People against the current military operations in Iraq claim that George W. Bush violated international law by attacking Iraq without the proper U.N. approval. In 1991, we waited for approval as the case for war was fairly black and white. Iraq invaded another country without provocation and the global community, with support of the United Nations, responded with Operation Desert Storm.
The argument for a few people now is that the United States’ attack without United Nations support, even if the ultimate goal is to enforce U.N. mandates, is a dangerous precedent and that George W. Bush should be impeached for his so-called war crimes. However, George W. Bush is not the American president who has set the “dangerous precedent.”
In 1998, then-President William Jefferson Clinton ordered an attack on Iraq by United States and British forces, which was not sanctioned by the United Nations. This military action was in response to the Iraqi expulsion of United Nations weapons inspectors. A few people are calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush for this war, but do you remember anyone wanting to impeach Bill Clinton?
That was a trick question; Bill Clinton did have impeachment hearings brought against him, but not for a war. In fact, Operation Desert Fox took place in the midst of Clinton’s impeachment hearings. Do you remember people protesting against Operation Desert Fox? I suppose a better question would be, do you even remember Operation Desert Fox?
I’m guessing that unless you or a family member participated in that military action, the memories you had of that military operation have been stored in the back recesses of your mind somewhere near where you store the name of your third grade teacher. The obvious question is why do people protest now and they didn’t then?
The answer seems simple enough to me. At the time of Operation Desert Fox, the citizens of the United States, along with many other countries, were preoccupied with other things. The world was not worried about where and when war would take place; at the time, we were worried about where Bill Clinton’s penis had been.
Sure it sounds laughable, but think about it. The coverage of that scandal dominated the airwaves like the war dominates the airwaves now, perhaps even more so. I, as well as many other people, wondered why Bill Clinton didn’t come clean about his relationship from the beginning. If he admitted the truth, the scandal could have gone away, and we’d think about other things, like Operation Desert Fox.
I think it was a brilliant strategy on Clinton’s part and I admire him for it. Americans are too stubborn to compromise anymore, but they’re fickle enough to be distracted. So Clinton distracts us with his penis over here, while he pushes through his agenda over there. It worked, and it’s my opinion that because of this, Clinton was able to accomplish more of his agenda the way he wanted it done, with less resistance from lawmakers and the American public.
Today in America, without the constant distraction of the presidential genitalia, Americans can and do think about the military action in Iraq. This makes for a tough sale for President Bush. Pop culture judges George W. Bush on his ability to lead the nation and Clinton by what he did with his penis. Two separate criteria for the same job.
So if and when you decide to protest the war, don’t use the “dangerous precedent” argument, because I for one will not buy it. And if by some odd chance President Bush reads this, I suggest he go find himself a college girl. The Iraqi people might thank him for it.
