Bushes' Iraq Speeches Similar, Though Wars' Intents Different
President Echoes Father's Words to Justify Regime Change
advertisement
washingtonpost.com
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 9, 2003; Page A20
The president promised that American troops would not remain in the Middle East "for one day longer than is necessary" and he said the coming war with Iraq provides opportunities "to settle the conflicts that divide the Arabs from Israel."
Sound like President Bush's speech Feb 26 to the American Enterprise Institute? Well, yes. But the quotes are actually from President George H.W. Bush's address to the United Nations on Oct. 1, 1990.
The current president, as he readies the nation for war in Iraq, has been recycling some of the arguments and phrases his father used more than 12 years ago. In particular, the younger Bush's speech Feb. 26 outlining the future of Iraq had striking similarities to the elder Bush's address to the 45th General Assembly of the United Nations.
Back in 1990, the 41st president said: "We seek no advantage for ourselves, nor do we seek to maintain our military forces in Saudi Arabia for one day longer than is necessary." Bush the 43rd said two weeks ago: "We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more."
The elder Bush told the United Nations: "I truly believe there may be opportunities for Iraq and Kuwait to settle their differences permanently, for the states of the Gulf themselves to build new arrangements for stability, and for all the states and the peoples of the region to settle the conflicts that divide the Arabs from Israel." The younger Bush last week revived his father's unfulfilled forecast by calling the mission "an opportunity" for peace: "Success in Iraq could also begin a new phase for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state."
Coincidence? Yes and no.
Presidential speechwriters routinely use the words of previous presidents for inspiration. Bush, speaking after the space shuttle Columbia disaster and at a U.S. military cemetery in France, closely imitated speeches given by President Ronald Reagan at similar occasions.
Also, Bush has closely studied his father's presidency, and aides routinely talk about emulating its successes and avoiding its mistakes. A senior Bush aide who was involved in drafting the AEI speech said nobody had reviewed the 12-year-old U.N. address, but allowed that "there are similar ideas, similar historical circumstances, also some similar conventions of speechwriting."
"Clearly, there's a relevance here, because the U.N. did find its voice in that crisis," the official continued. "We want that to happen, and it has happened partially." Still, the official said, circumstances are "significantly different. . . . In one case, the threat came in the traditional form of military aggression against a neighboring country. In this case, it's a gathering threat of weapons of mass destruction."
The president said last week, in response to reporters' questions, that the situation is different now. "The mission will be complete disarmament, which will mean regime change," he said. "That was not the mission in 1991."
It is therefore surprising that, given the vastly different nature of the conflict, Bush would use many of the same arguments to justify his action that his father used to justify an entirely different action a dozen years ago.
Father spoke of a "grim nightmare of anarchy" from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Son spoke of "the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen" for his people.
Father asked to "redouble our efforts to stem the spread of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and the ballistic missiles that can rain destruction upon distant peoples." Son called for "international bodies with the authority and the will to stop the spread of terror and chemical and biological and nuclear weapons."
In both speeches, Bush father and son spoke similarly of a universal craving for freedom and prosperity. "In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same," the president said at the AEI gathering. "In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same."
Here's his father's version from 1990: "The truth is, people everywhere are motivated in much the same ways. And people everywhere want much the same things: the chance to live a life of purpose; the chance to choose a life in which they and their children can learn and grow healthy, worship freely, and prosper through the work of their hands and their hearts and their minds."
Both outlined their humanitarian motives for taking on Hussein, and both vowed to provide food and medicine to Iraqis. "Our quarrel is not with the people of Iraq; we do not wish for them to suffer," the first President Bush said. Twelve years later, his son declared: "The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people themselves. . . . Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us."
In justifying military action, both presidents spoke of their actions as a deterrent. The president's father said then that the action "will have lasting consequences: reinforcing civilized standards of international conduct." Last week, the president said that "by acting, we will signal to outlaw regimes that in this new century the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected."
Even on the question of U.N. support, where Bush's situation is almost opposite his father's, he employed similar language. The elder Bush hailed the body for acting "just as its founders hoped that it would." The current president, not yet getting his way, warns the U.N. that it must "fulfill its founding purpose."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company |
