Lost in Translation
Lefty mouthpieces excited about Spanish text of February 2003 conversation between Bush and former Spanish PM Aznar. The machine translation at Editor & Publisher,* while difficult in places to make sense of, doesn’t appear to tell us anything we didn’t already know, but is being seized on as smoking gun evidence that Bush lied, people died, and that he planned to wage war whether Saddam complied or not.
It has already been well established that truth and accuracy are not a priorities on that side of the ledger. Barcepundit, who weighs in with his own translation, says it says nothing of the sort.
What it says is that the US would be in Iraq in mid-March whether there was a second UN resolution or not, one that Bush said he would try to get by all means, which is an entirely different matter. As everybody knows, there’s certainly a debate on whether the first resolution was enough or not -many reputable experts think it was, though there’s not unanimity on this, certainly. But the issue is different.
What it is, Barcepundit says, is:
… a leak from a Zapatero administration official to an anti-Bush, anti-Aznar newspaper in the hope of embarrassing the two, and atrociously translated to make it all look worse. But I’m sorry to say they only embarrassed themselves. No matter how much you spin it, the memorandum shows exactly the opposite to what they say it shows.
As Barcepundit notes, re UN resolution chatter, they were looking for icing on the cake at that time. A second resolution to confirm what had already been established. Saddam was out of compliance with 1441. 1441 already provided all the international authority they required.
What the leaked memo doesn’t do is indicate bloodthirsty lust for war at all costs. What it does do is underscore that Bush believed, quite correctly, that Saddam posed a threat to the world. That Bush believed, naively, as it turned out, that Iraq was ready to embrace democracy. That Bush preferred to see Saddam go quietly, but understood that there was no chance he would go, or set aside his ambitions, in the absence of a credible and imminent threat of force. It also indicates that Bush, then a year and a half into war, did not relish having to inform mothers and fathers of the deaths of their sons and daughters in battle, or the strain on the American exchequer that war would create. But he did not want to go down in history as someone who flinched, avoided his responsibilities and allowed a murderous dictator to pursue his dreams of domination of the world’s primary oil reserves. Here’s that part in Spanish, easy enough to follow if you speak any:
A mí me guía un sentido histórico de la responsabilidad igual que a ti. Cuando dentro de unos años la Historia nos juzgue no quiero que la gente se pregunte por qué Bush, o Aznar, o Blair no hicieron frente a sus responsabilidades. Al final, lo que la gente quiere es gozar de libertad.
* Formerly a trade publication serving the newspaper and magazine business, E&P under the leadership of editor Gred Mitchell has become increasingly interested in propaganda, practicing it extensively in furtherance of the goals of the anti-war movement.
Welcome, Andalusians, Moderately Voiced. Come on in. We’re mulling the wheels of justice. Think you’d be able to stand in that thin saffron line? Hey, look what’s headed straight for the cutting room floor! Here’s a Dhimmbat in need of a cluebat. Uh Oh. Sometimes I feel like I spend my days in a state of active astonishment. At things like, for example, the Mission of A’Jad.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:21 am on Thursday, September 27, 2007
34 Responses to “Lost in Translation”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:13 am
[...] Another view on this (that takes a swipe at the magazine that reported the original) come from Jules Crittenden. [...]
September 27th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Two weeks before this conversation, the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that “There are no disarmament problems left to resolve.”
By this point, Chief inspector Hans Blix had conducted more than 300 surprise inspections around Iraq and found no trace of WMD. Blix repeatedly asked the Bush administration for bonafide sites that could back up their claims, but he got no answer.
And yet, here is Bush talking about the inevitability of war, even as he is telling the American public he wants to do everything he can to avoid it.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Of course, it was not Hans Blix’s job to find WMD in Iraq. Resolution 1441 declared “that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations” and Hans Blix was tasked with verifying Iraqi compliance to the disarmament resolutions.
Blix said the following in FEB 2003:
“Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it…”
And in his March report to the UN:
“It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some longstanding, open disarmament issues can be seen as active or even proactive, these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.”
Iraq was still in “material breach” of a cease-fire resolution when hostilities resumed in March 2003.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Vagabond - you beat me to it. When the historical record doesn’t suit them, the surrender lobby changes the historical record.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
The part you “somehow” left out from Hans Blix’s March Security Council speech:
“What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.
This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.”
There was no finding of material breach. Funny you said otherwise.
Here is Hans Blix talking after the war began:
“And there is relatively little talk about the fact that we carried out 700 inspections at 500 different sites before the war and we said to the Security Council and to the Americans and the British that we found no weapons of mass destruction. Now, out of these places that we visited—and this is highly significant—there were about three dozen sites, which were given to us by intelligence in different countries, and in none of them did we find any weapons of mass destruction. We found some conventional ammunition in one, a stash of documents in other place, et cetera, but no weapons of mass destruction….
My belief is that if we had been allowed to continue with inspections for a couple of months more, we would then have been able to go to all of the sites which were given by intelligence. And since there were not any weapons of mass destruction, we would have reported there were not any. This ought to have given them some thought about the reliability of their sources. Whether it would have prevented the invasion I’m less affirmative about. But it would have been certainly more difficult. There was a momentum in this. A the end of the February and the beginning of March when you have a couple hundred thousand people sitting in the desert that is a momentum itself. You have to take a decision. Either you find a big event and you call it off or you have to move forward. I think that at the very end we were irrelevant. The momentum had caught on and it was too late.”
But nice try.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Was it up to Blix to decide what constituted a material breach?
September 27th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
clazy,
No, but Blix could have recommended such a finding.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Once again, we some confusion over verbage. It was not Blix’s mandate to find a material breach. That would make no sense at all since Iraq had been declared to be in “a state of material breach” for lack of a better way of describing it.
It was Hans Blix’s mandate to verify that Iraq had come into full compliance of its disarmament obligations. Of course, Iraq never did comply with the terms of the cease-fire resolution and therefore Blix never certified their compliance.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
There is no confusion over verbiage. For his March report, Blix was asked to state whether, in his opinion, there was a material breach. He would not. Blix did state in that report, however, that he would be able to verify compiance “within months”. You were able to read that, right?
Of course, Bush decided instead he’d rather go to war, and you and the rest of your anti-troop lobby think it’s been a grand day out.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
You have no idea what my views about the war may be, but you seem sure enough to make absolute statements about them.
Blix said he would need another 60 days to even become “fully operational”. No one knows how many “months” he was talking about. Blix and the various UN inspection regimes have been terribly inept at stoping proscribed activities. Even in his March report he speaks of finding proscribed missiles in Iraq and wonders why the Iraqis have ceased the destruction of those missiles.
It was Blix who was tasked with verifying Kim Jong Il’s disarmament during the Clinton Administration. We all now know that was a complete failure.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
“You have no idea what my views about the war may be, but you seem sure enough to make absolute statements about them.”
No, I was returning to Bart’s cheap shot about the “surrender lobby.” You have been civil, however, and I regret using the cheap shot on you.
You say: “No one knows how many “months” he was talking about.”
Well, we know it was not more than 12 months because he said “It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.”
That may seem like a long time to you, but you know what? There are more than 3,800 Americans who would tell you, if they could, that it was not too long.
“It was Blix who was tasked with verifying Kim Jong Il’s disarmament during the Clinton Administration. We all now know that was a complete failure.”
Again, you need to check your historical record. Kim Jong Il began disarmament in accordance with the Clinton accord. It was only after Bush named North Korea part of the “Axis of Evil” that he started up again. It is funny that after years of negotiation, the Bush administration ended up right where the Clinton accord left off - giving North Korea aid in return for not developing nuclear weapons.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Bush seems to bring out the worst in you, corndog. Have you seen a physician about your BDS yet? Better not wait; come January 2009, you’ll have to stand in line for treatment.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Your statements about North Korea are completely inaccurate. Go to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies where you can read the long and sordid history of North Korea’s non-compliance. Here is a sample:
“18 MAR 1996: IAEA Director General Hans Blix tells the IAEA Board of Governors that North Korea is not cooperating with IAEA efforts to ascertain the quantity of plutonium held at the Yongbyon nuclear facility. IAEA inspectors have made a number of attempts to photograph the facility since September 1995, in accordance with agreements reached with North Korea. However, they have been restricted from taking photographs. North Korea has also been slow in granting visas for IAEA inspectors.”
http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/nuc/iaea95.htm
North Korea’s most recent violation of the Agreed Framework had nothing to do with some speech made by a US politician. They admitted that they were continuing to enrich uranium.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2335231.stm
September 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Wrong yet again, Jeffy.
Come January 2009, my BDS should be all over with. I hope.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
“…Kim Jong Il began disarmament in accordance with the Clinton accord…”
You were over there certifying it yourself ?
It’s generally agreed that the Norks were never actually in compliance with the 1994 Agreed Framework and that their nuclear weapons development program continued unabated, albeit more covertly.
Hans Blix was El Baradei’s predecessor as head of the IAEA. I think Hans didn’t do a very good job in Iraq.
Altho’ El Baradei has issued some strong statements about Iran’s non compliance (in terms of access to some sites, at the very least) sometimes it has seemed the Iranians have been able to woo him.
Since Blix and El Baradei are both lawyers by training, maybe the lesson is that lawyers don’t make very effective watchdogs.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Your statements about North Korea are completely inaccurate. Go to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies where you can read the long and sordid history of North Korea’s non-compliance. Here is a sample:
“18 MAR 1996: IAEA Director General Hans Blix tells the IAEA Board of Governors that North Korea is not cooperating with IAEA efforts to ascertain the quantity of plutonium held at the Yongbyon nuclear facility. IAEA inspectors have made a number of attempts to photograph the facility since September 1995, in accordance with agreements reached with North Korea. However, they have been restricted from taking photographs. North Korea has also been slow in granting visas for IAEA inspectors.”
North Korea’s most recent violation of the Agreed Framework had nothing to do with some speech made by a US politician. They admitted that they were continuing to enrich uranium.
BBC 17 OCT 2002: “The Communist state’s admission places it in violation of a 1994 agreement signed with the administration of former US President Bill Clinton, under which Pyongyang agreed to freeze its nuclear programme.”
September 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
“What it does do is underscore that Bush believed, quite correctly, that Saddam posed a threat to the world.”
Just the President ? Cough.
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country…Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
September 27th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Vagabond, the cooperation was regarding the whereabouts of the plutonium North Korea had been using. There were no allegations that North Korea had restarted its program, as you know, since you apparently have read all about the “sordid history” of the negotiations.
Vagabond points to: “BBC 17 OCT 2002″
Vagabond, do I really need to point out that this was AFTER the “Axis of Evil” speech?
September 27th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
tanstaafl,
Hello? Each of your quotes are from BEFORE Hans Blix came back from his inspections and reported that he could find no evidence of WMD.
Your quotes prove only that Blix should have been listened to.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
There are all kinds of statements, late 1990-2003, along the exact same lines, from many other prominent Democrats…
Teddy Kennedy, Carl Levin, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Jay Rockefeller, Bob Graham, Robert Byrd, Sandy Berger, Tom Daschle…
It’s amazing to me the laundry list of individuals sounding even more shrill towards the threat of Saddam who, once the situation in Iraq went somewhat south “post invasion”) came around to repudiating their “yea” votes and/or their earlier (seemingly very firm) positions.
Pretty craven, all the way around.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
In 2009, the BDS/anti-war crowd will simply change their affliction to something else. Instead of BDS they will have GDS, TDS or RDS (or heaven help us — CDS!!!). Nothing will satisfy them short of surrender and defeat, so that they can claim a political victory.
Saddam had absolute power to stop the war. He didn’t do that and the world is better off without him. Iraq will recover with our continued help and the world will be a little safer as a result.
Meanwhile, the war against Islamofascism will rage on throughout the world. This is a war that we must win. Freedom and Democracy simply aren’t compatible with the goals of the bad guys, so they gotta go.
Frankly, I get sick of the BDS crowd continually pointing to military deaths in Iraq to support their ravings. Most of those who are dying there believe in the Iraq cause and are well aware of the sacrifice and suffering that are required to bring salvation to a downtrodden people. The anti-war crowd’s use of the deaths of those who don’t agree with their shortsightedness and selfishness is a twisted form of sacrilege that does not honor the selfless choice that these brave men and women have made.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Ooooops, sorry, wrong translation
Once again we have a perfect example of the left, being so full of Bush Derangement Syndrome, they willingly jump out of a plane BEFORE finding out that they are not wearing a parachute.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
corn-dog… I’ll remind you that an understanding of the situation with WMD’s in Iraq only came to light in the months after the March 2003 invasion.
Here is Hans Blix’ last report to the UN prior to March 20 2003 invasion.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html
And the one before that
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/14/iraq/main540681.shtml
You can summarize the contents and report back to the class.
Happy reading.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
tanstaffl,
Your last post adds nothing to the conversation. Read Blix’s reports directly, as Vagabond and I have, and you’ll see the quotes we’re referring to. But maybe that’s too much heavy lifting for you.
You say, “There are all kinds of statements, late 1990-2003, along the exact same lines, from many other prominent Democrats…”
Ok, smart guy, here’s the challenge, then. Show me one such quote from a prominent Democrat from after Blix’s February report that he had found no WMD.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
“Bush Derangement Syndrome”
is such a serious and profound dis-ease, those afflicted will embrace and defend apparently ANYBODY who bashes this President, that embrace running from Ahmadinejhad to Hugo.
What’s really depressing is the ALACRITY with which any information that doesn’t feed BDS is automatically dismissed, the dismissal itself nothing short automatic.
Lenin would be very excited over contemporary America’s growing collection of Useful Idiots.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Okay, so let me get this straight: “DEMS lied (pre-Blix 02/03) and kids died” Works for me. So, I guess most of the current crop of DEMS is unworthy of election. They were obviously all in on the conspiracy with BUSH!!!
September 27th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Nice change of subject, tanstaffl. Now let’s see your quote from the liberals after Blix’s February report.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
“Blix’s February report that he had found no WMD….
Gee Corndog, you forced me to actually try to read the thing.
(that’s your job, it’s linked above)
Mostly it seems like Blix is complaining of a lack of compliance, or, at least that’s how it concludes.
(adios)
September 27th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Come January 2009, my BDS should be all over with. I hope.
Nope. You’ve held on to your hate for too long, and it is consuming your soul. darrellhuff is correct: you’ll just find someone else to hate.
After all, even the leading Dhimmicrat presidential candidates are hedging on withdrawing from Iraq.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Corndog, you are demanding omniscience and then screaming “liar liar” when the impossible isn’t attained. There wasn’t an intelligence agency in the world that didn’t think Saddam had WMD, including those under Clinton. Blix could never state for sure whether he still had WMD capability or not, no matter how he tried to phrase his report to reflect his own opinions. Saddam wanted to have his yellowcake and eat it too. He played a lying game and lost. Apparently, you would have been satisfied with lifting the sanctions and turning him loose upon the world at a time when we were finally acknowledging that war had been declared against us–or don’t you believe the explicit declaration of war given by more than one thug in the Middle East. I’m curious about one thing: just how many of us needed to be murdered before you would agree to strike back?
Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t trust anything coming out from the UN’s bureaucrats, especially once we learned about the monumental corruption they were involved in with Saddam. Of course, if one doesn’t mind having a mass murderer threatening us–and acting on those threats–then I suppose one doesn’t mind having the biggest swindle in the history of man perpetrated in his name; no matter how many children die, as long as it can be blamed on one of ours.
Frankly, I don’t give a damn about the final outcome of the WMD question. The man was in material breach of the ceasefire the first time he fired on our planes. You don’t leave that kind of lunatic on your flank.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
You don’t leave that kind of lunatic on your flank.
This is a valid reason for a just war under any circumstances. Anything else is gravy.
Unless one is a self-hating, narcisstic nitwit who thinks that a fine speech and a loving hug will solve world problems. Then one should wear a sign that says “SHOOT ME”, so as to deflect bullets and airplanes away from the truly innocent. It’s the least one can do, is it not?
September 27th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
“This is a valid reason for a just war under any circumstances. Anything else is gravy.”
Beauty TRJ. I could only wish that our heroes serving on the USS Cole would have gotten that sort of response from their “Commander in Chief” at the time.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Cornpone said:
“No, I was returning to Bart’s cheap shot about the “surrender lobby.”
Truth hurts, don’t it? If the shoe fits…
“Well, we know it was not more than 12 months because he said “It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.” That may seem like a long time to you…”
No, 12 years and 18 Security Council resolutions seems like a long time to me.
“There are more than 3,800 Americans who would tell you, if they could, that it was not too long.”
How dare you presume to speak for those whose dead pinkies have more honor than you have in your whole body? It really galls me to listen to people who hate the military claim to speak on their behalf when the vast majority of service men and women believe in their mission and can’t stand the cowardly ersatz spokesmen who give aid and comfort to the enemy, prolonging the war and getting their comrades killed, and want to pull out and make their collective sacrifices and deaths of their comrades-in-arms meaningless. Who the he-double-hockey-sticks do you think you are?
September 28th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Frankly, I don’t give a damn about the final outcome of the WMD question. The man was in material breach of the ceasefire the first time he fired on our planes. You don’t leave that kind of lunatic on your flank.
Agreed.
No more so than you leave a box of scorpions under your bed, hoping that they will be more concerned with each other than with finding a way to exit the “containment” of the box and enter your slippers.
And, he didn’t even need to shoot at us, to justify the actions we have taken.
http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2004/10/nuts-bolts-threat-assement-in-21st.html
http://casebolt.blogspot.com/2006/11/in-simplest-of-terms.html
Since we have seen how a few dozen guys from backwards Afghanistan perpetrated the events of 11 September 2001 on a under-$1M budget, why does it make ANY sense to leave regimes who share AQ’s view of life and liberty in the ABSOLUTE and unchallenged control of resource-rich, technically-modern nations?
Read my lips: Saddam didn’t have to be “linked” to 911 at all, to present the same kind of threat … actually, he had the potential to present a far, far worse threat … as what AQ brought forth from Afghanistan.
He had the means … he had been in the terrorist-training/bankrolling/supplying business for YEARS … and despite all the weapons inspection charades, NO ONE could conclusively say that he did not have at least small, terrorist-sized amounts of WMD to hand out.
He had the motive … all the way from feeding his own meglomaniacial vision of himself as the new Saladin, to getting us off his back in the No-Fly Zones.
All he needed was the opportunity … or a surrogate to implement it for him, just as AQ did 911.
To say that he was not a threat of the same type … let alone ignore the threat he posed, AFTER someone else with far fewer capabilities killed 3000 people on American soil in less than three hours … is a prime example of the arrogant, thick-headed idiocy that is a hallmark of the critics of this Administration.
It indicates a lack of common sense of the highest order … supplanted by feel-good conventional wisdom, reinforced by smug self-assurance.