Former cabinet ministers Robin Cook and Clare Short recently accused British Prime Minister Tony Blair before the Commons foreign affairs select committee of “not presenting the whole picture” in making the case to go to war against Iraq. Ms. Short went as far as to describe Mr. Blair’s actions as a “honourable deception.”
While “honourable deception” is perhaps the most genteel description that I have heard to suggest that a leader of a democracy was less than honest in making the case to go to war, the testimony by two former members of Tony Blair’s cabinet was loud enough to reverberate across the Atlantic with such force that neither Republicans nor Democrats can ignore its significance.
In fairness, there was nothing said that broke any new ground. What Mr. Cook and Ms. Short did provide was a perspective from inside Mr. Blair’s cabinet that there may have been a rush to judgment. Similar hearings began this week in the U.S. House and Senate intelligence committees, but those are closed session.
Mr. Cook, an ex-foreign secretary, told the committee he had "no doubt about the good faith of the prime minister", but said the "burning sincerity and conviction of those involved in the exercise" was a "problem". Ms Short claimed that the prime minister was so convinced that it was right to take action against Saddam Hussein that he was prepared to bend the truth to get his way.
The former cabinet members said before the committee that Mr. Blair’s conviction led to intelligence material being carefully selected to back up their case for war, rather than being used as a basis for assessing whether or not Saddam posed a threat.
Assuming there is something to the testimonies of Mr. Cook and Ms. Short, the U.S./British diplomatic effort prior to the war was nothing more than thinly veiled disguises to appease the world community. Under this scenario, if the intelligence had indeed supported the decision to go to war it was at best a convenient coincidence that made the job of the political spin- doctor easier.
President Bush defended his most loyal ally recently by saying, "Tony Blair operated on very sound intelligence, and those accusations are simply not true." Does that “sound intelligence” also include the “Dodgy Dossier?”
The “Dodgy Dossier,” as it is known by the British press, was a much assailed document used by the Blair government to support a war against Iraq that had much of its content plagiarized from a thesis written by an American student 12 years ago. Furthermore, National Security Advisor, Condaleeza Rice admitted on Meet the Press recently that evidence that President Bush cited during his State of Union address, linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program was fabricated.
The United State has 200,000 troops in Iraq, the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein
remain unknown, since the war was declared over America is losing more than a
soldier a day, weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found, and on both sides
of the Atlantic there are admissions of using unreliable data to sell the war
to the public. For every member of Congress, adorning a lapel flag, who leaped
at the opportunity to testify how they love America and how much they support
the troops, now would be the time to demonstrate that love and support.
This is cannot be about cheap partisan victories. There can be little tolerance for anyone trying to gain political points with something so vital to the country.
Innocent people died, this administration was steadfast in its resolve, and unanswered questions remain. The policy of preemptive first strike, which is the essence of the Bush Doctrine, cannot be supported by faulty or useless intelligence. Statements by Mr. Cook, Ms. Short and Ms. Rice bear witness to the need for answers.
The United States should follow the lead of its British allies and hold open hearings
so that questions can be answered and doubts erased, even if WMD are found tomorrow.
Leaders of democracies are given wide latitudes of discretion by the public during
times of war. At no time can that latitude extend to the leader such that he or
she may mislead the country into war honorably or otherwise.