“But he wouldn’t do that.”
That sentiment is what made it possible for President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election. Many people just did not want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace.
Now people with contacts in the administration and the military warn that Bush may be planning another war. The most alarming of the warnings come from Seymour Hersh, the veteran investigative journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal. Writing in The New Yorker, Hersh suggests that administration officials believe a bombing campaign could lead to desirable regime change in Iran – and that they refuse to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
“But he wouldn’t do that,” say people who think they are being sensible.
Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq war, however, discounting the possibility that Bush will start another ill-conceived and unnecessary war is not sensible. It is wishful thinking.
As it happens, rumors of a new war coincide with the emergence of evidence that appears to confirm our worst suspicions about the war we are already in.
First, it is clearer than ever that Bush, who still claims that war with Iraq was a last resort, was actually spoiling for a fight.
The New York Times has confirmed the authenticity of a British government memo reporting on a prewar discussion between Bush and Tony Blair. In that conversation, Bush told Blair that he was determined to invade Iraq even if U.N. inspectors came up empty-handed.
Second, it is becoming increasingly clear that Bush knew the case he was presenting for war – a case that depended crucially on visions of mushroom clouds – rested on suspect evidence. For example, in his 2003 State of the Union address he cited Iraq’s purchase of aluminum tubes as clear evidence that Saddam was trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Yet Murray Waas reports in the National Journal that Bush had been warned that many intelligence analysts disagreed with that assessment.
Was the difference between Bush’s public portrayal of the Iraqi threat and the actual intelligence he saw large enough to validate claims that he deliberately misled the nation into war? Karl Rove apparently thought so.
According to Waas, Rove “cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush’s 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged” if the contents of an October 2002 “President’s Summary” containing dissents about the significance of the aluminum tubes became public.
Now there are rumors of plans to attack Iran. Most strategic analysts think a bombing campaign would be a disastrous mistake.
But that does not mean it will not happen: Bush ignored similar warnings, including those of his own father, about the risks involved in invading Iraq.
As Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently pointed out, the administration seems to be following exactly the same script on Iran that it used on Iraq: “The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops.”
Why might Bush want another war? For one thing, Bush, whose presidency is increasingly defined by the quagmire in Iraq, may believe that he can redeem himself with a new Mission Accomplished moment.
And it is not just his legacy that is at risk. Polls suggest that the Democrats could take one or both houses of Congress this November, acquiring the ability to launch investigations backed by subpoena power.
This could blow the lid off multiple Bush administration scandals.
Political analysts openly suggest that an attack on Iran offers Bush a way to head off this danger, that an appropriately timed military strike could change the domestic political dynamics.
Does this sound far-fetched? It should not. Given the combination of recklessness and dishonesty Bush displayed in launching the Iraq war, why should we assume that he wouldn’t do it again?