Currently on your home page, moveon.org states: “The President took the nation to war based on his assertion that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our country.”

I am mystified by that statement because in Bush’s State of the Union address of Jan 28, 2003, he said,

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Bush openly acknowledged to the nation that evening that the threat posed by Iraq was not “imminent”, and had not fully emerged. His opinion on Iraqi disarmament closely mirrors Bill Clinton’s, who on Feb 17, 1998, in a televised speech to the nation said, “If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. . .” The real difference between the two presidents is that Bush is willing to back up his promises with tangible actions and results; Clinton, while his heart was in the right place, “fail[ed] to respond”.

I am under the impression that your condemnation of Bush’s foreign policies is not consistent with your implicit tolerance of Clinton’s strikingly similar policies and attitudes. If you could set the record straight for me (or forward this to someone who could take the time to respond), I’d appreciate it greatly.

Thanks!

Matt Brundage
Montgomery Village, MD

This entry was posted on Friday, July 18th, 2003 at 10:08 pm and is filed under politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.