‘Bush is a very good president, bordering on great’
By Ryan Mortensen,
RYAN'S RAMBLINGS, IV Leader Columnist, Jan. 30, 2003
I’m sick and tired of the constant Bush bashing that goes on in our country today. I used to think that it would be cool to be the president, but after seeing how it is impossible for our president to make a decision without being blasted by members of the press, I don’t want to be president any more. It’s a no-win situation.
Occasionally I choose to read other opinion columns in the school newspaper and other newspapers. While many of these columns are well-written, I do disagree with much of what has been written about our beloved president and the job he is doing, which I find to be first rate.
One major topic in which many find fault in President Bush is his handling of our country’s ongoing conflict with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Bush is called a warmonger for his actions in the Persian Gulf.
Of those who believe this to be true, I would ask: “How many shots have been fired?” If our president were truly a warmonger, then why have no shots been fired in the direction of Iraq? If that were the case then we would all ready be at war. We would not have gone to the United Nations and asked them to intervene.
All our president wants is confirmation that no weapons of mass destruction — be it chemical, biological, or nuclear — would be available for Hussein to use on our allies or us. All Bush is trying to do is maintain the safety of The United States and its friends.
There are people in this country who feel that we should not be involved in any form of conflict with Iraq. Their reasoning is that Iraq has done nothing to us. They have not harmed us or threatened the United States or any of its allies. Well, not yet anyway.
Let’s go back to one of the darkest days in our country’s history, Sept. 11, 2001. That day, our way of life was forever altered.
In the months that followed that horrible day, President Bush was attacked for not having prevented the tragic events that unfolded that morning. Members of the press lit into Bush. They said he knew it was going to happen and that he did nothing to stop it. They claimed it could have been prevented. Well, I argue that that is precisely what our president is trying to do. He is trying to prevent more heinous acts from being perpetrated.
Let’s take a rational approach to the situation at hand. Let’s say we do wait for provocation. Let’s say we decide to wait until Hussein does something. What will he do? What kind of provocation will we get?Well, if he is able to get ICBMs from one of his buddies, that provocation could be mushroom clouds over our major cities. It could mean the releasing of dangerous gasses or bio-agents over the country. It could very possibly mean the death of hundreds of thousands of American citizens. But Bush is still a warmonger for trying to prevent this from happening?
But maybe Hussein doesn’t have any buddies with ICBMs lying around. What then? Then he’ll target places like Jerusalem, London, Paris, and Moscow, places that are more easily accessible. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein is one of, if not the most, evil people on the planet. He will attempt to do something.
It is inevitable. Unless, that is, someone like president Bush stops him first. Warmonger? I don’t think so.
In the Dec. 12 issue of this newspaper, a columnist wrote something in his column that annoyed me a little bit. He wrote, “When we let our presidents decide for us what’s best for our nation, and when we let morality slip for profit and a good economy.”
First of all, we do let our presidents decide what is best for our nation. That’s their job. That’s why we elect them. Every four years we hold elections. Some of us vote. We vote for whomever we feel will do the best job of deciding what is best for our country. That’s why we have politicians. That’s why we have elections. Who else is going to make the decisions that need to be made for our country to properly function?
Second, I don’t know about you, but a good economy is pretty important to me. When the first president Bush was seeking reelection, the media was complaining about the state of the economy. Now a good economy is a bad thing? What am I missing? Since when is having access to the things we need to survive, a bad thing. Without a good economy companies will suffer. Everyone will suffer. If American citizens have less money in their pocket, common sense says that they will be more reluctant to spend that money.
No, a good economy is a good thing. A good economy means that my family can afford to put a roof above my head and food on the table.
Don’t misunderstand me. My family is in no way affluent. That roof I was talking about is on wheels. A better economy means that more products are purchased. And it means that my dad, an unemployed truck driver, is able to find a job shipping these products to various places. Now that he has a job, he can afford to buy more things and the cycle is sustained.
I don’t know about anyone reading this, but I don’t think employment shows a slip in morality. On the contrary, higher employment rates shows that our country has a great deal of morals. Ever since we were children our parents have tried to teach us that we should work hard for what we get. A good economy allows us to do that.
President Bush is a very good president, bordering on great. The economy has been showing signs of improvement, and Bush is doing his best to prevent anyone from harming the United States and its allies.
Maybe it’s time we showed our president the proper respect. Bush is good. More people need to see that – or maybe just admit it.