READER MICHAEL HICKINS EMAILS:
hurry up guy we’re all waiting to hear what you and the other fascist apologists are going to say about Paul O’Neill’s book
Well, I haven’t read O’Neill’s book, but as I understand it the big hype is that he says (1) that Bush can talk a lot in meetings; and (2) the Administration wanted to topple Saddam before 9/11.
The first is kind of a bombshell — I’ve been hearing since 2000, often from the same all-little-letters lefty emailers, that Bush is too dumb to form sentences. But it turns out that the emailers are wrong, and he can actually talk for an extended period. Go figure!
The second bit, though, isn’t news at all. After all, the Clinton Administration repeatedly described Saddam as a threat who needed to be dealt with. Here’s a sample quote:
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998
And there’s this:
MR. CLINTON TOLD REPORTERS AFTER THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL MEETING — THE SECOND IN AS MANY DAYS ON IRAQ — THAT NO OPTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO SADDAM HUSSEIN’S LATEST MOVE WERE BEING RULED OUT.
So Clinton was considering war in 1998, and Bush was considering it in 2001. Big deal. Opposition to Saddam’s rule has been the policy of three Administrations. Only the current Administration was willing to do something about it, but that represents a difference in aggressiveness, not a different characterization of Saddam. (There’s more information here.) Aren’t the Saddam defenders the actual “fascist apologists” here?
And dude, the “shift” key is to the left and right of the keyboard. Use it.
UPDATE: Several readers note that Bill Clinton in fact signed into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” As Clinton said when he signed it:
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
Fortunately, this Clinton Administration policy is finally bearing fruit! And what’s interesting is that the Clinton signing statement linked above places freedom and democracy for Iraq, coupled with an end to Saddam’s crimes against humanity, at the top of the priority list, and only then adds:
There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq’s weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well.
Me, Bush, and Clinton: all agreed on proper policy toward Iraq! Who knew that Clinton had drunk the Wolfowitz Kool-aid?
ANOTHER UPDATE: D’oh! I told you I hadn’t read the book, but several readers email to say that I have O’Neill wrong — that in fact, he says that Bush doesn’t talk a lot in meetings. At least, not in meetings where O’Neill was talking. . . .
So there’s really nothing new here at all. Oh, well.
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Yeah, it’s overkill. But here’s Al Gore:
Our most important immediate task is to continue to tear up the Al Qaeda network, and since it is present in many countries, it will be an operation, which requires new forms of sustained cooperation with other governments.
Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.
As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms.
Me, Clinton, Bush, and Gore: Bringing realism to foreign relations since 1998!
MORE: Reader Jason Gustafson emails: “So, basically, President Bush is being accused of wanting to fight terrorism before 9/11?”
Yeah, that seems to be O’Neill’s bombshell. Just call Bush a “premature anti-terrorist,” I guess!
Meanwhile, O’Neill is already being mocked.