Credibility Gap

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was laying down the law today on how to deal with Iran. She said that Iran was "playing games". She said that "[t]hey’ve had plenty of time to cooperate."  Then she said something that took me back to the good old days of 2002:

"The international community’s credibility is at stake here," Rice said Saturday. "We can either mean what we say when we say that Iran must comply, or we can continue to allow Iran to defy."

I wondered where I had heard that before. Then it hit me. I vaguely remember a lot of talk about the credibility of the United Nations and the international community being at stake before the Iraq invasion.

President Bush on September 13, 2002 said the following about Iraq:

This man has had 11 years to comply. For 11 long years, he’s ignored world opinion. And he’s put the credibility of the United Nations on line. As I said yesterday, we’ll determine — how we deal with this problem will help determine the fate of multilateral body, which has been unilaterally ignored by Saddam Hussein. Will this body be able to keep the peace and deal with the true threats, including threats to security in Central African and other parts of the world, or will it be irrelevant?

It is ironic that an Administration that ignores the international community on most issues should be so concerned about the international community’s credibility when it wants to invade or bomb another country.

On September 23, 2003, President Bush at the United Nations gave this rationale for invading Iraq:

Iraq was now free "because a coalition of nations acted to defend the peace – and the credibility of the United Nations", President Bush told the UN General Assembly.

On April 13, 2004, President Bush from the East Room of The White House declared American credibility and his credibility were intact:

One thing is for certain, though, about me — and the world has learned this — when I say something, I mean it. And the credibility of the United States is incredibly important for keeping world peace and freedom.

On December 18, 2005, President Bush from the Oval Office cited loss of credibility (without using the word) as a reason not to withdraw from Iraq:

It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends — and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word.

We would undermine the morale of our troops — by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us — and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before.

To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor and I will not allow it.

Credibility is apparently a big deal to this Administration. We invaded Iraq to defend our credibility, we are fighting in Iraq to defend our credibility, we cannot leave Iraq because of our credibility. This Administration is trapped in a vise of credibility. Now credibility is the reason we are being given for an impending attack on Iran.

Talking about credibility is not the same as having credibility. This Administration lost credibility with the rest of the world a long time ago. It has now also lost all credibility with the American people.

As the Bush Administration spins and spins to prepare the public for an attack on Iran, the same tired rhetoric is being used. Will the American public be spun into another war before this Administration leaves office? This time it is not the credibility of the Bush Administration that is on the line; this time it is the credibility of the American public that is on the line.