Bush apologist checking in here. Despite the fact that a couple of posters here on the other side who I am particularly fond of are quite worked up over all this – and despite the fact that I’m loathe to aggravate them further – I feel that I must respond lest it be assumed by all and sundry that I’ve slunk away somewhere to hide until this all blows over.
Frankly (and here comes the part that will surely engender further rage on the part of my hopefully not erstwhile friends), I don’t see much of a big deal at all in the comments quoted in the OP. Allow me to respond point by point…
The Guardian says: *"Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was “solidly” behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion’s legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.
“A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.”*
I see no problem whatsoever in the fact that Blair told Bush that he was solidly behind U.S. plans to invade Iraq at the time he did. To my non-Bush-enraged eye, it appears merely to be a case of one leader of an allied nation assuring the leader of another allied nation that he would stand behind him in the event of war.
Further, from whom was Blair to have sought “advice” about the invasions legality? I’m unaware of a definitive body whose authority over the matter is sufficiently strong (i.e., not the U.N.) to prevent such a close ally of the U.S. to withhold its support in event of war. The question of the war’s legality has been a matter of debate ever since the war started. Additionally, Blair could have withdrawn his country’s support at any time had he become convinced the war was either illegal or morally wrong; the fact that his assurance came two months before the war began is totally meaningless to me in regard to being proof of anything illegal or underhanded. It seems to me that lining up help during the run-up to a war, and assurances of support from allies, are pretty much SOP I would think.
In regard to assurances being made in the absense of a second U.N. resolution, it appears to me that Bush and Blair felt the same way I do and that they were unwilling to wait any additional time for the U.N. to back up its words regarding Hussein and Iraq. Bush and Blair’s overriding concern (and mine, as well) was that for a variety of reasons Hussein was too dangerous to our national security, and given that there was a ten or twelve year history of U.N. impotence in dealing with him, the risk of continuing to do nothing was just too great to continue to allow Hussein to remain in power.
The Guardian says: *"The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:
Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of “flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours”. Mr Bush added: “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]”.*
I would be interested in knowing why this alleged statement by Bush is told anecdotally rather than by direct quote, unlike the part of the statement regarding U2 planes. But let’s assume Bush said what Prof. Sands alleges…why do you suppose Bush wanted to fly U2 planes over Iraq? According to most of you here, Bush was determined to go to war anyway…and to acheive this nefarious end by “lying” to us about Iraqi WMD. So why the urgent desire to send U2 planes? Could it possibly be that he was worried that Iraqi WMDs were perhaps on the move, either out into the countryside or perhaps into neighboring countries? Could it be that perhaps he was carrying out his responsibilites as President – responsibilities intended to protect American and allied citizens – and making every effort to accurately and definitively determine the whereabouts of WMDs that virtually every country in the world thought Hussein possessed? It is my belief that such is the case.
As far as disguising the planes to look like U.N. planes, well, what can I say?..war is hell! Trickery goes on on both sides: just like spying, shooting, taking prisoners, etc. You might disagree about the moral aspect of using trickery against our enemies, but for myself, I’d much rather employ trickery if it means saving American lives.
And the remark about Iraq’s being in violation of U.N. resolutions by firing on the planes is totally meaningless in regard to showing any negative culpability on Bush’s part. Iraq had routinely violated U.N. resolutions (including firing on our own clearly marked planes flying legally in Iraq’s airspace) for years and years. Why would they all of a sudden by afraid of violating them during the lead-up to the war…and why, when they needed U.N. support in order to prevent U.S. action would they want to fire on U.N. planes anyway? The whole scenario alleged by Sands doesn’t make sense to me…but like I said, even if it’s true I don’t see anything particularly significant about it.
The Guardian says: "Mr Bush told the prime minister that he “thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups”. Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.
Looks to me like Bush was in error in his assessment (as happens to every president, especially when it comes to war), and that Blair – aware that he, too, was not capable of exactly predicting the future – didn’t argue the point. Again, I don’t see much here to get excited about.
The Guardian says: "The revelation that Mr Blair had supported the US president’s plans to go to war with Iraq even in the absence of a second UN resolution contrasts with the assurances the prime minister gave parliament shortly after. On February 25 2003 - three weeks after his trip to Washington - Mr Blair told the Commons that the government was giving “Saddam one further, final chance to disarm voluntarily”.
Which we did.
Hussein was given forty-eight hours to pack up his reprehensible sons and go to some other country where they would pose less of a threat to the U.S. and its allies. Regardless of whether or not Bush knew whether Hussein was likely to accept, the fact remains that Bush – supposedly so determined to go to war in order to enrich his buddies and to indulge his evil, murderous personality – would not have invaded Iraq, and the war would never have taken place, had Hussein simply packed up and left. Bush did not have to give Hussein a way out – and whether or not he ‘knew’ Hussein wouldn’t take advantage of the opportunity – the fact remains that Bush stated before the entire world that military action would not occur if Hussein left the country. To me, a gamble like this sounds highly unlikely for someone so determined to go to war for oil; friend-enrichment; daddy-revenge; evil, murderous intent; etc., etc.
The Guardian reports: “The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.”
Sounds like semantic trickery to me. ‘Doubts’ shared by Foreign Office lawyers…and ‘advice’ from the AG…hardly sound binding upon the leader of a country anticipating going to war. Leader ask for opinions and advice; they are not bound to take it…and their decision not to take it in no way shows criminality or dishonesty on their part.
The Guardian says: Downing Street did not deny the existence of the memo last night, but said: “The prime minister only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons in a vote on March 18, 2003.” It added the decision to resort to military action to ensure Iraq fulfilled its obligations imposed by successive security council resolutions was taken only after attempts to disarm Iraq had failed. “Of course during this time there were frequent discussions between the UK and US governments about Iraq. We do not comment on the prime minister’s conversations with other leaders.”
Do you ‘admit’ to having dinner last night, Mrs. Jones?
Semantics again, playing to the anti-war crowd with accusatory jargon. Who says Downing Street tried to deny the existence of the memo? If so, there’s no evidence of it here.
Further, events transpired just as reported above. What’s the problem? The tentative decision to use military action was in place should the final attempt fail, and the final decision was indeed not made until Hussein’s forty-eight hours (the final attempt to avoid military action) were up. I see absolutely nothing in the paragraph quoted above that is in the least bit wrongful.
