Subject:
|
Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:01:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
207 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> If you are having deja vu all over again, it is because that was a portion of
> a speech given by President Clinton on December 19, 1998.
>
> What I would like is for someone to explain why this action was fine for
> Clinton but outrageous for President Bush, or is it that the Left is just a
> bunch of partisan, self-serving hypocrites.
Hey, I may be a self-serving hypocrite, but I'm no partisan!
You ask a great question, which I've heard in a few other venues, and
which bears a good examination. I'll offer what insights I can.
1. Immediacy: Milosovic was at the time of the 1998 military action
actively engaged in a campaign of genocide; therefore, he constituted a
current-day threat that was appropriate subject to action. Saddam is not
currently engaged in genocide, nor in any activities proven to be
immediately catastrophic either to the US or to a large population. Rumors
and supposition about weapons of mass destruction are simply not sufficient
to justify the invasion of a sovereign state.
2. Simultaneity: In 1998 there was no primary war already facing the US
and demanding a sizable fraction of US military attention. In addition,
North Korea was not on the verge of re-opening its nuclear program. Today,
we are already engaged on a so-called war on terrorism, and N. Korea is
presenting a serious crisis, yet without finishing that war, nor clearly
defining its goals, nor even seriously identifying the enemy, and certainly
without addressing the issue of N. Korea, we are told that Saddam is a great
and pressing evil that must be expunged. Sure, he's a monster, but he's
been a monster for decades (often, as mentioned previously, with full US
endorsement). What has changed that requires US attentions now, while
another, unconnected war is still going on?
3. Clarity of purpose: As above, Milosovic was known to have attempted
genocide, and our goal was to remove him. Now, our goal is to remove Saddam
because, basically, W says we should. That's the only reason we have--no
conclusive pictures, no conclusive weapons violations, no smoking gun.
Sure, the existence of a dozen empty and undeclared warheads is provocative,
but it's not conclusive.
4. Forthrightness of purpose: Clinton in 1998 was under no real suspicion
of ulterior motive, unlike Bush in 2003. Oh sure, we can pretend that
Clinton authorized military force to divert the nation's attention from the
Lewinsky scandal, but does anyone believe that? Did it work? And which of
the following is more likely:
a. Clinton, persecuted by the overzealous efforts of Ken Starr and a
coordinated Conservative effort toward impeachment, orders military action
against a man known to be actively engaged in crimes against humanity; this
action is undertaken to create a smokescreen around a trumped-up scandal
involving a legally-permissable and entirely private sexual affair.
or
b. Recognizing that the war on terror is going nowhere, and realizing
that the economy is in a steady downward spiral, and knowing that most of
the population identifies Bush as a president in the pocket of big business,
and understanding that he's squandered the goodwill of the entire world
following 9/11, and knowing that his chances of re-election (actually,
*election*, since "re-election" presupposes a first successful election,
rather than appointment) depend heavily on the perception that Bush can
protect the US, Bush orders the invasion of an already defeated enemy whom
Bush knows the US military can crush, thereby portraying Bush as a Fearless
Leader.
Honestly, the latter seems more realistic, despite the well-intentioned but
poorly-executed film "Wag the Dog."
I can come up with other differences between the removal of Milosovic and
the forthcoming invasion of Iraq, but my workday is coming to a close. More
later...
Dave!
A quick post-script: Speaking of changing one's tune, here's an admonition
against Big Brother, from 1997:
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm
Odd that Ashcroft now favors universal revocation of civil rights now...
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
| THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. As I speak to you America's men and women in uniform, and our British allies, are fighting for security, peace and freedom in the Persian Gulf. They're doing an outstanding job, showing bravery and skill, making our (...) (21 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
