# Bush bungled the diplomacy...how did he do that, exactly? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 13, 2003, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411 "2003-04-13T08:02:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/57b2e6/32.png) [@Alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2003, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/81 "2003-04-18T20:12:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\ ***edwino said:** > > McDuff has probably got it right. We sold Iraq a few thousand barrels of nerve gas … > > Do you have a cite for that? \*\* Out of the top of my head, US Congress 1984. The Committee which also investigated the Iran-Contras affair, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2003, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/82 "2003-04-18T20:18:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*_Our_ defense? There has been no evidence provided that Hussein was any sort of a threat to the U.S. \*\* > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Alien_ > \*\*However, the concept of regime change as a just cause for going to war is based on the presumption that “our way of life is better than their way of life”. \*\* My entire POV is based on the the belief that Iraq was a threat to the US. So you can summarily dismiss anything I’ve said thus far if you don’t believe Iraq was a threat to the US, and I’m obviously going to have trouble seeing your side as well. Mind you it wasn’t this administration that had to sell the that idea to the public, it was Clinton’s originally. Unless he’s come out and admitted that actions taken against Iraq were PR stunts and he was just fooling around, we can assume this has been the ongoing official position - that Iraq posed a threat to the US. The mobile labs were an interesting find and par for the course. Mobile labs are highly suspicious things by definition; they can be loaded onto ships from the back of trucks and delivered anywhere. They can be sold, traded, moved around easily. According to both Iraq and UNSCOM there weren’t any, this was possibly an example of the “bullshit evidence” offered by Powell - but we found some already. Its a good bet that we’ll find other things of interest. Bashar Assad has a ways to go yet before we consider him another Saddam. That relates to my points above - we probably do not consider Syria a personal threat (yet), and until we do we will handle things diplomatically, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2003, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/83 "2003-04-18T20:28:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by McDuff \* > \*\*If this is true then why hasn’t the Israeli Army arrested him already? He’s been in Israel and crossed IDF controlled checkpoints into the West Bank over the last four or five years. Why was the need felt to wait until Baghdad was burning to arrest him? You could have had him five years ago. \*\* I don’t know for certain, this is guessing: Israel specifically could not arrest Abbas for previous crimes per the Oslo accords anyway. He was living in the West Bank for a while and then relocated to Iraq a few years ago. Since then he’s been suspected of being a major player in the Palestinian uprising, directly from Baghdad, which caused us in turn to renew our interest in him. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2003, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/84 "2003-04-18T20:32:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Mind you it wasn’t this administration that had to sell the that idea to the public, it was Clinton’s originally. Unless he’s come out and admitted that actions taken against Iraq were PR stunts and he was just fooling around, we can assume this has been the ongoing official position - that Iraq posed a threat to the US. Clinton’s limited (and usually ineffectual) actions were responses to Iraqi violations of the first Gulf War truce. I do not recall any claim that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., only a potential threat to its own neighbors–the same neighbors that either opposed this invasion or were bullied into accepting it. Given that Iraq had no means to win a war, given that we had already proven that we would attack a country we believed sheltered _genuine_ terrorists who had attacked the U.S., and given Hussein’s penchant for only attacking when he believed he would win, any claim that he posed a threat has several insurmountable obstacles to overcome. Bush’s diplomatic efforts (including forged claims) never approached the level needed to overcome those obstacles. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2003, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/85 "2003-04-18T20:42:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tee \* > **…The mobile labs were an interesting find and par for the course. Mobile labs are highly suspicious things by definition; they can be loaded onto ships from the back of trucks and delivered anywhere. They can be sold, traded, moved around easily. According to both Iraq and UNSCOM there weren’t any, this was possibly an example of the “bullshit evidence” offered by Powell - but we found some already. Its a good bet that we’ll find other things of interest.** But if I recall correctly, Powell spoke of mobile labs for the development of chemical and biological weapons. No such labs have been found. The ones that were found were for conventional weapons development. [No Chem/Bio weapons labs found.](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.no.labs/index.html) Again, the problem with these stories is that those who want to believe the Bush administration lodge them away as evidence, and fail to attend to the retractions (which of course are not as well featured as the initial stories). To recap as of today, for those keeping score at home: NO SCUDS FIRED. NO MOBILE WMD WEAPONS LABS FOUND. NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOUND. NO EVIDENCE OF ANY BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL OR NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOUND. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2003, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/86 "2003-04-19T21:41:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > **Clinton’s limited (and usually ineffectual) actions were responses to Iraqi violations of the first Gulf War truce. I do not recall any claim that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., only a potential threat to its own neighbors–the same neighbors that either opposed this invasion or were bullied into accepting it.** This begins the Clinton transcript of 1998: > [@](#): > > Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. > > Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. and this closes it: > [@](#): > > Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. > > But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America’s vital interests, we will do so. > > In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. > > Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America. [http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html) We have been acting in our own defense, and our own national interest, for years now with respect to Iraq. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Hentor the Barbarian_ > **Again, the problem with these stories is that those who want to believe the Bush administration lodge them away as evidence, and fail to attend to the retractions (which of course are not as well featured as the initial stories.)** What is not in dispute is that mobile weapons labs were found. Iraq claimed they had no such thing, UNSCOM claimed they were for food testing and they were clean. This is not very helpful to proving anyone completely _wrong_, either…this is not helpful to much of anything in fact. Did they miss that the “food testers” were building weapons? Did they miss these particular labs entirely? How many more are there, if any? Etc. The problem with these stories is that they become “proof” of the “lies” of the Bush administration, when the jury is obviously still out about mobile weapons labs, for example. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2003, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/87 "2003-04-19T22:00:46Z")
> [@](#): > > We have been acting in our own defense, and our own national interest, for years now with respect to Iraq. Go back and read the words you just posted. We acted (according to Clinton) in our national interest to defend _that region_. He claimed that it was in the _interest_ of the U.S. to prevent Iraq from posing a _threat_ to its _neighbors_. No mention of a threat to the U.S. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/88 "2003-04-19T22:27:47Z")
> [@](#): > > It was presented as a hypothetical, Sam. I didn’t mean for it to sound as a statement of fact. (note the “probably”). In reality, it is probably far less obvious. Well connected defense industries sold Iraq all kinds of technology that could be used to make chemical weapons and in retrospect some of them probably look pretty incriminating. Or something along those lines. In reality, Saddam got very, very few of his weapons from the United States. The chemicals and biological stuff that he received that \*could be used to make deadly stuff did not come from the U.S. military - it came from the Dept. of Agriculture and the Center for Disease Control - under a mandate that provides this stuff to almost every country on the planet for the purpose of protecting agriculture and curbing the spread of disease. Opponents of the U.S. have morphed this into the U.S. providing thousands of barrels of nerve agents to Saddam for use in a war. As for direct military aid to Iraq, by FAR the biggest suppliers were Russia and France. U.S. military aid to Iraq was smaller than the amount of aid given by _Brazil_. Less than 2% of total aid Iraq received throughout the 80’s. That’s why it annoys me when I see messages insinuating that Saddam was a monster created and armed by the United States - a Frankenstein that was unleashed on the world by a hapless Uncle Sam. It’s simply not true. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/89 "2003-04-19T22:57:38Z")
Tom: “But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America’s vital interests, we will do so.” “May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families.” Vital. A threat to any of our interests in that region is a threat to the US. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2003, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/90 "2003-04-19T23:07:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Vital. A threat to any of our interests in that region is a threat to the US. Sorry, but you are not going to be persuasive by playing at semantics. Given that _vital_ is often used merely as an intensifier and given that his _explicit_ claim was to “threaten its neighbors,” I find both the notion that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. and that Clinton was making that claim to be wholly unproven. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2003, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/91 "2003-04-19T23:37:17Z")
Tom - Given that he _explicitly_ said “Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States”, and that the US is defined not by geographical borders but by the Constitution, and we are, after all, talking about a sworn enemy that we suspect is armed and dangerous, I find your claim that Iraq is _not_ a threat to the US utterly groundless. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/92 "2003-04-20T00:05:54Z")
That would explain the Iraqi planes I keep seeing over Cleveland. Hussein had never attacked an enemy that he did not first believe he would conquer. I see no reason to pretend that he would deliberately commit suicide by trying to attack the U.S. (Which is different than his fighting like a cornered animal when we attacked him.) ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/93 "2003-04-20T00:31:44Z")
OK, let’s ask Congress… > [@](#): > > 10/10/02 - SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. > > (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to > > (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and > > (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. > > (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that > > (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq… etc etc…same idea. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/94 "2003-04-20T01:16:35Z")
Sorry. We were discussing Clinton, not the mob that rushed to grant Bush unlimited powers based on lies declared by the administration. The current war powers were granted too broadly and for the wrong reasons. Where is _their_ evidence? On what occasion has Hussein ever launched an attack against a superior force or nation? What _evidence_ has been presented that he would ever change his historical pattern of actions? ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/95 "2003-04-20T01:22:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > **You know, most people see this whole thing as an absolutely astounding piece of leadership on the part of Bush and Blair.** Most people where? (Something tells me this may end up looking an awful lot like those old “New Yorker’s view of the World” maps.) _“You can argue about his motives or whether his beliefs are, but when are you guys going to stop underestimating George Bush? This performance was masterful.”_ I do not in the least underestimate George Bush by which I mean that I take him quite seriously as a powerful world figure, capable of exerting his will. But that doesn’t mean than in exerting his will he hasn’t bungled diplomacy, mis-managed the war on terrorism, made the world a more rather than less dangerous place, and set a frightening new precedent in US foreign policy. (And that’s to leave aside entirely his domestic agenda.) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/96 "2003-04-20T02:27:34Z")
How about the 75% of the people who approve of Bush’s leadership now? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/97 "2003-04-20T02:41:51Z")
Well, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but fool me twice, and you can’t…can’t fool me all of the time again. Or something like that. And what would you have us make of this approval, **Sam**. Does that mean that the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis, simply because many Americans believe it? Does the fact that a majority of Americans believed that the Japanese-Americans of California should have been interred in WWII, does that make it right? Of course not. And what do you make of the fact that the vast majority of this planets citizens rather strenuously disapprove. Does that count? Let me play Cassandra for a moment. This is the high-water mark. As good as its gonna get, save for a possible boost upcoming. The RNC will try to schedule as many troop returns, as many victory celebrations, as can be managed. But sooner or later Fearless Misleader will have to give a speech somewhere else than a military base or defense industry work floor. One term. Bet me. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/98 "2003-04-20T02:57:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*How about the 75% of the people who approve of Bush’s leadership now? \*\* Right, so as I suspected, these would be Americans. Not Europeans, or Chinese, or Indians, or Pakistanis, or Saudis, or Egyptians, or even Iraqis (where today about 10,000 residents of Baghdad were out in the streets telling Bush to get lost). Might I venture to say that the opinions of these folk are a better test of Bush’s diplomacy than the opinions of Americans? But since we’re discussing Americans, let’s consider for a moment. These are Americans who, right now, are impressed with their country’s military might and technical prowess. They’re feeling patriotic and doubtless relieved that their soldiers are no longer dying. They haven’t yet had a chance to see the ramifications of this war: whether in terms of Iraqi stability, wider regional stability, terrorist issues, or the impact on their own economy. So it’s not surprising to me that right now Bush’s approval ratings are as high as his father’s were after the first Gulf war, no? It’s interesting too that back before the war began, in a thread I think you will remmeber, you were arguing that opponents of the war, especially the hundreds of thousands who protested, were a fringe element, in cahoots with marginal communist organizations. I remember pointing out to you that a majority of Americans (about 60% at that time) only supported the war with UN approval; while a majority of your fellow Canadians opposed the war in even more emphatic terms. I specifically said that I didn’t expect you to conform to majority opinion; I only asked that you reconsider the point about the “fringe” opposition. I’d like to make a different point. Since the majority of the world is rather less impressed by Bush’s leadership than Americans are, does that not suggest that Americans’ perhaps quite temporary admiration for their president is not the best test of his diplomacy? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/99 "2003-04-20T03:38:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tee \* > \*\*“we might decide that war is an option” ignores the fact that the US and UK had already decided to exercise that option. It was common knowledge that they were after more than just locating and removing anthrax, and it’s not as if they all just met. \*\* That was exactly the issue. The US and the Uk had already decided to go to war, and were merely searching some pretext to do so. They couldn’t care less about the results of the weapon inspections and such things. And that’s precisely what Chirac was opposed to : this “we’re going to wage war anyway” stance. As for your interpretation of Chirac position, I’ll leave it at that. Several posters including me already told you what was France’s stance, and you choose to ignore us all, ignore the facts and interpret in some weird way some quote (by the way I already posted the exact same quote from Chirac before the war, but to explain…essentially the contrary of your statements!), and obviously, you couldn’t care less about the reality since it contradicts your opinion (and it’s not like it’s hard to find what was France’s official stance…even though, not living in France, you didn’t read it in the papers/watch it on TV, it nevertheless has been widely reported) ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2003, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411/100 "2003-04-20T07:12:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > How about the 75% of the people who approve of Bush’s leadership now? 75% of the people also believe in astrology. Shall we all fire our consultants and live our lives by star charts instead? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-bungled-the-diplomacy-how-did-he-do-that-exactly/168411.md?page=6)