A Brit Defends Dubya

History will show that George W Bush was right

The American lady who called to see if I would appear on her radio programme was specific. "We're setting up a debate," she said sweetly, "and we want to know from your perspective as a historian whether George W Bush was the worst president of the 20th century, or might he be the worst president in American history?"

"I think he's a good president," I told her, which seemed to dumbfound her, and wreck my chances of appearing on her show.

He has specific examples, which he believes will vindicate Bush from his critics – including those still trying to discredit him, as if that will do them any good – once history is written from an objective point of view.

This part speaks to a particular, often-pinched nerve of mine:

Similarly, the cold light of history will absolve Bush of the worst conspiracy-theory accusation: that he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. History will show that, in common with the rest of his administration, the British Government, Saddam's own generals, the French, Chinese, Israeli and Russian intelligence agencies, and of course SIS and the CIA, everyone assumed that a murderous dictator does not voluntarily destroy the WMD arsenal he has used against his own people. And if he does, he does not then expel the UN weapons inspectorate looking for proof of it, as he did in 1998 and again in 2001.

I would only add that, as late as March of 2003 – only weeks before the U.S. invasion of Iraq – the United Nations released this report from their inspection teams, detailing enormous quantities of biological and chemical weapons and delivery systems, which they either suspected Saddam to have, or which they had destroyed already.

If we can’t agree on anything else, can we agree that they couldn’t have destroyed those weapons if Saddam didn’t have them?