Don't let facts get in the way of pre-conceived notions

Probably my biggest objection to the Bush administration is its style of governance. It's true that its members and agenda are extremely right-wing and I was never be likely to be thrilled by their conduct. But even more galling than their ideology is their style. A style which places a premium on personal loyalty rather than competence, on yes men rather than vibrant debate, on making sure decisions drive the 'facts' rather than the other way around.

Take this article on the president's nominee to be UN ambassador John Bolton.

A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons chief] Jose Bustani "had to go," particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad back in 2002. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.

Bustani, who says he got a "menacing" phone call from Bolton at one point, was removed by a vote of just one-third of member nations at an unusual special session of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), at which the United States cited alleged mismanagement in calling for his ouster.

Now, clearly this was yet another example of unacceptable conduct by Bolton. I won't even harp on the likelihood that the Bush administration didn't want inspections to proceed because they might reveal what is now obvious: Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program was either dead in its tracks or a pale shadow of anything that could menace the world's largest superpower.

But really, this is less about Bolton and more about the way the Bush administration handles things.

The administration claimed we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam's regime allegedly had dangerous weapons of mass destruction. If that was the case, then why would it have so vigorously objected to sending inspectorss to verify these claims that, if true, might have vindicated Washington's primary rationale for war?

Perhaps the inspectors might have been blocked or obstructed by Saddam. Then the US could've proceded anyway, under the pretext that it tried to resolve the situation peacefully.

But the administration was so hell-bent on this invasion that it didn't want to give the slightest delay. It didn't want to give the slightest opening to anyone whose work might've called into question their dubious (even then) rationale for war.

The administration was so determined to proceed with this aggression and they weren't going to let the legitimate work of Bustani, Hans Blix or anyone else stand in their way. It had it mind made up and they weren't going to risk letting facts interfere with the pre-determined conclusion.

This mentality, far more than any left-right ideology, is what makes the Bush administration so dangerous.


Update: an example of how counterproductive the Bush administration's belligerence is even to its own agenda. The administration tried to force through a proposal to the Organization of American States (OAS) to monitor democracy in Latin America. Sounds great in theory, but the method didn't impress OAS members, who rejected it overwhelmingly. This came after Washington's candidate to head the organization was also rejected. A Mexican editor of Foreign Affairs Rafael Fernandez de Castro said it showed the region was fed up with a US administration that asked for much, gave little and seemed more intent on imposing than on negotiating.