Yes He Would
By Paul Krugman
04/10/06 "New York
Times" -- -- "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 didn't 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 Mr. 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, Mr. Hersh suggests that
administration officials believe that 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're being
sensible. Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq
war, however, discounting the possibility that Mr. Bush will
start another ill-conceived and unnecessary war isn't sensible.
It's 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're already in.
First, it's clearer than ever that Mr. 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
Mr. Bush and Tony Blair. In that conversation, Mr. Bush told Mr.
Blair that he was determined to invade Iraq even if U.N.
inspectors came up empty-handed.
Second, it's becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Bush knew that
the case he was presenting for war - a case that depended
crucially on visions of mushroom clouds - rested on suspect
evidence. For example, in the 2003 State of the Union address
Mr. Bush cited Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes as clear
evidence that Saddam was trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal.
Yet Murray Waas of the National Journal reports that Mr. Bush
had been warned that many intelligence analysts disagreed with
that assessment.
Was the difference between Mr. 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 Mr. Waas, Mr. 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 that a bombing campaign would be a disastrous
mistake. But that doesn't mean it won't happen: Mr. 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 Mr. Bush want another war? For one thing, Mr. 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's not just Mr. Bush's legacy that's at risk. Current
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 Mr. 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 shouldn't. Given the combination
of recklessness and dishonesty Mr. Bush displayed in launching
the Iraq war, why should we assume that he wouldn't do it again?
© Copyright 2006 New York Times
Click below to read or post comments on this article
