Set the record straight

This month is marked by the transition of power, where once again we Americans (even conservatives) can thank God for the blessing of a government that changes hands by ballot instead of by bullet. The election coverage has died down; old candidates have returned to seats in Congress, TV pundit shows, or obscurity. And George W. Bush, one of only four presidents since World War II to serve two full terms, passes the torch to another man and another party.

Bush was fond of saying that historians will one day look back on his legacy and evaluate it objectively. But many have passed judgment on our forty-third president even before the curtain fell on his administration. Pundits, journalists, politicians, and average citizens have levied allegations against the president – some true, some false, some unverified. Again, even conservatives can be thankful that the United States not only protects and cherishes such free speech, but also defends these rights around the world.

Certainly a defining of the Bush presidency will be the Iraq War, which has extended for over half of Bush’s term. No one likes war – even those who deem it necessary – and the American people have passed a referendum on George Bush’s foreign policy by electing a Democrat who promises to end the Iraq War. It would seem that this month marks not only the end of the Bush era, but also (if we believe the campaign promises) the end of the Iraq War as well.

Before we close the book on one more leader of the free world, however, there is one thing that I must get off my chest. I must set the record straight on the Iraq War, which has clearly drawn more criticism from the Democratic Party than any other Bush doctrine.

The policy of “regime change,” a buzzword propped up by media attention, was first adopted by the Iraq Liberation Act. The ILA stated “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

Many might consider this to be one more blot on Bush’s foreign policy, but in actuality the ILA was signed into law on Halloween, 1998 – by President Bill Clinton. In fact, according to CNN.com, President Clinton had sent eerie warnings of Saddam Hussein’s power as early as February of that year:

“[H]e will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal….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, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”

“Replace that regime?” “Emboldened” terrorists? “Weapons of mass destruction?” Sound familiar?

Bill Clinton had Saddam Hussein on a hit list long before Bush had even conceived of a run at the presidency. When Clinton briefed Bush on foreign policy issues (according to the 2008 book The U.S. Between the Wars by Derek Chollet and James Goldgeier), he verbally regretted that Saddam Hussein, whom he deemed one of the two most dangerous men on the planet, was still alive, and told Bush that Hussein would “cause you a world of problems.”

So to the Democrats who skipped school, got off work, or even flew to D.C. to watch the inauguration, congratulations. You have succeeded in hiring a president to end the war you started. Bush may or may not earn a special place in the hearts of Americans many years from now, but he can be no more blamed for the Iraq War than he can for the Monica Lewinksy scandal. And perhaps, someday, historians will set the record straight.


[Benjamin Kantack is a political science and Spanish major at UNL.]