Was It Really Political?

So should Abraham Lincoln have been criticized for tastelessly injecting politics into what should have been a memorial event when, at Gettysburg, he concluded his remarks by declaring that the nation should “be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us–that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion” (emphasis mine – JLH)?

Judging by the reaction of leading Democrats to President Bush’s speech on the five-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks, President Lincoln should have been excoriated. After all, he was at Gettysburg to dedicate a cemetery – a place of remembrance of those who died there. Given that the war was not an extremely popular one in the first place, one can only assume that, had Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Ted Kennedy been around then, they would have jumped on Mr. Lincoln’s shameless campaigning on behalf of his war policies at a ceremony that should have been dedicated to cultivating a national sense of victimhood.

But Lincoln saw nothing inherently virtuous about being a victim of circumstance, and when the actions of the Southern States brought on the war that virtually no one in the north wanted, he elected to take action to change the circumstances under which he found himself, believing that the cause was worth whatever criticism his contemporaries, or even history, might heap upon him. And he recognized that the very reason that the memorial was being held in the first place was the fact of the war that confronted the nation. How could he not have taken note of the war, and the need to stay the course for the good of future generations?

From the time he took office, George W. Bush has demonstrated that he is not content with simply being president, as was his predecessor. He actually wanted to do something during his time in the White House. On September 11, 2001, circumstances forced him to change his emphasis. And, recognizing the need to put first things first – like protecting the nation and eliminating a clear threat to it – he took aggressive action.

From President Bush’s perspective, the war in Iraq is a part of the larger war on terror, whether you agree with him or not (I do - JLH). As he was the one giving the speech on Monday, it should come as no surprise to note that the mass murder that occurred five years ago – and the need to prevent it from happening again – was presented as the very reason that the fight continues in Iraq. And it should come as no surprise that he emphasized the need to stay the course so that the fate of those who died on that horrible September morning will not be shared by any who follow them.

Learn from the events of the past, and take motivation from them to do better in the future. Isn’t that what memorials are all about?

In that light, there was really nothing political about the President’s discussing Iraq as its danger to the world was awakened by the attacks on New York and Washington. So criticizing his speech as political is off base. If his opponents must criticize something in this context, let it be the war policies he is pursuing. But then, that really would have been injecting politics into a day of remembrance.