Two world leaders, two different reactions to the same controversy

A world leader condemns the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein and believes war is the only appropriate response to a madman’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Who am I describing? Could be George W. Bush, could be Tony Blair.

The war ends and the arsenal doesn’t appear to exist. The media and the leader’s political opponents go apoplectic with accusations of fraud and deception, and members of the leader’s own political party demand a thorough investigation.

This can’t describe Bush, that’s for sure.

A “roar of criticism” is sweeping England right now, with Tories and Labor both expressing outrage and creating a legitimate political crisis. If you think Bush is facing trouble in the U.S. because we can’t find the alleged WMD, you should see what Blair is enduring.

While Democrats in the U.S. are biting their collective tongues on the issue, Iain Duncan Smith, the opposition leader in England, announced yesterday that “nobody believes a word now that the prime minister is saying.” Ouch.

And while most Republicans in Congress are insisting that Iraq’s missing arsenal isn’t a terribly big deal, more than 70 Labor members in the House of Commons have demanded that Blair make available the intelligence reports he relied upon before the war began. One Labor member called the controversy “potentially more serious than Watergate.”

Can you even imagine a Republican member of Congress leveling such a claim against Bush?

In the U.S., it appears that most of the growing criticism is coming at the hands of an inquisitive press, which is wondering if Bush intentionally misled the world about the threat posed by Hussein’s government. In England, however, the media is savaging Blair with daily denunciations.

The significant difference between the U.S. and England on this issue is the public’s attitudes about the war before and after it took place. Extensive polling data shows, for example, that most Americans believed Bush’s claims about Hussein’s ability to attack the U.S. and Iraq’s ties to terrorism. (Indeed, nearly eight in 10 Americans believed Hussein was partially involved with the terrorist attacks of 9/11 — a false claim that even the Bush administration hasn’t levied.)

Blair, however, faced a populace that opposed war and questioned why England would follow Bush’s lead. While Bush led a united Republican front in the U.S., Blair had to overcome hostile opposition to an invasion from his own Labor party.

Now that the war is over and the weapons that prompted the invasion are no where to be found, many Americans, at least for now, seem disinterested in what transpired before the war began. Many congressional Democrats, meanwhile, are content to change the subject and let Bush off the hook, hesitant to focus additional public attention on an issue perceived as a Bush strength — national defense and security.

Blair, however, has no where to turn. The public that was hesitant to support the war before is livid now. Tories who oppose Blair for partisan reasons are enjoying piling on. And Labor members who begrudgingly supported Blair’s call for war now feel like the whole invasion was unjustified, and may have even been a scam.

One controversy, one war, two leaders, and two very different reactions.