Uncle Sam
02-11-2004, 11:41 AM
http://www.canoe.com/Columnists/stanway.html
By PAUL STANWAY -- Edmonton Sun
Several readers have e-mailed me lately to wonder if I am "planning to apologize for supporting the war in Iraq." The answer is no. Label me an unreconstructed supporter of removing Saddam Hussein.
I am not wholeheartedly enthusiastic about the presidency of George W. Bush. As I have mentioned before in this space, his public ****ouncements often leave me oddly unconvinced, and he has yet to seriously tackle America's $2.4-trillion budget or its record deficit.
But I thought Bush did a pretty good job during a rare and lengthy television interview this week, of defending the invasion of Iraq. He suggested the invasion be viewed in the context of 9-11 and Saddam's track record of providing a haven for terrorists, his use of chemical weapons and his amply demonstrated desire to possess biological and even nuclear arms.
"I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman," said Bush. Let me broaden that sentiment. I don't believe the world, Canada included, should stand by and hope for the best from a vicious despot who had launched wars of aggression against his neighbours in which millions of people died, and who had shown a reckless desire to destabilize an already volatile region and risk a much wider conflict. To my mind, an analogy with the late 1930s and Adolf Hitler was very much on the money.
There is a great deal more that President Bush could have said in defence of American actions in Iraq. He could, for example, have pointed out that for a dozen years Saddam had failed to comply with UN resolutions that he demonstrate he had disarmed, leading to the reasonable suspicion that he had not.
The president might also have mentioned that although chief American arms sleuth David Kay now says intelligence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was "almost all wrong," Kay's Iraq Survey Group did find hard evidence that Iraq was working on new biological WMDs (including the very nasty Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever).
Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has also been spouting off about the lack of Iraqi WMDs, forgetting that as recently as last spring he told the UN that "the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for, and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues, was not shortened either by (UN) inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation."
Still "unaccounted for" are 25 missiles with biological warheads, over 500 artillery shells containing chemical agents, three tons of VX nerve gas and enough liquefied anthrax to wipe out half of North America. And these were the weapons to which Iraq admitted. One wonders when somebody, perhaps Saddam himself, might enlighten the world as to their present whereabouts?
As with any human endeavour, there are a great many things about the Iraq war to be disappointed, a great many shortcomings and things which could have been done better.
Chief among them the chest-beating certainty of Bush, his cabinet and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in declaring that they had concrete evidence of Iraq's WMD capabilities - when it is clear they did not.
Blair's lot even seems to have either misunderstood or deliberately misstated an intelligence estimate that Saddam's troops might be able to activate battlefield WMDs within "45 minutes," which was lathered up to sound as if he were able to quickly launch long-range missiles with chemical or biological warheads.
Of course it would have been better if Bush, Blair et al., had resisted pressure from media and political opponents to produce concrete evidence of Saddam's weapons and intentions. But in the overheated atmosphere of last spring, would an "honest estimate" of Saddam's capabilities have convinced those opposed to any sort of military action? It would not.
As I have said before, overstating the threat posed by Saddam may carry a heavy political price for both Bush and Blair - but that doesn't mean there was no threat, or that removing Saddam by force was the wrong thing to do.
It's way too early for apologies.
By PAUL STANWAY -- Edmonton Sun
Several readers have e-mailed me lately to wonder if I am "planning to apologize for supporting the war in Iraq." The answer is no. Label me an unreconstructed supporter of removing Saddam Hussein.
I am not wholeheartedly enthusiastic about the presidency of George W. Bush. As I have mentioned before in this space, his public ****ouncements often leave me oddly unconvinced, and he has yet to seriously tackle America's $2.4-trillion budget or its record deficit.
But I thought Bush did a pretty good job during a rare and lengthy television interview this week, of defending the invasion of Iraq. He suggested the invasion be viewed in the context of 9-11 and Saddam's track record of providing a haven for terrorists, his use of chemical weapons and his amply demonstrated desire to possess biological and even nuclear arms.
"I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman," said Bush. Let me broaden that sentiment. I don't believe the world, Canada included, should stand by and hope for the best from a vicious despot who had launched wars of aggression against his neighbours in which millions of people died, and who had shown a reckless desire to destabilize an already volatile region and risk a much wider conflict. To my mind, an analogy with the late 1930s and Adolf Hitler was very much on the money.
There is a great deal more that President Bush could have said in defence of American actions in Iraq. He could, for example, have pointed out that for a dozen years Saddam had failed to comply with UN resolutions that he demonstrate he had disarmed, leading to the reasonable suspicion that he had not.
The president might also have mentioned that although chief American arms sleuth David Kay now says intelligence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was "almost all wrong," Kay's Iraq Survey Group did find hard evidence that Iraq was working on new biological WMDs (including the very nasty Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever).
Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has also been spouting off about the lack of Iraqi WMDs, forgetting that as recently as last spring he told the UN that "the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for, and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues, was not shortened either by (UN) inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation."
Still "unaccounted for" are 25 missiles with biological warheads, over 500 artillery shells containing chemical agents, three tons of VX nerve gas and enough liquefied anthrax to wipe out half of North America. And these were the weapons to which Iraq admitted. One wonders when somebody, perhaps Saddam himself, might enlighten the world as to their present whereabouts?
As with any human endeavour, there are a great many things about the Iraq war to be disappointed, a great many shortcomings and things which could have been done better.
Chief among them the chest-beating certainty of Bush, his cabinet and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in declaring that they had concrete evidence of Iraq's WMD capabilities - when it is clear they did not.
Blair's lot even seems to have either misunderstood or deliberately misstated an intelligence estimate that Saddam's troops might be able to activate battlefield WMDs within "45 minutes," which was lathered up to sound as if he were able to quickly launch long-range missiles with chemical or biological warheads.
Of course it would have been better if Bush, Blair et al., had resisted pressure from media and political opponents to produce concrete evidence of Saddam's weapons and intentions. But in the overheated atmosphere of last spring, would an "honest estimate" of Saddam's capabilities have convinced those opposed to any sort of military action? It would not.
As I have said before, overstating the threat posed by Saddam may carry a heavy political price for both Bush and Blair - but that doesn't mean there was no threat, or that removing Saddam by force was the wrong thing to do.
It's way too early for apologies.