I guess the thing that bothers me most about politics and politicians is their bent toward being completely disingenuous.
Sometimes, when you listen to a politician, you think to yourself, “Hmmm, that sounds reasonable. Yeah, I think I like that. I believe this guy is acting on his moral convictions.”
Face it. You screwed up. You trusted him.
More and more I believe most politicians – on both sides of the aisle – are really concerned about only one thing.
Staying in power. Getting re-elected. Deride the other party and make yours look good at all costs.
Well, OK, that was three things, but you get my drift here, right?
To illustrate my point, I offer the following series of quotations.
1.“If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Someday, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.”
*****
2. We must “take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
*****
3. We must “send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with their own agreements and with international law.”
*****
4. “Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply militarily.”
*****
5. “The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later.”
The first quote was by Bill Clinton on Feb. 18, 1998, in a major foreign policy address at the Pentagon.
The next two quotes came from then Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle, who has been routinely skewering W over the current Iraq situation.
These two statements were made in the U.S. Senate, where Daschle was absolutely hawkish in his defense of a war resolution against Iraq. A war resolution, by the way, he co-sponsored.
The fourth quote is again from Daschle, during a news conference in February 1998.
But just last week, Daschle had the gall to pose this question:
“What has changed in recent months or years” to warrant going to war against Iraq now?
Well, good Senator, I suppose based on your comments in 1998 I would have to say the thing that has changed in “recent years” is, well, absolutely nothing. You thought war was a great idea in 1998, didn’t you?
And Daschle offered this:
“What will be the reaction of the international community? What will be the degree of support within the United Nations? We're not prepared to make any commitment until we've had more of an opportunity to answer these questions.”
My, what a difference a party change in the White House makes. Daschle the hawk is now Daschle the dove.
Quote No. 5 comes from Sen. Robert C. Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat.
Here’s what he’s saying now:
“We stand today in the swirl of unanswered questions about this administration's intent with regard to an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq. Perhaps the White House has the answers to the questions people are asking about why we may soon send our sons and daughters to fight and perhaps die in the sands of the Middle East.”
Very eloquent, Mr. Senator.
Senators John Kerry and Christopher Dodd were pretty hawkish back then, too. And they currently are some of the most vocal critics of military action.
Ah, yes, it was a very different time, 1998. President Clinton was on the verge of being impeached over the Monica Lewinsky mess. Remember?
Clinton was considering a military strike against Iraq. Everybody else in the world was talking about a “diplomatic solution.”
Look at the newspaper stories from 1998. Remember? The Saudis refused to let us fly over their country. The U.N. guy of the day, Kofi Anan, made all those last-ditch pleas to convince Saddam to abide by the U.N. resolutions from the end of the Gulf War.
More from President Clinton:
“What if Saddam Hussein fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.”
And one more from Clinton:
“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”
Eventually, we did end up raining a bunch of missiles on Iraq.
And at the time, some of the Republicans who are firmly supporting W’s Iraq policy today were complaining that Clinton was “wagging the dog” of Iraq to divert attention from the impeachment mess.
I have questions.
Do politicians think we’re stupid? Do they think we can’t or don’t care to remember what they say?
Does anybody in Washington operate on principle?
And finally, is bombing Iraq some kind of bizarre right of passage for U.S. presidents these days?