Tuesday, January 11, 2005
"Bush was wrong."
My first reaction is, of course he was. This from the AP, found by a link on open book.
"When I went to Washington as the pope's envoy just before the outbreak of the war in Iraq, he (Bush) told me: `Don't worry, your eminence. We'll be quick and do well in Iraq,'" Laghi told Italian Catholic TV station Telepace, which was broadcasting the pontiff's annual address to diplomats. When the United States went to war in Iraq, Laghi called the attack on Baghdad "tragic and unacceptable."
"Unfortunately, the facts have demonstrated afterward that things took a different course -- not rapid and not favorable," the prelate told Telepace. "Bush was wrong."
The president has been jumped millions of times on this issue, and will continue to be jumped, as he should be. But it's worth pointing out that Bush, like his immediate predecessor (or three) is a consummate politician. His goal is to be elected, and once elected, stay in power. His advisers are there to ensure his election and once that is ensured, to remain in place themselves. To that end, just about anything can and will be said, promised, traded, given away, sold, borrowed, or whatever. Regarding factual information given to diplomats or citizens ... well, caveat emptor.
In the aftermath of 9/11, the president warned American citizens that the struggle against terrorists would be a long one. I think people were willing, at that time, to be told that a long battle, if ultimately successful, would be acceptable, and that appropriate sacrifices could be made. How this washes with a promise for a quick and effective Iraq operation, I can't see. And if the leaders of this country really thought this decade's war would be just like Desert Storm, but with just an extra chapter or two tacked on for a happy ending, I think competence can be called into question, no matter what side you fall on ideologically with regard to war.
If the American political system cannot abide the election of a person well acquainted with statecraft in favor of a politician, I suppose I can live with that. Even in the worst of times, not everything a president does revolves around foreign relations. But having someone who is capable on a presidential staff seems to be a dire need for this administration. And not only having such a person, but also giving that person a serious voice at the table. Lacking that, the conduct of this war will not only sink the Bushies in the years to come, but it will lead to further erosion of the trust people want to put in their leadership.
