An American president is constitutionally limited by the 22nd amendment, passed in 1951, to two terms in office.
This amendment was pushed by the Republican-led 80th Congress elected in 1946, and in some measure was a response to the Democrat Franklin Roosevelt’s winning four presidential elections between 1932 and 1944.
Many Republicans later would regret this term-limiting amendment as it made lame ducks of presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, each of whom most likely would have won third terms and Americans will never know what this would have meant for their country.
If Eisenhower, a war-hero and five-star general, could have run in 1960 and win his third term, America probably would have avoided the sort of involvement in Vietnam that came under President John Kennedy’s watch, then turning into a nightmare deeply dividing the country, its consequences still haunt Americans in a new century.
A third term for Ronald Reagan probably would have saved Americans the frivolous years of Bill Clinton’s two terms of frolic in the White House. How unsubstantial was Clinton’s romp can be measured by his post-presidency efforts to manufacture some sort of legacy for history books besides having his name associated with the stain on Monica Lewinsky’s dress.
Though presidency is limited, America’s interests are not truncated by changes in the White House occupants. These interests are inseparable from the issues of freedom and democracy beyond the shores of America, and from America’s responsibility in maintaining and protecting the liberal-capitalist world order.
All 20th century presidents, for instance, from Theodore Roosevelt to Reagan and the elder George Bush, despite any personal failings, remained engaged with the world as circumstances required and supported the cause of freedom when needed for making the world somewhat better for everyone.
No American president, especially those who were consequential, escaped opposition and criticisms of their contemporaries. But the course they charted, as Truman did in setting the policy of containment against the former Soviet Union and international communism, would be maintained long after they served their terms.
On Thursday evening President George Bush made it clear that America’s engagement in Iraq and presence in the Middle East are long term. Bush mentioned this by speaking about Iraqi leaders who “understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.”
Then George Bush emphasized, “The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States” and the “success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation.”
President Bush has set the course.
As the political calendar turns and the race for presidency among contenders gathers speed, there will be endless criticism and demagogy of Democrats fired in the direction of Bush.
SOBER THOUGHT
But eventually sober thought will prevail that only American leadership can secure Iraq’s freedom that is of strategic interest at this time in world history, and that only America’s bravest can crush the evil of Islamist terrorism and contain or punish those rogue states, such as Iran, that exploit this evil for their own anti-freedom agenda.
Moreover, no serious president-elect from either party coming into the White House as President Bush departs in January 2009 will gamble on a policy that might stain the presidency for losing Iraq and for the peril that will come with it.
He is a member of the Board of Directors for the Center for Islamic Pluralism based in Washington, D.C., a Senior Fellow with the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, and an academic-consultant with the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. He has been a consultant with CIDA on development issues and has published widely in academic journals on foreign policy matters and area studies of the Middle East and South Asia.
Mansur is featured on the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West produced by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He also unsuccessfully ran for the Canadian Alliance party in 2000.
Mansur has been accused by Canadian Islamic Congress of using "provocative, self-serving rhetoric", and for "promoting an anti-Arab and anti-Muslim agenda".
He is an Ismaili Muslim.
At a press conference on October 2, 2008, Mansur stated that "Islam is my private life, my conscience...[but] my faith does not take precedence over my duties...to Canada and its constitution, which I embrace freely;" "I am first and most importantly a Canadian;" "only in a free society will you find Islam as a faith and not a political religion." Mansur also criticized New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton, whom Mansur said "has gone to bed with Islamists", because he is running candidates in Ontario and Quebec who are closely identified with the push for Sharia law.
- Israel: Decades-old conflict not about to cease - Saturday November 24, 2012 at 1:56 pm
- The better man lost the U.S. election - Saturday November 10, 2012 at 9:16 am
- The puzzle in U.S. presidential elections - Saturday November 3, 2012 at 8:43 am
