Bush's "Big Lie": The Irony of Deja Vu

As a history buff I know that there are few things more wonderful than our modern ability to thoroughly record the course of human events. Combined with a free society that can still query any word they desire on Google without fear of prosecution, these luxuries are unprecedented in the history of mankind.

This is not an article you can just skim. If you have a few moments, I would like you to read some of your history. And although these might seem immediately obvious and familiar to you, read them carefully anyway. You may experience historical "deja vu."

TRANSCRIPT: President defends Iraq Strike:
(Source: www.cnn.com- link near bottom)

"Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

I need to interrupt this speech for just a moment. I want to again encourage my readers at this point not to stop reading. Not just because I think you should appreciate history the way I do, but because I promise this article has a little something special for you at the end. Mr. President, please continue. . .

"I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement [to destroy weapons arsenal]. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."

Oh MAN do I have goosebumps! I promise you're almost there!

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."

-----------------------

This transcript comes from a speech given:

December 16, 1998 (Read entire speech HERE)

by none other than

President William Jefferson Clinton.

Surprised? Now if you'll allow me, some closing remarks.

"Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives [Lewinsky situation] would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

So Bush's "big lie" was what again? Nearly every accusation of "misleading" America can be found in this speech from 1998. "Weapons of mass destruction", a "long-term" strategy/battle, a "new Iraq Government"; it's all there, and of course it appears that diplomacy had indeed been exhausted in 1998. ("Iraq has abused its final chance.")

The only difference between Clinton's war on Iraq and Bush's is that Bush has tried to do what Clinton, in his own words, promised to do himself: "Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. . . the best way is with a new Iraqi government." In other words, Bush wanted to actually finish not only what he set out to do, but what Clinton promised he would do.

Another irony is this. A poll conducted in 1998 after Clinton announced the strikes, asked if those polled approved or disapproved of the strikes. 74% approve, 13% disapprove. Republicans in congress agreed to suspend impeachment hearings "until the hostilities have ended." Even though many republicans believed that Clinton was creating a "diversion" they still rallied around the president in a time of war and supported the troops. Ahh, the prism of history.

"Through the prism of history. . ." we are told that the truth will surface. Through the prism of history we can already begin to see more clearly the choices made in this generation. But this prism is being lost. Because of this we will indeed "face a far greater threat in the future" but not because of Saddam, but rather because of our failure to learn the lessons of the past. We prefer our fast-food news and so our knowledge of history just 8 years ago is all but lost. Our will is gone, and with it we ignore the obvious truths that lie before us.