bushes

[jfb]

For my friends who believe that W.'s drive to eliminate Saddam Hussein is motivated in large part by issues with his father, a new twist: Bush Sr.'s doubts about a unilateral war. The article is misleading but still interesting.

Comments

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

I'm not surprised by this -- I always preferred senior to junior (even though I voted for neither). It's nice to hear, although I'm surprised he's making the plea in public.

What's misleading about the article?

[jfb.livejournal.com]

Well, it's slanted. The Boston Globe report (http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/058/metro/At_Tufts_elder_Bush_defends_US_Iraq_policy+.shtml) on the same speech is undoubtedly slanted in the other direction, but the counterpoint is still instructive.

It's largely a matter of emphasis. The Times article says that Bush issued a "warning" about the unwisdom of proceeding without UN support, and barely mentions that Bush's speech supported a war on Iraq. The Globe article acknowledges the importance of an international coalition, but suggests that the speech's essential thesis was pro-war.

The Times article claims that Bush indicated "hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity." But the quotes it provides support only the position that international unity was required in 1991. It's not a wild leap to conclude that it's still necessary today, but it's not a conclusion Bush appears to have stated. In fact, the Globe article says that Bush "drew a distinction between the importance of multilateral action in the Gulf War and today," for multiple reasons.

The article says that Bush "came close to conceding that opponents of [the case against Hussein] have legitimate cause for concern," which is a labored attempt to make it sound like Bush doubts the case against Hussein. (Another way to say that he "came close to conceding" is to say that he "did not concede". Choose your slant.) According to the Globe article, though, when Bush said that something was "a little fuzzier" (the articles differ on what he was referring to), he was not saying that he doesn't support the war, he was explaining why it's harder today to build a coalition for it.

The Times article leads with the claim that "Bush has told his son" something, but in fact has nothing to say about what Bush may have told his son directly. It goes on to admit that it's just an article about a speech, but "the message... was unmistakeable." But the very fact that the Globe's account differs so widely is evidence that the message is completely mistakeable.

I have no idea, of course, whether Bush doubts the case for war, or whether he has expressed such doubts to his son. But I do have an idea what sloppy journalism looks like, and this looks like it to me. (If it were presented as an op-ed piece, I'd have more relaxed standards.) I can't say for certain, of course, without the actual text of the speech.

Re: unmistakeable

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

Far be it from me to paraphrase the same movie quote in one day, but:

"I don't think you should use this word anymore -- I do not think it means what you think it means."

And, if I were to use the other objoke:

"Different reporters hear different things from a speech -- film at eleven."

Fuzzy Journalism

[artname.livejournal.com]

Everyone I could find other than the Pakistan Times thinks it's "fuzzier evidence". Couldn't find a transcript anywhere.

He said that the key question of how many weapons of mass destruction Iraq held “could be debated”. The case against Saddam was “less clear” than in 1991, when Mr Bush Sr led an international coalition to expel invading Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Objectives were “a little fuzzier today”, he added.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-3-2003_pg4_5

Speaking to an audience at Tufts University in the last week of February, George Bush the Elder remarked that the evidence in 2003 was “a little fuzzier” than it was in 1990, when Saddam had invaded and occupied Kuwait.

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=23458

The former president later drew a distinction between the importance of multilateral action in the Gulf War and today, saying that coalition-building is harder now, when the evidence that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction is ''a little fuzzier'' than when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

http://www.globe.com/dailyglobe2/058/metro/At_Tufts_elder_Bush_defends_US_Iraq_policy+.shtml

He conceded that getting a coalition together is harder now, because the evidence about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is “a little fuzzier” than was his evident invasion of Kuwait.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.asp?section=Opinion&oid=17209

Transcript

[artname.livejournal.com]

I knew I could find it eventually. The "fuzzier" is inthe Q&A, linked at the bottom. I have no idea what it is that's a little fuzzier.

PRESIDENT BACOW: The first question is an amalgam of a couple of questions, and I took the liberty of putting them together, so it's not specifically identified with one individual. In 1991, you worked tirelessly to assemble an international coalition to support military action in Kuwait. The United Nations Security Council gave its blessing to the intervention, and the U.S. was joined by an extraordinary coalition in a concerted action to overturn Iraq's invasion of its sovereign neighbor. Many viewed your efforts as really heralding a new day in international cooperation. Today the U.S. is poised to launch a preemptive military action against Iraq possibly without U.N. support. The difference between your policy of coalition building and respect for the United Nations, and that of the current administration is striking to some. Are you troubled by the willingness of the U.S. to act unilaterally without broad based international support?



PRESIDENT BUSH: I agree with the President, it would be much better to act with as much international support as possible. The difference between '91 and today is that the objective was clearer, in a way, back when I was President. You could see the occupying forces. You could get the reports of the brutality of the Iraqi soldiers to the Kuwaiti women, and to the torture of the young men. You could see that the forces, in my view, were determined to go even further south to try to take over -- that was my view -- to take over Saudi Arabia. Today it's less clear.



The violations of the U.N. resolutions by Saddam Hussein are clear. But, the question is how much does he have in a way of weapons of mass destruction? That could be debated. But, I think, most people conclude that he has not done what he was called on to do, to fully disarm. So, it's a little fuzzier today.