How has George Bush avoided Tony Blair's difficulties?
This is the question posed by Tom Carver of the BBC. After all, Tony Blair only made one egregious overstatement, that Saddam Hussein could mount a biological or chemical weapons attack within 45 minutes. The Bush administration made many more allegations that have subsequently been discredited. These include the more sweeping claims that Iraq was 6-9 months away from a nuclear capability, that it had weapons of mass destruction at the ready and that there was a linkage between 9/11, Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. The more specific supporting "evidence" such as the purchase of aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment and uranium 'yellowcake' purchases from Niger, turned out to be clearly bogus.
Carver concludes that "In the end, George Bush did not need the intelligence to make his case, in the same way that Tony Blair did. After going through the trauma of 11 September, Mr Bush knew that if he told the American people he needed to attack Iraq they would support him." (See Carver's entire article.)
So where does the problem lie? With the people, or with the President?
10:52:41 AM 
|
|
