Because nailing Saddam Hussein was uppermost on Republicans’ agenda under the Bush administration, I thought it would be interesting to go back and read their reaction to Bill Clinton’s 1998 missile-slamming of the tyrant. It was that year, in December, when “U.S. and British forces were targeting sites the Iraqi president had denied to U.N. weapons inspectors, including suspected sites associated with weapons of mass destruction, sites that provided security for such centers, Iraqi security forces, airfields, air defense sites, and military communications and intelligence headquarters.”
Some pretty nasty stuff, right? WMD, WMD-security centers and the like. Yet for the GOP of just yesterday, domestic politics trumped this hair-raising foreign threat. Saddam could wait.
You see, the 1998 air strikes occurred on the day before the House was to open debate on Slick Willie’s impeachment, and even though the Iraqi dictator had long been advertised as a major boogeyman to the U.S., the record reveals that many Congressional Republicans preferred to let Saddam slide until Clinton – not the threatening boogeyman – got nailed.
Here’s a sampling from contemporaneous news accounts:
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., took the rare step in a military crisis of denouncing the administration minutes before the first bursts of fire lit the sky in Baghdad. “While I have been assured by administration officials that there is no connection with the impeachment process in the House of Representatives, I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time,” he said.
Rep. Gerald Solomon of New York said in a blistering statement: “Never underestimate a desperate president. This time he means business. What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed?” [Minneapolis Star Tribune, December 17, 1998]
Many Republicans were unable to contain their anger, voicing suspicions that the attack was politically timed to distract the nation from the president’s domestic woes.
“He’s a liar, and he can’t be trusted,” shouted Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, R-Calif. as he walked into the meeting.
“The suspicions some people have about the president’s motives in this attack is a powerful argument for impeachment,” said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Irving. “After months of lies the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reason.”
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, said that “today’s events have reinforced the need for President Clinton to resign or be removed from office.” [Houston Chronicle, December 17, 1998]
And here’s further evidence – as if it’s needed – of politics ueber alles in the Republican playbook. Despite having been initially, and adamantly, opposed to Clinton’s military actions …
Trent Lott [soon] backed off his criticism of the bombing, saying he now supports the action.
Why the sudden flip, I hear you cry? Well, …
Pollsters found the American public strongly supports the Iraq attacks despite GOP criticism about the timing. [New York Daily News, December 18, 1998]
So with political pandering nicely tidied up,
House leaders cleared the way … for President Clinton’s impeachment, scheduling the historic debate for today despite scathing dissent from Democrats about deciding Clinton’s fate during the US attack on Iraq.
And as those impeachment proceedings got under way against Clinton for his adulterous affair, it was reported that …
House speaker-designate, Robert L. Livingston, told the 228-member Republican caucus last night that he has engaged in adulterous affairs during his 33-year marriage. [Boston Globe, December 18, 1998]
The Grand Old Party. Integrity. Always integrity.