my word on this one, there is truly a distinction. But
I digress.
Yes,
according to President Bush's alleged ardent supporters,
he is displaying bush-league abilities in handling the middle-east
crisis. It seems the rallying points for his supporters/detractors
is Bush's insistence on actually calling for an end to the
violence from both sides. I know, you thought I was going to deliver
a bombshell. Nope. That's it. He desires a peaceful solution
(we can hope can't we?). He refuses to bend to the mindless
calls to "wipe out the terrorists", i.e., Arafat &
Co. Should terrorism be eradicated? That's a no-brainer.
However, to be clear, the critics in this case are trying to pull
a fast one. They are suggesting that the President is somehow
duplicitous because he promised to rid the world of terrorists
following the 9-11 attacks. (In fact, one popular conservative
columnist that I interviewed on the day of Bush's call for
peace went as far as to flat out call the president a hypocrite).
Nevertheless, in the midst of his friends/foes cries, he refuses
to deliver the head of Arafat on platter, nor provide the little-needed
encouragement for Sharon to do so. Of course, a strong argument
can be made about Arafat's membership in the Terrorist Society,
but for the purpose of achieving peace; the President is using
wisdom.
So
here again, the president's commitment to the greater good
is very impressive. Does anyone doubt the President's desire
to see an end to the violence? His speech from the Rose Garden
was powerful. He pulled no punches. And he took the risk of facing
a public embarrassment—he dispatched Secretary Powell to
the Israel (potentially embarrassing because Powell could be rebuked
or worse). He wants it, and he wants it in a big way. Surely,
the easy (read: politically expedient) thing for him to do would
be to say to the world that we, the United States have done all
that we can do. That the situation is hopeless. That Arafat &
Co. are intractable madmen solely responsible for the bloodbath.
And that the only means to bring about peace is to ensure their
destruction. If President Bush were to utter those words, undoubtedly
he would miraculously find himself back in the good graces of
neo-conservative media. This would be music to their ears, as
they have been singing those macabre lyrics ad nauseam. Of course,
there is still the little matter of Colin Powell. These same supporter/detractors
could find no wrong in Mr. Powell. That is until he let it be
known that although he's a military man, a former general
no doubt, that his weapons of choice in the war on terrorism were
coalition building and diplomacy. And that he believes those same
tools can bring about positive results in the Israeli-Arab conflict.
So while he may still be viewed as a nice guy, there are of course
the thinly veiled suggestions that he is not really qualified
for the job. Which of course gives the supporters/detractors reason
to pile on in questioning President Bush's qualifications
in selecting Powell as Secretary of State in the first place.
Apparently,
there is a need for massive corrective vision in neo-conservative
media. Thankfully, the President is not as shortsighted. Sure,
he may have displayed some reluctance in jumping into the fray.
But is not the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet
entitled to a little time to assess the situation as thoroughly
as possible? To examine the bigger picture? To collect intelligence
on the next moves of other Middle East players before playing
his hand? To pray? I think so.
To
some, this may be poetic justice for a guy who they feel never
belong in the White House in the first place. I guess that's
fair. However, to the fair-weathered friends, shame on you. You
talked about, you wrote about the refreshing era that we were
about to enter, when President Bush was sworn-in. You said we
were embarking on an era where integrity would count. We have.
It does. So, why not show a little?
Deborah
Rowe is enjoyed weekdays 3-5 on AM 1160 WYLL Chicago, a 50,000
watt station. And ON LINE at www.wyll.com.
E-mail Deborah Rowe: rowe@wyll.com
|
