Toronto Star August 28, 2004
Hugh Segal's column in last Sunday's Toronto Star (“A trait most unbecoming Canadians”) urges us not to be smug just because we disagree with George W. Bush.
He singles out his dinner companions: academics, policy workers, journalists, civil servants who speak about President Bush with “rank condescension.” Mr. Segal writes: “The bias clearly conveyed is that frankly, the president of the United States is not all that bright, nor well-read, nor worldly.”
I am not too concerned about the IQ or reading habits of Mr. Bush. I'm sure that as President he can at least hire people who are bright and well read. I have no doubt that he has a better than average knowledge of current events.
No, my concern is with Mr. Segal's dinner companions. According to his account of the debates with his “learned” friends about Mr. Bush's presidency, Mr. Segal vanquishes their anti-Bush arguments with such ease that I really wonder if any of them have ever read a newspaper, let alone a book.
The criticisms of President Bush levelled by Mr. Segal's friends and his refutations follow, with a few simple rejoinders he might have heard, had he chosen to dine - with someone who can read.
“He throws around military power without consulting,” say our feeble-minded critics. “I note,” Mr. Segal fires back, “that America waited many months after some 3000 citizens were killed in New York before removing the terrorist Taliban government….”
What we know about the delay is that it took some time to get US invasion forces into place. The delay also had to do with a plan that called for Afghans to do most of the fighting. It took time to spread around millions of dollars hiring warlords of the Northern Alliance (most of whom had committed war crimes against their own people) and get them ready to fight. Now, these warlords rule most of Afghanistan .
But the target wasn't supposed to be the Taliban. It was Osama bin Laden. Remember him? Why overthrow the Taliban? Oh yes, because they wouldn't hand over Bin Laden. But if that was the issue, why didn't they just go after . . . Ok, maybe I'm not “worldly” enough to get this.
And why was there such delay in trying to capture the man the White House held responsible for the terrorist attacks? The question has still not been answered.
Is it possible they had other objectives in mind? (Dare I say the words “oil pipeline” and “strategic advantage” without being accused of spinning a “neo-conservative conspiracy theory?”)
Of course, another reason for the delay might be, according to anti-terrorist director Richard Clark's testimony before the 9/11 commission, the fact that President Bush already seemed more concerned with invading Iraq . To know this, one doesn't need to read, the ability to watch TV will suffice.
At any rate, Mr. Segal gives no evidence that any of this delay had to do with “consulting,” and I'm sure his President would take great offence at such an accusation. Imagine Mr. Bush, in a television address to the American people, saying he let Bin Laden get away because he was “consulting”.
“Next, is the neo-conservative conspiracy to get Saddam Hussein and attack Iraq no matter what,” writes Mr. Segal. He aims his howitzers and unleashes a withering barrage: “I ask about the ‘no matter what' rather directly. Do you mean no matter what Saddam did to promote peace and co-operation?”
Well, yes actually. A cursory reading of international law will show that failure to “promote peace and co-operation” is not justification to attack another country and overthrow its government. If it were, where should we begin? The mind boggles at the possibilities.
Mr. Segal continues, “Do you mean no matter what he did to let inspectors have the time and the opportunity to verify any compliance at all with the U.N. weapons rules?” UN inspector Hans Blix said very clearly that President Bush didn't give the inspections enough time. Blix said that if they had been given the time they asked for, they could have established there were no WMD, and avoided the unnecessary killing of thousands of Iraqis.
Perhaps Mr. Segal should read Monday's story about the Iraqi Olympic soccer player who says he doesn't want his team's success to be taken as a sign of Iraqi freedom and if he was home, he would be fighting against the American occupation in Falluja.
Many years ago I had a drink with Mr. Segal (no dinner, but there were peanuts). He is one of the brighter lights in the “neo-conservative conspiracy” and certainly worthy of more challenging company. I volunteer to attend his next feast, but I'm not expecting an invitation. At the start of his column -- and perhaps this explains the quality of the exchange -- Mr. Segal writes, “one should be careful whom one eats with.”
It would be more becoming a Canadian columnist to debate people not made of straw.
Paul Jay is a writer, documentary filmmaker and was the executive producer of “counterSpin”.