Home >> United States & Canada >> Foreign Policy & Military

     Email   Print 

Why Is Bush Silent?

Ryan Mauro - 8/4/2008

Today, a friend of mine was over my house who, although she voted for President George W. Bush, doubted the credibility of my work on the possibility of the Iraqi WMDs being housed in Syria which I described in an article I had published at WorldNetDaily.

"The President would bring it up publicly, he looks like a liar right now because of the whole issue," she said. Despite my protests, the question persisted in her mind: Why is Bush silent? It's a question in dozens of emails sent to me over the years, and a question debated by those of us who have put ourselves out there on this issue, despite the criticisms, despite the attacks, despite the slander as "neocons" and ignorant pundits who refuse to admit President Bush was wrong.

Rest assured, in my speeches and commentary, criticizing President Bush has become more often an occurence than praising him. Blind allegiance to a political ideology, particularly when I'm unsure of what my own ideology is, is not a sport I am practiced in.

So why is President Bush silent?

There are many theories and reasons. Allow me to explore a few:

1) The most likely scenario is that the State Department opposes the addressing of the issue, due to the negative diplomatic repercussions of such a public statement. My sources, and the sources of my colleagues, indicate there has been a not-so-secret effort to peel Syria away from Iran's orbit. As discussed in earlier blogs, recent actions by the Syrian government as well as the intervention of France, indicate both sides want to break the ice. Syria cares about money, and power, and that's the driving force behind Syria's relationship with Iran. Well, the U.S. has more, and based on our recent dealings with North Korea, Syria has good reason to expect the U.S. to be open to a bribe.

It's a win-win-lose. The Assad regime wins by getting more money and power and less pressure. The Bush Administration wins by having a rare political victory, help its legacy not look like a disaster, and most of all, changing the strategic situation in the region in our favor by isolating Iran and increasing the security of the U.S. and Israel. Who loses? The Syrian people who crave freedom, and will have to look to the U.S. as the hypocritical so-called defender of freedom.

In addition, if the Russian role in the WMD flight is discussed, how likely is it that Russia would ever support our positions at the U.N., particularly in relation to Iran? Other areas of cooperation with Russia, both public and perhaps in secret, would also be undermined.

2) It's a political loser. Yes, that's right. This would hurt Bush politically. It revisits the decision to invade Iraq in the first place, which the majority of the American people now feel is a mistake. Would a politican want to start that argument again? In addition, would the American people even believe the President if he said, absent a smoking gun that cannot be found without invading Syria, that he's telling the truth?

The next question would be how the WMDs got to Syria, and why it took so long for the Administration to tell the American public. These are questions that likely would not be enjoyable to answer.

3) The Intelligence Community, the media, and again, politics. The Intelligence Community is not much different than the American public in that there are political and ideological divisions with each side's believers very dedicated to vindication. Such a political hot-button issue like this one will face division and angry debate inside the Intelligence Community absent an undeniable smoking gun (which very rarely comes about in the intelligence world) and an assessment all sides are willing to embrace.

So, let's say the Administration publicly floats the possibility the WMDs went to Syria. The Intelligence Community will not say a consensus has been reached on the issue, and details about the dissent will reach the media, which is a news story few reporters won't leap at to publish. The Administration will again be accused of cherry-picking intelligence.

There are a multitude of other potential reasons for not publicly addressing the issue. Perhaps the Administration is afraid of burning the sources and methods used to obtain the intelligence by our agencies and that of the foreign intelligence agencies who passed along our information.

I can't get inside President Bush's mind. But after thinking long and hard about the questions of my readers and my friend, I think it is poor logic to assume that because the President is not championing this theory, it means it is not true. In fact, I can't say for sure if I'd be acting any different if I was him.

Perhaps the best response to the question of, "Why is Bush silent?" is, "Well, wouldn't you be too?"