Nothing infuriates me more than political hacks who vacillate with the wind or who practice one thing when they are in power and preach another when they are not.
Meet Madeleine Albright – or, as I like to call her, Madeleine Not-so-bright.
Once again, she was sounding off in the New York Times this past weekend about the impending Iraq disaster and how Saddam Hussein had not posed an imminent threat and how “You can’t go to war with everybody you dislike.”
At least this time, Not-so-bright, who has a history of trashing U.S. foreign policy on foreign soil, had the courtesy of slamming the American war effort to a U.S. newspaper while on American soil. However, it should be pointed out the Arab and Muslim media quickly seized on the interview.
“I think Iraq may end up being one of the worst disasters in American foreign policy,” she said – not content to let history judge the war being fought in the here and now by real, live American soldiers.
Is this the same Madeleine No-so-bright who served as secretary of state during the Clinton administration?
Because she’s certainly singing a far different tune today than she was back then.
Let’s review the record:
- Feb. 1, 1998: “We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders and nationalities.”
- Feb. 18, 1998: “No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.”
- Feb. 18, 1998: “Iraq is a long way from the U.S., but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq “just somebody we didn’t like”? Is that Madeleine Not-so-bright’s revisionist view of history? He certainly didn’t sound like just someone we didn’t like back in the days when she was in power and concluding he had weapons of mass destruction, had used them and would certainly use them again.
Maybe she needs to be reminded that Saddam Hussein had survived the years of sanctions and bombings her administration employed to depose or contain him or whatever the goal was.
And let’s not forget that while Not-so-bright now opposes the military action we took in deposing Saddam Hussein, she remains 100 percent in favor of the military action we took to depose Slobodan Milosevic. Now, even with 20-20 hindsight, would anyone suggest Serbia under Milosevic represented a graver national security threat to the United States than did Iraq under Hussein?
I wonder why Not-so-bright wasn’t telling her boss, “You just can’t go to war with anybody you dislike”?
Of course, no one will ever ask Madeleine Not-so-bright these questions because she is taken seriously by my colleagues in the press. She is considered a “real scholar,” a woman of achievement, a foreign-policy whiz.
It’s no secret I don’t have a lot of use for the Bush administration. But I will tell you this: Under the circumstances, I don’t believe we had any real choice but to invade Iraq. The invasion was a success. Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein. And our military forces are kicking butt on the terrorists there – rather than here.
Iraq, therefore, despite many mistakes and some setbacks, remains one of the great accomplishments of the Bush administration.
Can someone point to a comparable achievement during the Clinton-Not-so-bright years?