Monday, January 12, 2004
Why Didn't Bush Run on Iraqi Liberation in 2000?
With the new (albeit, not terribly surprising) revelation from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that the Bush administration was planning an invasion of Iraq long before the September 11th attacks, one question is popping up in my mind:
Why didn't Bush run on the idea of "freeing the Iraqi people" during the 2000 election?
Since this was his motivation long before he was elected (read all about the Project for a New American Century), why did he deride the Clinton administration for its "nation-building" efforts when he planned to do the very same thing, if elected. This President REPEATEDLY railed Al Gore during the 2000 debates, flatly stating that he would not engage in such nation-building which he said "stretched our military" too thin. Here's an exact quote:
"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. I'm going to prevent that."
This is the most crystal clear example of bait-and-switch politics in recent memory, and now our military is stretched to an extent that the Clinton administration never could have dreamed of...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20040112/pl_usatoday/oneilliraqplanningcamebefore911
|
