HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

First Bush says this

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said. "As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."

Then he says this:

"Saddam was a threat — and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power," Bush declared, as he has before.

So I'm confused. If the intelligence was wrong but the decision right, what was it based on? By what standard was it right? And most importantly, why wasn't that the standard used to sell the war to the public before we went?

I just don't get it. And sadly, reading the full text of the speech doesn't make things any clearer. In fact, it only makes things worse. Some examples:

We saw the future the terrorists intend for our nation on that fateful morning of September the 11th, 2001. That day we learned that vast oceans and friendly neighbors are no longer enough to protect us.

That's a nice thought. There's only one problem. It's historically inaccurate. Dec 7, 1941 did that, not Sept 11, 2001. Given that he often likes to draw that parallel, you'd think he could be a bit more accurate, no?

But we continue...

We removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a threat to our security. He had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. He sponsored terrorists. He ordered his military to shoot at American and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones. He invaded his neighbors. He fought a war against the United States and a broad coalition. He had declared that the United States of America was his enemy. Over the course of a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with more than a dozen United Nations resolutions -- including demands that he respect the rights of the Iraqi people, disclose his weapons, and abide by the terms of a 1991 cease-fire. He deceived international inspectors, and he denied them the unconditional access they needed to do their jobs. When a unanimous Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to comply with that final opportunity. At any point along the way, Saddam Hussein could have avoided war by complying with the just demands of the international community./td>

Now this is an example of what I was talking about first. If the intelligence was wrong - if as we now know he had no weapons, how was he deceiving weapons inspectors? When after 9/11 was he actively seeking WMD? Not to beat a very dead horse, but if he had no weapons, wasn't containment working? How did he fail to comply with an order to disarm if he had no weapons to give up? Weapons inspectors were in fact in Iraq doing their job until we ordered them out so that we could start our air campaign.

But then, to the crux of the matter:

At the same time, we must remember that an investigation after the war by chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer found that Saddam was using the U.N. oil-for-food program to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way. Given Saddam's history and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat -- and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power.

Reading the full version I'd say the AP is giving the president pretty favorable coverage. His denial / mea culpa is much less significant than they've made it out to be. Because, no, that's not what the Duelfer report said. And n, sorry, but what hypothetically would have happened if sanctions had collapsed wasn't a reason for war. Or rather, it wasn't a reason for war at that particular moment. If anything, that shouldn't be a justification of his policy; it should be a criticism! Let the sanctions stay in place, and if and when they break down make the case for war. But by suggesting that their breakdown was a threat, you are by definition admitting that they were working in the first place! Why the White House press corps can't see that is beyond me.

One more, and then I'll let it go:

As we advance the cause of freedom in Iraq, our nation can proceed with confidence because we have done this kind of work before. After World War II, President Harry Truman believed that the way to help bring peace and prosperity to Asia was to plant the seeds of freedom and democracy in Japan. Like today, there were many skeptics and pessimists who said that the Japanese were not ready for democracy. Fortunately, President Harry Truman stuck to his guns. He believed, as I do, in freedom's power to transform an adversary into an ally. And because he stayed true to his convictions, today Japan is one of the world's freest and most prosperous nations, and one of America's closest allies in keeping the peace. The spread of freedom to Iraq and the Middle East requires the same confidence and persistence, and it will lead to the same results.

Or maybe I'll just let it go. That analogy is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. He's comparing post WWII Japan to Iraq? Forget listing the things that they don't have in common. Name one thing they have in common. Just one. Even the US occupation isn't even remotely comparable, given that there was no post-WWII Japanese insurgency.

Like I said. Colour me confused.

--------