From Matt, a soon-to-be-released posthumous autobiography by former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick notes the following: "I was privately critical of the Bush administration's argument for the use of military force for preemptive self-defense." Apparently she had, in her words, "grave reservations" about the use of military force. Matt adds that, to nobody's surprise, "she didn't, say, do anything that might possibly have impacted the course of events."
Well, actually, she did. She supported the war very publicly if in a somewhat oblique way.
Before the war ever started she told the obscure talk show host Oprah Winfrey all about Iraq's possible involvement in the September 11th attacks: "Many people believe that it is likely that the hijackers had the support of Iraq. We know that Saddam Hussein has always said that we did not defeat him the Gulf War, that it was just one battle, and that there would be more."
In a 2003 speech at her alma mater, Georgetown University, she voiced support for the war saying, among other things that "The United States has never taken the position that any use of force has had to have authorization of the U.N. Security Council."
I'm sure the list goes on. And perhaps it's just another "defeat is an orphan" situation. But this ought to be filed under "words have meaning", because there's something skin crawling about the thought of a powerful woman like Kirkpatrick talking out of both sides of her mouth on an issue like war. And there's something worse about a powerful woman like Kirkpatrick pretending that she spoke with two voices only after she realized that the idea she once supported had become irremediable.
Comments