The Case for War A question has struck me: How much did the leaders of other countries influence a person's support for the Iraqi Bush War? Did, for instance, Bush's position have any direct impact on the British public, or did Blair and Her Majesty's government serve as the exclusive conduit for presenting considerations to the British people? I know for a fact that the allegedly "sexed-up" dossier made a big splash in the US, and was debated heavily on the news-talk networks. Quite obviously, the German people reacted to Bush and Blair, and on our side of the pond there were accusations that the leadership buckled to the anti-war movement for electoral popularity. Around the world, people and politicians either supported Bush or were incensed by his position, but in the case of the primaries: US and UK mostly, but others who contributed, what role did foreign leaders play in building the case for war in any individual's mind? Americans: Did Blair's presentation help reaffirm the cause for war, or just recycle Dubya's position? British: How much did Bush's presentation affect your perception of Blair's position, or of other factors related to the war? I'm just curious. Obviously, the American anti-war movement has some interest in the British row. But what role did that really play in Americans' sentiments? And what role did Bush play for non-Americans who supported the war? :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Personally, my views on the war were completely unaffected by any domestic or foreign leaders. I was also against the war in Afghanistan, which was supported by just about everyone(including the vast majority of US liberals) and the bombing of Kosovo(which was supported by an even larger number of people and was opposed only by hard core leftists and pacifists) I do think that support for the Iraq war in the US might have been a little lower if Britain had been against it, I don't think anyone here on either side really cared what the French thought though.
Well, the basic opinions over here were either that Bush knew what he was on about, after all he is president of the USA, and htus it bolstered their opinion, or that hes a shimp, and therefore knows nothing, thus confirming their opinion. So basically, bushs involvemnt didnt really change anything. However, it looksl ilek Blairs stary eyed zealot look ( and if you dont believe me watch him on tv) helped convince a few people. "the man really believes, it must be true" AS for the dodgy dossier, forget it, not worth the paper its written on. And as for Mr campbell, hes a spin doctor. By definition they treat the news until it looks how it should, ergo he is guilty as charged and needs whipping. Notice how his histrionics have covered up the embarrasing fact that the dossier is worthless.
Here in Ireland we had a rather cynical view on the whole thing ("Yeah, right, sure they've got WMDs - and isn't that oil just a natty little bonus" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) and then, we find that our own government has been giving the US logistical support and lying to our faces about it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ah, but that's the funny part - it wasn't written on paper, it was written in Word, and someone posted the original Word file on the British Government website. And then someone analysed it, and got access to it's revision history. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, sort of. I was very against it from the start (still am), but watching the German Journal news every morning "Deutsche-Velle", with interpretations of what Gerhard Shroder was quoted saying about Blair and Bush just reinvigorated my anti-war stance, kind of. Plus, that Shroder's a funny man.
Voted no. Neither did Bush's views, in fact. I had my own case for supporting the war that transcended presidencies and political ideologies that I've carried for quite some years.
When the modern American left makes arguments like these they don't do themselves much credit. Tired rhetoric, petulent ad hominems, and self-admission that they will arbitrarily oppose anything Bush says simply because he says it undermines what could be an otherwise thoughtful and legitimate position. The thoughtful and comparatively silent few are oft times drowned out in the raging demagoguery of the LOL BUSH IZ DUM REPUBLIKKKANZ OIL OIL LOL crew and their ilk. A shining example of this is your failure to realize that Bush had very little to do with what we did in Iraq. I hear it called "Bush's War" and what not quite often, but only by people who are poorly informed about the history of what was a long and drawn out process. http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0919cngr.htm In this vein, PBS' Frontline did an excellent documentary The Long Road To War early in 2003, IIRC. It's on their site and I suggest you revisit the chronology here. Too often a President will get credit for what happens when he is in office simply because the two coincide. How quickly people forget that the economy has nothing to do with the incumbent President. Similarly, neither did deposing Saddam have a causal link to Bush's term. The US had decided to remove him long ago, in the Clinton years.
Ahh Stokes, I see firstly you avoid his factual comments and focus merely on the opinion. "A shining example of this is your failure to realize that Bush had very little to do with what we did in Iraq. " Well then, who did? Did you americans actually get a chance to vote for them? "The US had decided to remove him long ago, in the Clinton years." Again, which US? And why?
It is going too far to say that Bush had no connection with the war his administration started. I'll concede that it wasn't an idea he simply picked out of the blue, but it also was not some sort of destiny predetermined by Clinton. If we follow the precedent set by Clinton, Bush had no obligation to back up the intentions defined by Congress. It was neither an arbitrary choice or a set destiny- it was a moral choice that Bush felt he was obligated to make. There's a gray are here that both the left and right seem to be ignoring.
I think that in the end most of British public opinion was affected by Bush as much as Tony Blair himself was for one reason. Everyone knew that come what may the US was intent on a war, regardless of who was on board. If you see an elephant about to charge and there's nothing you can do to stop it the safest place to be is right behind it...
