Let’s make a deal right here. If y’all ever see me backing a war which you think is unnecessary or ill-advised, you have my permission to criticize it. PLEEEEASE!
No, really. PLEEEEASE!
It is quite unlikely that I’ll be called up to fight, being, as I am, on the back side of 40 with a bad back. (Although if President Bush continues sending our soldiers abroad at the current rate — who knows? There may indeed be a spot for the likes of me.)
But unlike Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, I do not think it’s unpatriotic to criticize either the president or his war.
If anything, it is every American’s birthright, nay, constitutional duty, to speak up when the country is venturing down a self-destructive path.
Rummy, though, disagrees. He is on the warpath once again, claiming that critics of Bush’s plans, especially his request for $87 billion more for Iraq, are providing encouragement to America’s enemies.
Rumsfeld tried to temper his attack on the First Amendment by saying, in a New York Times interview this week, “There should be a debate ... on these things. We can live with a healthy debate as long as it is as elevated as possible and as civil as possible.”
That sounds, in administration-speak, like “It’s OK to criticize us when you agree with our objectives; otherwise, keep your pie hole shut.”
Some conservatives freely criticized the Clinton administration for its use of the military in the Balkans and elsewhere. Why, then, is it now a no-no to criticize a Republican administration whose veracity over why we went to war with Iraq — and how much that war would cost — deserves scrutiny, possibly of the congressional variety?
It’s understandable that Rumsfeld feels he has the right to control criticism of this administration’s agenda. With the line, especially in television news, blurred between journalism and jingoism — with Fox News leading the cheerleading for war while dutifully eviscerating the war’s opponents — he doubtlessly feels justified and protected.
And political observers point out that attacking the president on the war would be as effective for Democrats as Saddam Hussein’s vaunted Republican Guard was for him — that is to say, not at all — since some polls show support for the war running at better than 60 percent.
Of course, a poll will support anything if it’s administered in the right way or in the right neighborhood. Also, support for the war — which probably translates mainly into support for our troops in the war — isn’t necessarily synonymous with support for Bush.
Even if it was, Democratic candidates who oppose the war should figuratively stick to their guns.
As Hubert Humphrey — no peacenik — said when he sought the presidency in 1968 and lost, “I’d rather be right than president.”
Every American, even those not vying for the country’s highest office, can adopt a similar stance: I’d rather be right than be a sniveling sycophant who gives away my First Amendment rights in the name of patriotism.
Barry Saunders can be reached at(919) 836-2811 or through e-mail at barrys@newsobserver.com
