| Big Govt | Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| Ras. Reports | 0 | |
| Patterico | L.A. Times Columnist Uncritically Quoted Star of Latest ACORN Video |
0 |
| ABC News | Major Hasan’s E-Mail: ‘I Can’t Wait to Join You’ in Afterlife |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Bush-Aznar pre-Iraq war conversation exonerates Bush, contrary to the claims of the usual suspects
The leftosphere is erupting in predictable outrage after the publishing of a transcript of a conversation between the President and then-Prime Minister of Spain José MarÃa Aznar, a conversation which took place about a month before the war in Iraq began. Spain’s El PaÃs daily newspaper published it, and the Editor and Publisher has a translation of it, which is, as you’ll soon discover a very poor translation.
First, let’s get the standard-bearer for the reaction from the Nutroots left: that would be Bush-hater Juan Cole, who calls what Bush said in the conversation “grounds for impeachment”:
The transcript, it seems to me, provides a whole rack of smoking guns that could be a basis for impeaching George W. Bush. The transcript shows that Bush consciously intended to go to war without a United Nations Security Council resolution. The United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a treaty signatory (so that it has the force of American law), forbids any nation to launch an aggressive war on another country. The only two legal mechanisms for war are either that it came in response to a direct attack or that the attacker gained a UNSC authorization. The transcript shows Bush actively plotting to sidestep the UNSC if he could not, gangster-like, threaten its members into compliance.
But, as is the norm with the far left, a few facts were conveniently overlooked by Cole in his rush to condemn. Barcepundit’s Jose Guardia, writing for Pajamas Media, explains:
Several areas of interest emerge in this memo, but perhaps the most interesting is this part concerning negotiations being conducted with Saddam. Bush told Aznar:
“The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs.”
All the information on WMDs? What would that imply to Bush and to Aznar? And this was coming from Egyptian Intelligence in direct communication with Saddam. Wouldn’t the normal person assume from that that Saddam had WMDs or at the very least was seriously engaged in creating them? Why would he wish to preserve this information if he didn’t have any forbidden weapons programs is something that war critics should reconcile. I guess all the people who are trumpeting this leak will now stop saying that Bush lied and mislead us on the WMD issue. Can’t have it both ways. But I won’t hold my breath.
Nor will I. Continuing:
The part being ballyhooed by them is that Bush was planning to go into Iraq under any conditions.
But even that is wrong. What the transcript doesn’t say in accurate translation, no matter the headlines, is that Bush was going to invade even if Saddam complied. What it says is that the US would be in Iraq in mid-March whether there was a second UN resolution or not, one that Bush said he would try to get by all means, which is an entirely different matter. As everybody knows, there’s certainly a debate on whether the first resolution was enough or not – many reputable experts think it was, though there’s not unanimity on this, certainly. But the issue is different.
Here’s the relevant section:
Saddam won’t change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it. As for me, from now on I’ll try to use the softest rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks our military will be ready. I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that by then Saddam is dead or has flown. But these possibilities won’t exist until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there are big chances that he’ll get killed.
We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do with great precision and focalizing our targets to the biggest degree possible. We’ll decimate the loyal troops and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. … We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are working already in the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.
If anything, the transcript proves precisely the opposing point that critics want to make. The conversation shows both Bush and Aznar trying to avoid war as much a possible; that they were concerned of its human toll and that they were quite confident that they would obtain a second resolution. It was the threat that they would act if there wasn’t a second resolution that made them quite confident that there would be one.
At one point Bush explicitly says: “I don’t want war. I know what wars are like. I know the death and destruction they bring. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and wifes of the dead. Of course, for us [a diplomatic solution] would be the best one. Also, it would save 50 billion dollars.” That doesn’t sound like someone hell-bent to going to war no matter what.
The full translated transcript is at the Pajamas link (scroll down a bit to see it).
This conversation exonerates Bush on a few fronts, something I doubt the leaker of the transcript intended. As Guardia noted, Bush’s citing of Egyptian intelligence proves that Bush really did believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD – and we all know how the left has routinely tried to claim that “BUSH KNEW!” there really “weren’t” any WMD in Iraq. It also clearly shows he didn’t want to go to war, but was prepared to do what he had to in a post-9/11 world to take out someone he (and many others on both sides of the aisle going back to the Clinton admin) clearly viewed as a serious threat to our national security, and that of the international community as well.
This is supposed to be the “smoking gun” against the Bush administration? Perhaps in lefty la la land, but the actual translation clearly proves otherwise.
I await word of some shamelessly pandering Congressional Democrat to call for an “investigation” into pre-Iraq war claims once again, just in time for the 2008 elections. The loony left is simply hell-bent on “proving” that Bush sent over 150,000 US troops into Iraq for personal reasons (oil, revenge for the attempt on his father’s life, etc), rather than in the interests of our national security. 30 or 40 years from now liberal “historians” will still be trying to find that “smoking gun” that doesn’t exist, simply because the left have constructed a narrative about Bush’s rationale for the Iraq war, and they’ve already proven they’ll cheat and cut the edges around the pieces of the puzzle in order to make them conveniently “fit” that narrative.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
17 Responses to “Bush-Aznar pre-Iraq war conversation exonerates Bush, contrary to the claims of the usual suspects”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Very good fisk of this “story.” Thanks.
The thing is, they could find a translation of Bush saying The Our Father and it would be grounds for impeachment.
Is that site Truth Out still around? In 2003, they were sure he’d be beaten. In 2004, they swore he’d be impeached by May, 2006, quoting Dem Senators…
…Bush is certainly no orator, but he’s not stupid and the Bush Doctrine remains viable. He’s simply getting the treatment that this same faction gave Lincoln during his tenure. I never thought it would get as every-day ugly as Lincoln’s presidency was, but here we are.
Thanks for this post.
Very interesting…
As far as impeaching Bush, the real crime as far as the left is concerned is that Bush assumed office, period. They don’t care about anything else. Bush assumed office and they were shut out of power. To the left, this is an impeachable, if not executable, offense.
Let me see if I have this straight: The article clearly exonerates Bush and his motives for going to war, but Juan Cole and his ilk insist that even without this information, Bush still would’ve invaded Iraq on some trumped up pretext anyway, in which case he still deserves to be impeached, tried in The Hague, yada yada ad nauseam.
Heck, even if he hadn’t gone to war, I daresay they still would’ve demanded impeachment simply on grounds of intent. Because even if he didn’t really do it, he was still thinking about it!
And what is that called? Thought crime?
Exactly Kareling. If it wasn’t the Iraq war it would have been the Patriot act, or the surveillance program, or even the Alberto Gonzales circus. Just like PCD said, the very fact that he won in 2000 and 2004 is an impeachable offense because the left cannot understand how they could possible lose.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this war began in 1979, Iraq is just the latest battle and it’s the only time we fought back BEFORE any attack.
Care for some more outrage with regards to Iraq? May I present to you the dangers of political correctness:
Wiretap delay hurts search for missing soldiers
NC Cop, We can start fighting the war on terror by denying the Kennedy family intoxicants to prevent them from legislating while intoxicated, and keep them from driving while impaired.
I cited this post on another blog and a far leftwing commenter with psychotically pronounced BDS called our dear Sister a B***h.
ST, with this post you really are getting to the left.
PCD, if that’s the best that moonbat can come up with in response to this–a vitriolic personal attack that has nothing to do with the issue at hand–then the debate is over and the Left has lost.
Go ST!
Kareling, Other than to tell conservatives that He and his ilk are going to take back what Conservatives have stolen from the country, this jerk is not good for much else, but the other libs on that board aren’t disowning him either.
Haven’t seen this reported too much in the MoonbatStream Media, what with all their attention being focused on Im-a-damn-nut-job from Iran speaking to the UN, but another foreign leader also addressed the UN this week.
Money quote:
Words which ought to be forcibly programmed into the memory of anyone from any party who is even thinking about running for President. Withdrawing in the face of the enemy in the Middle East will only assure us of having to face them again on worse terms.
Wow, there’s a new sheriff in France!!
I find it interesting how nobody seems to notice the fact that several of our biggest critics, including France and Germany have voted in right wing, pro-American governments since the Iraq war.
But I thought the world hated us because of Iraq??
Are you saying that France is going to join us in the war? Because I specifically remember Sarkozy being against the war.
To the point however…
“The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it.”
“If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in.”
“We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March.”
“We would like to act with the mandate of the UN” (as opposed to “We will only act with the mandate of the UN”)
“We can’t allow Saddam to drag his heels until the summer”
“This is like Chinese water torture. We must put an end to it.”
I also noted where Bush announces his intention to use economic coercion to force other countries to agree to the resolution.
It is clear to any RATIONAL person that these comments indicate that Bush had decided to go to war, and was just working out the details of his post-hoc justification.
As far as the fact that Saddam was offering to go into exile with WMD information, I find it laughable that you are making the huge leap from the fact that he had WMD info to the assumption that he actually had WMD’s. I mean, I have a screensaver of a Ferrari on my PC, does that mean that I actually have one in my driveway? Nobody ever denied that Saddam had WMD info. I’m sure that he’s had it at least since the Reagan Administration was selling him chemical weapons. However, since operation Desert Fox, when Clinton destroyed his remaining WMD capabilities in 1999, over the strenuous objections of Republicans, Saddam has been neutered.
Only time will tell, but it’s obvious that even France is beginning to recognize the threat that Iran poses. Unlike many here in the U.S.
I see, so to disagree with you is irrational, is that it? Frankly, I don’t care if he did decide to do invade Iraq in his first month in office. Iraq had been a problem for 12 YEARS, since the end of the first Gulf War. Pretending he was harmless and ignoring him is not a strategy, it’s living in denial.
Oh, I see. Well, perhaps you can give a RATIONAL explanation as to why Saddam would want to take all the info on WMD’s with him. Did he want to wallpaper his new bedroom with them? Perhaps he was planning on getting a new puppy and needed them to line the kitchen floor. The only thing laughable is how people like you dismiss the evidence coming out of Iraq that Saddam was involved with WMD’s ,was not cooperating with inspectors, nor was he abiding by the several UN resolutions that were imposed on him in 1991.
Thanks man, I need a good laugh. So basically Bill Clinton saved the day!!! LOL!! I’d love to see a link to that story, my friend. I look forward to it.
By the way, you may want to change your screen name. For some reason “realism” seems to be the last thing that you grasp.
No. Your reading comprehension skills aren’t too good, are they? All I took note of is that appeasement doesn’t work, and Sarkozy understands that. Unlike, say, Obama, Edwards, Clinton, and the rest of the pack of leftists trying for the Democrat presidential nomination. That bunch ranges from garden-variety appeasers to the pre-emptive surrender types like Kucinich.
Your logic skills aren’t any better than your reading comprehension. If you have a Ferrari screensaver because you admire the car, fine – are you then saying Saddam only had the instructions on how to mnufacture WMDs because he liked to look at them? That’s the only way your poorly-drawn analogy holds up, and frankly, it sounds like something Saddam’s old mouthpiece Baghdad Bob would have come up with. It doesn’t pass the laugh test.
On the other hand, if you have that Ferrari screensaver because you’re building one in secret in your back yard…
Oh, by the way, wasn’t Saddam supposed to have surrendered all his WMD documents to the IAEA? At least, that’s what you leftists claimed during the run-up to the Iraq war. Then again, you probably didn’t know Saddam had things like copy machines and flash drives either.
Oh, is that what the left-wing loose-leaf history book is claiming today? In point of fact, Clinton did almost nothing except lob a few weapons at aspirin factories – and then only to wag the dog – and nobody on the GOP side would have objected to a more vigorous stance against Saddam. Fact is, Clinton’s Middle East policy tilted strongly in favor of the islamists – witness how Yassir Arafat was his guest at the White House more than any other foreign leader.
Oh, you also forget that preventing Saddam from acquiring and using WMDs was only one of the reasons for going to Iraq. No serious person denies he once had them and used them and was constantly trying to get them again. We prevented this. You, on the other hand, would have been perfectly happy to see him continue his policy of mass murder and torture, all the while continuing to work on building up the WMD arsenal. And in the last analysis, you’d be fine with giving him a billion dollars and all the instructions on WMD-making, which he could then distribute to AQ. Yeah, there’s a ploicy that makes sense…
Suggestion: change your handle to “SURrealism”. It’ll be a lot closer to the truth.
LOL, NC Cop!! Looks like we had the same idea about the leftist’s screen name!!
GWR, they make it so easy. It would be nice to have someone with a logical thought and some evidence to back it up.
Hey, realsim, got some more for you. I actually found an article on Operation Desert Fox.
Operation Desert Fox
Here’s an interesting quote from that article:
As far as the Republicans objecting, the only thing I saw was Republicans questioning the timing of the strike. You know, seeing as how it coincided with the IMPEACHMENT debate that was going on. Coincidence? Only in your IRRATIONAL mind.