Bush's Credibility Founders on Iraq

Published on July 12, 2004 By David St Hubbins In Politics

This is an editorial I found interesting, it was originally Published on Saturday, June 7, 2003 by the Toronto Star
Bush's Credibility Founders on Iraq
Editorial

Saddam Hussein was no garden-variety despot, U.S. President George Bush told Americans earlier this year in his State of the Union address. He was a mass murderer, a terror master and a threat to world peace.

Saddam was "assembling the world's most dangerous weapons," Bush insisted. His vast arsenal included 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tonnes of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. Some 30,000 toxic munitions. And more.

And there was Iraq's "advanced nuclear weapons development."

It was a chilling picture designed to justify the war that would follow.

Bush offered little hard proof. But he pressed allies to take up arms against Baghdad. When Prime Minister Jean Chrétien demurred, in a decision supported by 70 per cent of Canadians, U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci upbraided us. "We would be there for Canada, part of our family," he said. "And that is why many in the United States are disappointed and upset that Canada is not fully supporting us now." Bush cancelled a May 5 trip to Ottawa and had little time for Chrétien at the Group of Eight summit. Pundits brayed for punitive action, and U.S. opinion soured on us.

Yet lo and behold, now that Saddam is gone and American special forces have been combing Iraq for months, they have turned up nary a drop of VX or anthrax, let alone a nuclear warhead or long-range missile. A couple of mobile germ labs, maybe. But no germs. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have become weapons of mass disappearance.

Frustrated by this failure to find huge caches of horror weapons, or to prove a credible link between Saddam and Al Qaeda terrorists, Bush and his apologists are twisting themselves into pretzels arguing it was a "just war" nonetheless, because it liberated Iraqis from tyranny.

Against this growing fiasco, Chrétien's decision to sit out the war looks more principled by the day. Bush was unable to persuade the United Nations Security Council that he "had the goods" on Saddam's weapons program before launching his March attack, and that remains the case. In retrospect, America's "defensive" war looks like crude "regime change."

True, horror weapons may yet be found. The chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, suspects as much. Some may have been destroyed on the eve of the fighting. But that won't salvage Bush's credibility.

Americans and Britons were told that there was an urgent need to launch a pre-emptive strike. That now seems doubtful.

Bush stoked America's post-9/11 fears to build support for war. He was abetted by Pentagon hawks, who put the darkest spin on inconclusive evidence that the Central Intelligence Agency treated with caution.

Britain's Tony Blair, Bush's chief ally, is also struggling to rebut claims that he had British intelligence services exaggerate the threat.

At best, American and British intelligence have been sloppy. That ought to alarm allies like Canada that swap data. But the spooks may have wilfully "torqued" data to please political masters. That would be worse.

All this confirms what most Canadians suspected months ago: Bush sought to railroad the U.N. and close allies into a war that lacked legitimacy, because it was unnecessary. Saddam was complying with inspectors. Iraq was crippled by military and economic sanctions.

No one will shed a tear for a toppled despot.

But this is a mess. It casts a shadow over America's credibility. It will make it harder for Washington to rally support in the future. Prudent allies will take what they are told, with more than a grain of salt.
Copyright 1996-2003. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited

Link

Comments

MadPoet41

on Jul 12, 2004

David~this is a very fine article. I agree with many of your points here. As far as my own take on Bush, etc.~I've aready stated and restated that in several of my previous blogs here. I do like how your mind works. You almost seem like a more intellectual version of myself!

. I'm afraid I'm more of the artist type. So I wrote a few rather intense poems about the Twin Towers, and read those at a hushed reading or two. Nobody actually insulted me~which was nice. Because I think most of this could have been avoided (IMO). But I am only a poet, huh? So I won't pretend to know more than the majority. Thanks for writing this one. Totally glad I finally got to read some of your stuff! (I am unclear though? This was published somewhere else first? And you are the author then?) In any case, keep on blogging big time!

~MP

P.S. Did you get to see the comments I left for you on my Burning Down Our Own JU House blog? I mean, the only way to check that one out now is to go directly to my JU blog site, etc. It's no longer in the forums...

David St Hubbins

on Jul 12, 2004

Mad - Not my article. I was doing research for a blog article I hoped would express many of the ideas expressed above. When I saw this I realized it was better than anything I could write so I posted it. You're right, I'm not much of an artist, and the economist in me says it's inefficient to even try to write an article as good as the one above. Others get paid to do that and frankly they're much better at it than me. So I give credit where it is due but when I see a good idea I try to spread it. To me blogging and the ensuing discussions represent a free market of ideas and I'm just getting in on the action, 'buying' and 'selling' as it were. Thanks for the kind words in your blog, I did see them and for what it's worth I admire many of the qualities you've displayed, including grace, decency, and good humour.

CrispE

on Jul 12, 2004

David:
Well, the neocons will say it's Canadian so it's irrelevant. But to me, it's indicative of most of the world's opinion. Thanks!

David St Hubbins

on Jul 12, 2004

I think Iraq is better off today than it was before the invasion and the average Iraqi has better prospects for the future. That's good. But invading a sovereign nation (already under sovereignty-defying sanctions) over bogus allegations regarding intent and ability to attack other countries represents a substantial shift in just war doctrine. Canada was there in Gulf War I because it was within generally accepted just war doctrine that Iraq was wrong to invade Kuwait. I think the whole WMD justification was baloney anyway, so where does that leave us? Bush and Blair tried to trick the rest of the world into joining a war with falsely stated causes and claims. I feel like the husband whose wife just read a Cosmo article entitled '7 Ways To Trick Your Man Into Cooking Tex-Mex!" Trick me? Hows about fucking asking me?.

While the greater good (and yes, I'm stating that a greater good has been done) of dumping a tyrant like Hussein may justify the invasion, it broke the established rules of just war doctrine. The only way I feel we could have broken the rules with legitimacy is through multilateral co-operation. And lies are not a good basis for co-operation.

bakerstreet

on Jul 12, 2004

You realize that there were also 66 pages in the senate report about Hussein's links to terrorism, right? You are also aware that he was involved in a Sudanese chemical weapons plant that was also vistited by bin Laden, and for that reason Clinton hit it with a missile strike.

I've yet to see anyone write an article like this who has acutally read the senate intelligence committee report. This is just the same rehashed news. I think in light of many things that I am hearing coming out of that report it is at least debateable that Hussein was a threat. Another point oft forgotten is the fact that the sanctions were ten years old and were weakening every year. The French, Russians, and Chinese had billions in military contracts at stake and the US wouldn't have been able to keep sanctions in place forever.

And, a bit more realistically, how long did the war last? We are approaching the election, and Iraq is not "finished". What if Bush had waited another year for approval, or even six months. He would have been going into an election in the middle of a war, something that would have obviously been called an election year tactic.

Solitair

on Jul 13, 2004

Would this be the same

Sudanese chemical weapons plant

that was actually Sudan's chief anti-malaria and vetinary drugs factory.
The same factory, which the CIA has failed to produce any evidence was actually a chemical weapons factory?
The very same chemical plant US National Security Adviser called 'so-called chemical plant' to admit next month that US officials had actually approved vetinery shipments from.
The same factory US officials claimed had tested positive for EMPTA, to admit a month later that it could have been a false positive result.
The same factory US officials claimed sent WMD to Iraq, to admit later that there was no proof.

And best of all,
The same factory whose owner's bank accounts have now been unfrozen as the US admits it has zero legal proof of terrorism links.

So the US now accepts that the Al Shifa factory did NOT make chemical weapons and had NO links to Iraq.

Paul.

bakerstreet

on Jul 13, 2004

So the US now accepts that the Al Shifa factory did NOT make chemical weapons and had NO links to Iraq.

Reference? Not disputing you, just reserving judgement.

WiseFawn

on Jul 13, 2004

I'm glad to see the article you posted. There are times I have a pure gut reaction to something and vent before I start reading. To me, this is a terrible time for America and I think it's going to take a very, very long time for us to recover from this president. Hopefully, the Iraqi's will recover well from this and have a positive future.
I keep thinking, surely this man can't be re-elected now, but then I read his supporters and wonder.

Draginol

on Jul 13, 2004

When Canada gets to vote in US elections then I'll care what Canada thinks.

Solitair

on Jul 14, 2004

Bakerstreet,
will have to provide two seperate references. Strangely enough the US governement refuses to officially apologise even though the whole world now knows that officially the CIA makes mistakes.

link 1: - US agency unfreezes bank accounts effectively agreeing that it has no proof of terrorism
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1602995.stm

link 2:- a more detailed discussion of the history.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,889664,00.html

Paul PS. And to be very fair that was a Clinton blunder and nothing to do with Bush..

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!