Well, it must have seemed like a good idea at the time. The bright spark who came up with Bush’s WMD hide-and-seek gag must be regretting it now. Dubya’s joke at the Radio and Television Correspondents Association last week has stirred up a maelstrom. He has been lambasted for his poor taste in laughing about a war in which more than 500 US soldiers have died. Even Nancy Pelosi, pictured laughing at the time, is now apparently unhappy.
Personally, I was delighted by Dubya’s attempt to make light of the absence of WMD in Iraq. As far as I’m concerned, the more often Bush draws attention to the lack of a causus belli for his Middle Eastern adventure, the better. Whether in seriousness or in jest, any occasion on which he says the letters “WMD” is good.
By doing so he draws attention to the lack of justification for his war and reminds the American public of his tissue of lies. He also gives me a fresh angle with which to begin another WMD blog. After all: “Monday 29th March, still no WMD” isn’t the greatest way to start a blog. Given this, you’d think that Bush would avoid mentioning WMD unless absolutely necessary.
Bush is digging his own political grave if he thinks his campaign of deception is a laughing matter. It’s only a shame that last week’s brouhaha may stop Dubya from extending his comedy repertoire. Why stop at Iraq? Got any good Enron gags, George?
Across the Atlantic, it’s unthinkable that Blair will be joining Bush in joking about the Iraq war. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the absence of WMD is far more damaging to Blair than to Bush. For the British Prime Minister, no WMD means no justification for war. Specious secondary justifications such as “fighting terrorism” by invading Iraq don’t resonate in Britain.
Secondly, Blair would never joke about WMD because he would never want to bring up the subject unprompted. Since the publication of the unintentionally hilarious Hutton report, comedy at its most “subliminal”, Blair has clearly tried to “draw a line” under the Iraq debacle. His government has spun the line that the British public wishes to “move on” from this controversy. Unfortunately some in the British media have dutifully followed this line.
Aided by the fact that, unlike the US, Britain doesn’t suffer a daily drip, drip of military casualties in Iraq, the news agenda has shifted away from Baghdad. With elections due in June, Blair has a strong incentive to play down the Iraq war, his Achilles’ heel in the forthcoming campaign.
Therefore any occasion on which the words “Blair” and “Iraq” appear in the same headline is to be welcomed. It reminds British people of the anger which many of them still feel. With this in mind Tony, could you answer this simple question: How many weapons inspectors does it take to change a light bulb?