The Weakly Standard clearly agrees with the report published in the Post of a meeting between Spain's President Anzar, and our President Bush in the run up to our invasion in Iraq. Brian Faughnan's post argues that the fact that Bush told Anzar that Saddam would not go into exile without plans for WMD, proves that Saddam was in fact a threat.
There is no logic in the post, entitled "Saddam Risked his life for WMD Secrets," especially when you consider that Bush may have been misinformed by U.S. intelligence, or may have been lying in an effort to sell his case for war to Anzar. Even if you assume Bush was accurate in his statement, there is no justification for any conclusions as to Saddam's motives.
As Juan Cole points out, what the report does do is make Bush's dishonest immorality painfully obvious. Bush did not try to negotiate Saddam's departure from Iraq. He did not seriously consult with either our allies or the U.N. He was determined to start a war which has thus far killed almost 4,000 Americans.
Bush is despicable enough to implicitly threaten starving Africans if their government did not follow his lead. The report quotes Bush as saying "Angola is getting money from the Millennium Account, and those agreements could also be in danger if they don't show themselves to be favorable." This threat underscores the depravity of the man. In establishing the fund, Bush said that countries that received aid would be identified "based on a set of clear and concrete and objective criteria that would be applied rigorously and fairly." Voting at the U.N. as per instructions received President Bush was not listed amongst the criteria.
The report proves a lot about Bush, but nothing about Saddam Hussein.
Comments