CLAMP Campus Adventures

I try to keep most of the political commentary out of this blog, but sometimes I can’t help myself. I have always been a political person. I even started my college career as a political science major. I was sealing envelopes when I was 12 and making election day phone calls to remind people to vote when I was 16. So, it’s sort of in my blood.

Noone likes Sadaam Hussein, probably not even his own people (not that they’d be able to admit that and live). He’s the kind of person that is reminiscent of a certain leader of Germany in the 1940s. Mr. Hussein has not been known to be a person of restraint. This is a guy who has killed his own people using chemical and biological warfare. I’m certain he wouldn’t hesitate to use it on the U.S. or anyone else who challenged him. If he had nuclear weapons, he wouldn’t be shy about using them either.

However, Mr. Hussein is the leader of his nation. We might not like his political idealogy or his personal morals. We might even find him to be morally corrupt and hiding under the convienent mantel of religion and a region of the world that hasn’t been politically stable for a very, very long time. However, he is his country. As a nation, we can refuse to do business with him and his alllies, but to go over and bomb him out of existance, when there is no proof that has been presented to the American people, or the world at large, that he poses an imminent threat or has posed an imminent threat strikes me as a regression back to the policies of Manifest Destiny. We’re the right, you’re the wrong, and if you get in out way, God help you.

You know what really brought the end of Manifest Destiny? It was World War II. There was this small, Asian nation of Japan who also had a policy that they were going to expand and colonize and force their ideologies onto others. They picked on someone a little too strong for them to survive an armed conflict, and the bigger bully won. I’m not saying that the Japanese army was not horribly brutal during World War II, but is the United States any less brutal for imposing their policies and ideologies on a foreign nation?

You see, the problem is that we are now working with King George the Third. We got rid of King George the Second after a small revolution of protest about Great Britian’s policy of Manifest Destiny. So, he’d be the third King George of North America. His supporters, or should I say the people who kiss his ass, are some of the most arrogant people in existance.

Yesterday, the man who won the popular vote for President, made a speech criticizing the man who became President due to constitutional and political reasons. How dare he! Mr. Gore stated that his opinion of the matter of Iraq was that Bush’s concentration on Iraq has eroded world confidence in the United States and diminished the war on terrorism. This is not an untrue statement. He also stated reservations that the political and diplomatic cost would be too high. Also true. This is from a man who has always supported overthrowing Mr. Hussein. He was actually one of a very few number of Democrats in the Senate who voted for the Gulf War. Remember, ‘no war for oil’?

Let’s not forget, Mr. Gore isn’t the only Democrat criticizing Mr. Bush’s plans to obliterate another country on rather flimsy evidence. Former president Carter has said the following, “It is a radical departure from traditions that have shaped our nation’s policy by Democratic and Republican presidents for more than 50 years.” That certainly is not support for the idea.

But, Mr. Bush isn’t scared of Mr. Carter. The Republican National Committee is obviously running scared from Mr. Gore. Here’s the reaction of the Republican Party to Mr. Gore’s remarks. Judge for yourself the fear that the Republicans have of actually losing control, of losing power in government, because maybe a Democrat happens to be right.

“It seemed to be a speech more appropriate for a political hack than a presidential candidate by someone who clearly fails to recognize leadership,” said Jim Dyke, a Republican National Committee spokesman.

Now, I’m not a great political pundit, but to call someone who is more politically popular with the voting constituants (of the 2000 Presidential Election) a ‘political hack’ doesn’t seem the most politically astute move to me. Call me funny that way.