If you look back at some of the other pieces Rooney has done on the war, you'll find that he:
- stood against us going it alone
- has strongy criticized France for their stance
- feels that once the war started we should still support our troops but it doesn't mean we have to be happy they are there or that we support the "way" (unilateral) in which we chose to have them go.
Andy Rooney said in a recent piece,
"You can't beat the French when it comes to food, fashion, wine or perfume, but they lost their license to have an opinion on world affairs years ago. They may even be selling stuff to Iraq and don't want to hurt business.
The French are simply not reliable partners in a world where the good people in it ought to be working together. Americans may come off as international jerks sometimes but we're usually trying to do the right thing.
Americans have a right to protest going to war with Iraq. The French do not. They owe us the independence they flaunt in our face at the U.N.
I went into Paris with American troops the day we liberated it, Aug. 25, 1944. It was one of the great days in the history of the world.
French women showered American soldiers with kisses, at the very least. The next day, the pompous Charles de Gaulle marched down the mile long Champs Elysee to the Place de la Concorde as if he had liberated France himself. I was there, squeezed in among a hundred tanks we'd given the Free French Army that we brought in with us. "
"The French have not earned their right to oppose President Bush's plans to attack Iraq.
On the other hand, I have. "
In an earlier piece prior to war,
"Those damn polls we can't get away from indicate that Americans are evenly divided over whether or not we should attack Iraq. That's what I am - evenly divided. Hard to decide.
A lot of idealistic Americans think it's wrong for us to be the ones who start any war. Others think we should attack before Saddam Hussein does something with the weapons we're guessing he has.
Our leaders won't tell us how they'd go about it. Donald Rumsfeld, our secretary of defense, doesn't tell us much of anything anyway.
He says things like, "I don't care to respond," or "I have no desire to discuss the issue," or "I have no information whatsoever" or "I have no information on that," or "I have no idea."
We have everything we need for a war.
We have 1.3 million soldiers.
There are 40,000 colonels alone.
We have 1,500 heavy bombers.
It seems likely that once we've bombed the hell out of Iraq, we'll drop several thousand of our special forces in there. Try to find Saddam Hussein; it's like finding Osama bin Laden.
In addition to conventional weapons, we have all the stuff we suspect Hussein has or is getting: ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. And you can bet we have stores of anthrax and other test-tube killers. Hussein used mustard gas on the Iranians 15 years ago but mustard gas is old-fashioned now.
Our military people support the plan to attack Iraq, of course. And you can't blame them. They've lived their whole lives for this. If you had all those weapons they have, you'd want to see if they worked, too.
The president admits he has a special reason for hating Saddam Hussein: "So after all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad at one time," the president has said.
Well, I have a vindictive streak myself. My worst side would enjoy seeing us attack Iraq.
But then I think of all the young American sons who would lose dads who have never been president, and all the good, innocent Iraqis too. And once we blow Iraq to pieces, we'll have to spend years putting it back together. Our plans seem more vague than secret.
President Bush isn't sitting in his private quarters in the White House watching 60 Minutes, waiting to hear what Andy Rooney thinks. But if he was listening, I think what I'd say is, "Please don't do it alone, Mr President.""
Anyway... just thought I'd throw that in for what it's worth.