The PresidentÕs Amusement?
By
Richard W. Crockett
If
you are going to start a war, you will undoubtedly have to take some flack for
it. President Bush has received
his share of it, and deservedly so.
Congressman Pete Stark, Democrat from CaliforniaÕs 13th
District, in an impassioned rhetorical flourish in the House of
Representatives, commented that the President and the Republicans in Congress
were unwilling to spend monies in behalf of childrenÕs health care while
spending billions on a war, and sending young Americans to Iraq to Òget their
heads blown off for the PresidentÕs amusement.Ó Is this remark reprehensible or closer to the truth than
many people care to acknowledge?
The
Republicans in congress have seized upon this remark as an ÒI gotchaÓ kind of
political opportunity, but perhaps to no avail. When the CNN morning program
ran a poll requiring their viewers to respond on the CNN website, the question
was asked, ÒShould Stark apologize for his remark?Ó Eighty seven percent of the respondents said that he should
not apologize, even though CNN presented the story in a form, which implied
condemnation and implicit disbelief and with the clear intent to embarrass the
Congressman. Somewhat to their amazement the public saw it differently, in spite
of the fact that the mode of their presentation of the event should have set
the public up to be critical of Congressman Stark.
While
this kind of survey is clearly not a precise reflection of the national public
opinion, it is at least a crude representation of the opinion of news junkies
who are able to tolerate a moderately conservative bias in their news source.
What the incident reveals is that many in the American electorate regard the
folly of President BushÕs reckless war, which has cost nearly 4,000 American
lives and thousands of Iraqi lives as being far more serious than the folly of
a marginally over-the-top, partially true political remark by an obscure
Democratic Congressman.
ÒPartially
true,Ó you may ask? In this sense,
the President is busy Òbeing PresidentÓ and is full of himself. When Bush and Cheney went into this
misadventure their glib perspective betrayed that they had no clue as to the
real costs of the war, and with what pleasure and amusement it must have been
to be at the helm of a most powerful ship of state. With arrogance and with the
larger mission in mind, and with a vulnerable public before them, they used the
tragic events of 9-11 as a pretext, and they proceeded eagerly with an utter
lack of sensitivity to the personal risk and hardship for the soldiers and
marines putting their lives at risk.
Lack of military service in combat in the case of both Bush and Cheney
combined with their flag waving, pseudo patriotism permitted an understanding
of war akin to schoolboys at play. Unfortunately the medical personnel in Iraq
are unable, as much as they may want to, to Òfix upÓ a fallen soldier or marine
by emitting a clicking sound from their mouth and a brush with their hand on a
motionless warrior and a pronouncement that the victim is ÒOK,Ó as is possible
with childÕs play. Well, Mr.
President and Mr. Vice President, it is not that way. If your early amusement with the whole misadventure has
begun to fade, and the folly is beginning to sink in, I would be relieved, but
your continued efforts at justifying our presence in Iraq, and efforts at
tweaking the mission, suggest that it has not.
Richard
Crockett is a retired professor of political science at Western Illinois
University
10/25/07