WILL BUSH TAKE LEAD IN DRUG WAR?

My doctor told me my health would probably be better, and my
disposition definitely better, if I wrote good news columns instead of
harping on the torture and church burnings committed by the Chinese
Communists, slavery in the Sudan, Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein,
Bill Clinton's perfidy in breaking his promises to fight for human
rights, Americans who put profit above country in foreign trade -
topics like that.

So this column is about drug addiction, the plague that cripples
millions of Americans and their victims.

All Americans should rejoice at the news I am giving them. Well, all
except those few with obese wallets who are trying to sabotage the war
against drugs, the people who are on their pro-drug payrolls and those
who swallow their propaganda for creeping legalization.

The news is that President Bush has finally chosen a new chief of the
White House anti-drug office - John Walters, a former deputy director
for drug policy under William Bennett, the first and most passionate
of what used to be called drug czars. (The federal government and the
press no longer consider that title politically correct, nor the term
drug war, but I do - very correct.)

Walters understands fully that winning the war means putting money and
personnel, lots of both, into law enforcement, the interdiction of
illegal narcotics and drug therapy - a stool not with one leg, but
three.

The two of us share a bias against Americans being fed the sugar candy
that law enforcement is not all that important or effective. Weakening
law enforcement is just as dangerous as eliminating therapy for those
who need it or not teaching foreign farmers to stop growing drug crops
or not arresting Americans who do.

Even though the announcement of his appointment has not yet been made,
shots are being taken at Walters in Washington. Too tough a guy, his
nonadmirers say. Somehow, toughness in the anti-drug war does not
break my heart. Without the compulsion of the law, therapists know,
most addicts would evade the treatment that could help them.

And without experts like Walters and the fine outgoing anti-drug chief
Barry McCaffrey, the pro-drug people would get away with using the
weapons that are even more important than the money of their sponsors
- - the lies and distortions they throw at the public.

McCaffrey recently went after one of the propaganda peddlers on Tim
Russert's "Meet the Press." I treasure the transcript. The target was
Gary Johnson, Republican governor of New Mexico, who is known outside
his state only because of his eager support of legalization of heroin
and marijuana and because he is a former user of cocaine.

One by one, McCaffrey exposed Johnson's errors and then issued a
putdown I fully intend to steal in future columns: "Everybody is
entitled to their own opinions. ... You are not entitled to your own
facts."

Now, doctor, I have a dilemma. Here I am congratulating the new and
outgoing drug czars - but not the President who is appointing the new
drug czar.

The reason is that this President has disappointed the hopes of many
people who believed he would give the country what it needs most to
fight the drug war: presidential leadership - throwing himself into a
crusade against drugs, not just doing his bureaucratic duty by
appointing an anti-drug chief.

During the campaign, George W. Bush barely spoke of the importance of
fighting drugs. It took him four months in office to decide on the
person he wanted, although there are a number of well-known and fully
qualified people. Some of the President's supporters say Clinton took
the same amount of time. Clinton is not my role model.

In fact, some candidates for the drug czar job ducked the appointment
because Bush is considering withdrawing its cabinet-rank status. That
status gives the drug czar participation in a large range of financial
and social matters connected to drug-fighting and puts him in the
inner-power loop.

Why Bush would do this nobody can tell me, except in mumble jumble
that means nothing except embarrassment. It is not so much the new
drug czar who would lose status and respect as it is the President.

Bush can seize the anti-drug leadership still, but it has to be done
quickly, clearly and continuously - and by him, not surrogates. It
does not seem too much to ask a President to lead one of the most
important struggles America faces. That is my last jolly thought for
today, doctor or no doctor.