For the past few years, the impeachment call against President Bush has clamored on, but generally without the benefit of substance. Instead it is a movement comprised of mobs chanting simple slogans fueled with vehement passion. A VCU student could go on his own scavenger hunt of anti-Bush propaganda and make several finds without having to stray off campus, let alone far from his dormitory.
The entire concept of the movement consists of Bush lying about a threat to America being in Iraq, thereby leading the country into an illegal war and costing us dearly – not only monetarily, but with the blood of our soldiers. Pundits vying for airtime and politicians running for office continue to ramble on and on about the necessity (or the lack thereof) for such a war to have occurred.
It does not, however, change the majority decision of Congress to approve of the use of force in Iraq in October 2002. There were two burnt-out chemical labs found in Iraq in the summer of 2003, as well as Iraqi ballistic missiles found in scrap heaps of several different countries including Denmark and Jordan in the summer of 2004. Both of these appear to corroborate Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Charles Dulfur’s assertion that – while Saddam Hussein might not have had any WMD’s stockpiled in Iraq – the future of Iraq’s weapons program relied on Saddam Hussein’s word alone.
The Downing Street memo has many convinced that Bush was lying about the reasons to go to war, but – as the follow-up work Matthew Rycroft commissioned at the end of the memo to investigate – it can be called at best British speculation of American speculation for a war. This only leads to public speculation, which as of yet hasn’t cited any law breaking except for what the protestors deem to be issues of morality.
Unfortunately for these protestors, our country is based on the rule of law and not relativist whim. It is this narrow-sightedness that leads them away from actual content that could accomplish their goals. At the same time, they would have to buckle on a completely different issue many of them hold dear: diversity and multiculturalism.
Earlier last month, the governors of New Mexico and Arizona declared a state of emergency due to the growing number of illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican border. It may not seem like such a big problem from our vantage point farther north in Virginia, but to the residents of these two states who have had their homes vandalized, their livestock killed and their possessions robbed by the hordes crossing over, it is an entirely different story.
The New York Hansen’s Disease Clinic linked the more than 7,000 new cases of leprosy in the past three years compared to only 900 in the previous forty to illegal immigration. Violent gangs based in several countries south of the border, such as MS-13, have been more prominent in the news as of late – not only for their ability to bring in terrorists, but also for publicly threatening American citizens who would dare to watch the border and report illegal activities.
At this point, you’re likely asking yourself where the indictments are for all this rhetoric. Upon his swearing in as president, Bush made an oath to uphold the constitution and defend the country. As Pat Buchanan noted Aug. 29 on WorldNet Daily, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.”
The same oath that applies to eliminating a threat in Iraq most certainly applies to the threat pouring in from the south. What President Bush has done, however, in regards to this mess can only be called at best counter-productive.
As early as 2002, legislation was passed providing for 2,000 new border patrol agents, but less than 200 were placed on the border. In response to the sluggishness of the administration, a courageous group of citizen volunteers known as the Minutemen organized to watch the border, contact border patrol regarding any illegal activity and show Washington the power of the citizenry. The president responded by calling them “vigilantes,” MS-13 promised raging battles, ACLU members rushed down to investigate any wrongdoings (but ultimately ended up smoking pot for lack of anything to do) and the Mexican government provided its people with literature on how to cross the border.
Despite this, the effort was a success and, aside from the one instance where a Minuteman made contact with an illegal alien by giving him cereal and was promptly dismissed, they got the job done. In response, Bush maintains the only way to deal with the problem is blanket amnesty.
In his Aug. 29 article, Mr. Buchanan’s other concern was that there was no one courageous enough in the Senate to put forth a bill of impeachment. Faced with a president who refuses to take on his responsibility to protect the nation, can we put aside the multicultural and anti-war rhetoric and come out in support of our elected representatives to uphold the law instead of what is popular?
Derek Rinaldo is a senior mechanical engineering student at VCU and may be reached at rinaldodr@vcu.org