Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Questions for Bush

Thursday, Jan. 30, 2003 | 9:12 a.m.

THE DRUMS beat for war.

President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech Tuesday night made it very clear to all within earshot that he was ready, very willing, and without a doubt able to attack Saddam Hussein on his home turf.

Since I am viewed by some -- especially those in talk radioland -- as somewhat of a critic of the president, I was asked Wednesday morning to share my thoughts about President Bush's speech over the airwaves. I did.

I told those awake and listening that early in the morning that I thought his speech hit on all cylinders. By that, I mean, President Bush told everyone in America what everyone wanted to hear. That made it a speech destined to be well-received by the masses.

I was immediately castigated by one of my hosts, who claimed she was opposed to the United States giving aid to Africa to help combat its massive and devastating AIDS problem. That money, she argued, goes only to warlords and would be better spent at home.

The problem with those talk radio shows is that there is so little time to explain what are usually some very complex problems, what with the yelling back and forth and the phone calls from people irritated about some damn thing or another.

But anyone who believes that helping Africa get a handle on the AIDS epidemic is not specifically in the interests of this country and the entire world, for that matter, has taken leave of their senses and would be better to take a leave of absence so they can better understand how connected this world really is. Not to mention the basic inhumanity in such a position.

But, I digress, which is a common malady on such shows when so many thoughts spring into my head but have trouble being verbalized before the next confrontation. Perhaps I am just not cut out for the quick, knee-jerk reactions that seem to drive ratings in the radio world. Writing a column, for example, takes some time and causes one to reflect on each and every written word. Doing battle with the debaters of drive time, therefore, may not be one of my strengths.

Back to President Bush. I said his speech was a good one. But the devil, as they say, is in the details. I will leave it to the sausage-machine in the U.S. Congress to figure out how we are going to spend all the money he wants to spend while, at the same time, cutting hundreds of billions in taxes.

At some point, even President Bush has to remember that it was his party in the 1990s that screamed so loudly about burdening future generations with our debt! Now he is telling us that debt is OK, that we are going to grow our way out of it. Maybe. But, it seems more prudent to me, knowing we have a war to pay for and an economy in the tank, that we not give people their money back until we know we have it to give.

As for the war ahead? I think the President should have pulled the trigger long ago. But, since he has waited this long, he ought to be able to make a very clear showing next week through Secretary of State Colin Powell that we have Saddam dead to rights. Then he will have the United Nations helping him pull that trigger.

To do less is to take the very real chance of revisiting the mistakes of Vietnam when our government cooked the books to convince America of the justness of our cause. When half of the country said "no," the war effort unraveled, the country divided and thousands of dead Americans returned from a place that history has taught us we probably should never have gone to in the first place

We must not risk a repeat this time around.

The speech was good. The drums beat louder. And the people of this country are preparing to go with you, Mr. President, to war. Before we go, though, we need to know two things so we will be united, not divided, in this effort.

Have you done everything possible to keep us safe at home when the fighting starts? And will you show us your proof so we will all know the justness of this cause?

Do that, sir, and the state of this union will be strong.