SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
I agree with Ken Silverstein–the note published yesterday by Spain’s El País of a conversation which occurred between President Bush and then-Prime Minister José Maria Aznar is a major further breakthrough in understanding the attitude of President Bush in the weeks just preceding the invasion of Iraq. The document is not quite as damning at the Downing Street papers, but it does tend to reinforce the major thrust of the British notes on Bush’s pre-invasion rants.
It is to be stressed that, as was the case with the British documents, this note is particularly credible in that it was recorded by a close ally which was publicly committed to supporting, and did support, Bush in his drive against Iraq.
What emerges is a president full of swagger noting how he will use the great resources of the United States to press other nations (specifically here: members of the Security Council) into line in upcoming votes. He is also resolved to proceed with the invasion no matter what the Security Council does, and no matter what Saddam does. He feigns certitude about his conclusions on Saddam’s involvement with WMD programs—though we now know that the intelligence community had come to discount the supposed evidence for Saddam’s pursuit of WMDs at the time. His convictions are delusional, or they are mere pretense.
Today, the Washington Post publishes a translation of the El País story with commentary. As is the Post’s wont, it runs the most important story of the day on page A17.
Bush said that Europeans were insensitive to “the suffering that Saddam Hussein has inflicted on the Iraqis” and added: “Maybe it’s because he’s dark-skinned, far away and Muslim — a lot of Europeans think he’s okay.” But Bush was happy to play the “bad cop,” he said. “The more the Europeans attack me, the stronger I am in the United States.”
Later in the conversation, Aznar returned to the subject. “Is it true there’s a possibility Saddam Hussein might go into exile?” “Yes, it’s possible,” Bush responded. “It’s also possible he could be assassinated.” In any case, Bush said, there would be “no guarantee” for Hussein. “He’s a thief, a terrorist and a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, [former Yugoslav president Slobodan] Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa.”
Bush noted that he had gone to the United Nations “despite differences in my own administration” and said it would be “great” if the proposed resolution was successful. “The only thing that worries me is your optimism,” Aznar said. “I’m optimistic because I believe I’m right,” Bush replied. “I’m at peace with myself.”
This is the Bush that at length Americans have come to understand: a man who is absolutely certain about things on which he is absolutely wrong. Aznar’s saving grace was his skepticism and adhesion to reason. He emerges from the discussion as a concerned friend trying tactfully to pull a friend back from the brink of disaster. He failed, of course, because once Bush has made up his mind, he does not listen—not even to his friends. He really has all the hallmarks of a disastrous leader.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”