There was a diary earlier suggesting that Tony Blair (and by extension, Bush) had been somehow vindicated because a British judge ruled that he had not ordered the "sexing up" of the Iraqi intelligence dossier that came out of the U.K.
Was Blair vindicated?
Hardly.
Look, there are a lot of different issues out there about the Iraq war. Some people are concerned about the moral implications. Other people are concerned about the needless loss of American and British lives.
But here is one question that we don't always discuss:
What does the Iraq war show about Bush's capacity as an executive. Is he competent in that role? Are those in his circle of advisors competent in their roles? What can we say about the entire executive branch of government when it comes to foreign policy and the Iraq war in particular?
The Bush Administration loves to talk about free markets and competition. These people like to dwell on the fact that competition makes everyone perform better. In order for this to work, the voters have to judge their elected officials by their performance. Measuring competence is the most important part of this.
Here are some questions:
- Did the Bush Administration effectively handle the "threat" they perceived from Saddam Hussein?
- Did the Bush Administration succeed in pursuing their goals in Iraq? In the Middle East?
- Is the Bush Administration competently handling the situation as it now stands in Iraq?
I don't think we'll ever know the answer, clearly, as to whether or not the Iraq war was justified. I think that, probably, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and others that were involved in the decision-making believed that it was the right move for the country to make. I don't know their hearts and minds, but my sense is that the war was not driven by a base desire for personal wealth and glory, but by the idea that, somehow, an invasion of Iraq would benefit the country more broadly (howevermuch I disagree with them and their political philosophies).
But we can know, by looking at the facts, the history of the Iraq war and Bush Administration performance, whether or not they have done a good job at the task they set out to do.
And the answer is no.
Any serious person who has a serious interest in our national security cannot continue to trust George Bush and his advisors to lead and protect our country against international threats. They have shown us that they can't do the job.
The WMD justification and the U.K. judge report on Blair mean little to me in this context.