"Credibility", Bush, and the State of the Union.

[Brotherjohn]

I'm having a little problem with the following statement by Bush in the State of the Union address:

"Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America."

Now, for starters, negotiations started under the Clinton administration. But that's not where my problem is. My problem is, just what does Bush mean by "credibility", or does he have any idea what it means?

The clear implication of the statement is this: "We told Iraq we were gonna kick their ass, and we did! So Libya didn't want to mess with us!" To Bush and his neo-con backers, credibility means only talking tough and then backing it up with action... violent action. Not unlike your average mob boss.

One could see this coming miles away since, for years, anytime the U.S. talked tough but did not actually "take someone out", conservatives whined that "our words weren't credible". Then in the months leading up to the Iraq War, we were told by the administration that we have to back up our words with action (i.e. war). Otherwise, we would lose credibility.

Well, yes, the U.S. came through on their threat to kick Iraq's ass. So in that sense, our words are "credible".

But just what IS credibility, really?

Were our words credible when we said that Iraq had reconsituted nuclear weapons? Were our words credible when we said that Iraq had obtained aluminum tubes that could only be used for nuclear bomb-making? Were our words credible when we said that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Africa? Were our words credible when we said that Iraq had tons of biological and chemical weapons stocks, and mobile weapons labs, loaded warheads, and unmanned drones, all ready to disperse these massive stockpiles? Were our words credible when we said that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda, and repeatedly implied that Iraq was behind 9-11? We now know that the answer to all these questions is, of course, no.

Were Iraq's words credible when they denied having these weapons and technologies. It turns out, as even our own investigations have shown, yes.

Were the U.N.'s words credible when they demonstrated, with evidence gathered on the ground in Iraq, that most of the claims being made by the U.S. were dubious if not outright false? Yes. Evidence has shown that their words, too, were credible.

Evidence gathered in Iraq and elsewhere to date, by multiple, independent sources (including the U.S. military), has shown that Iraq and the U.N.'s words were credible on the issue of whether Iraq had WMDs. Not to mention, the words of staunch, longtime allies like France and Germany, was well as most of the rest of the world. On the other hand, evidence has shown that it was the words of the U.S. that were NOT credible.

Bush was right. In order for diplomacy to work, words must be credible. The truth of the matter, as evidence gathered both before and after the war has shown, is that diplomacy DID work in Iraq for nearly 12 years. Iraq WAS contained and had NOT reconstituted its WMD capability.

But DARN that diplomacy! Bush wanted his war, and he was gonna get it!

So to insure that diplomacy did not work leading up to the Iraq War (which they had already decided to initiate), they had to be sure that at least SOMEBODY's words were not credible.

So they lied their asses off.

That way, the resulting stalemate would make it obvious that their "diplomacy" was not working.

It is beyond pale that Bush would cite his 'credibility" on the Iraq issue in light of events. His words and the words of his administration have been the least credible of all in the buildup to and aftermath of the Iraq war. To them, "credibility" means only walking loudly, carrying a big stick... and using it. To them, "credibility" means only kicking someone's ass. They truly have no idea what it means to be credible.

[Cannikin]

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Program Activities........

WMDRPA....quite a mouthfull. The Daily Show hit the nail on the head about that one.

http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/

Click on Bush's picture for the clip.

[Brotherjohn]

2. I saw that, too. Right on the money. Even my local paper...

...hammered him about the "WMDRPA" thing.