No one trusts the boy who cried wolf

November 14, 2005

The funny thing about presidential credibility is, once it’s gone, you can’t get it back.

U.S. intelligence obtained what officials said was a stolen Iranian laptop in July. Its contents were reportedly devastating, complete with computer simulations and accounts of experiments that made it clear that Iran was working towards the creation of a nuclear warhead. Americans arranged briefings with officials from Britain, France, and Germany, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency. It didn’t go well (via Kevin).

[D]oubts about the intelligence persist among some foreign analysts. In part, that is because American officials, citing the need to protect their source, have largely refused to provide details of the origins of the laptop computer beyond saying that they obtained it in mid-2004 from a longtime contact in Iran. Moreover, this chapter in the confrontation with Iran is infused with the memory of the faulty intelligence on Iraq’s unconventional arms. In this atmosphere, though few countries are willing to believe Iran’s denials about nuclear arms, few are willing to accept the United States’ weapons intelligence without question.

“I can fabricate that data,” a senior European diplomat said of the documents. “It looks beautiful, but is open to doubt.”

In other words, for our allies around the world, the word of the United States is about as reliable as that of Iran. The Iranians’ denials are viewed with skepticism; the American intelligence is viewed with equal skepticism. They see a dictatorial theocratic regime with terrorist ties and they see us — and they’re not sure who to believe.

Over 40 years ago, JFK dispatched his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle to discuss the Cuban missile crisis. Before even being shown photographic evidence, DeGaulle waved the pictures off and said, “No, the word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.”

Today, there isn’t a country on the planet that will accept our word on faith. How many years will it take for the U.S. to recover from Bush’s presidency?

In the context of the Iranian laptop controversy, this means we’re even having to turn to the French as a nation with more credibility than us.

As a measure of the skepticism the Bush administration faces, officials said the American ambassador to the international atomic agency, Gregory L. Schulte, was urging other countries to consult with his French counterpart. “On Iraq we disagreed, and on Iran we completely agree,” a senior State Department official said. “That gets attention.”

I’m sure it does, but it also gets attention that Europe and the IAEA won’t trust us, so we have to encourage them to contact the French to vouch for us.

It’s one of the many realities the right has yet to be able to spin. If there’s an international crisis, and the president needs to rally the free world against a dangerous foe based on intelligence we believe to be true, most people, here and around the world, will wonder about the administration’s veracity and motivations. Even those who want to agree with us will hesitate, knowing that we’ve lied to the world once and may be lying again.

America can’t lead if others won’t follow.

They see a dictatorial theocratic regime

For a second there, I wasn’t sure which country you’d name.

  • This is a major consequence of our invasion of Iraq, and it burns me up! It’s also an example of what I mean by Bush’s actions, on so many fronts, that have left no “lines of retreat.” Bush can’t just come out and declare the U. S. credible. It will take a long time and another administration to repair the damage. And internationally, Bush has done endless damage.

  • And how about the American people?
    Can we believe anything our federal
    government tells us anymore?

  • They’ve allegedly had this laptop for over a year and they’re only now making its contents known? What were they afraid of, that the Iranians would find out and shut down their nuclear program if in fact they even have one? Seems like that’s sort of what we’d want them to do anyway, so why keep it secret?

    Unless, of course, the real objective is to invade Iran and not just prevent them from getting nuclear weapons so they invent this laptop schtick to try and get everybody on board the war wagon again.

    It’s not working. Poor George.

  • Back during the run-up to the war, I argued until I was blue in the face with my pro-war Demo friends that the biggest loss to the US and to the world would be the damage to the US reputation in the world, including the benefit of the doubt the US always had on such matters. This reputation and benefit of the doubt would save more lives in the long run than any ill-conceived and inept war that these folks could muster, I would argue. I really wish I had been wrong.

  • actually, the world doesn’t want america run by incompetent hacks, so i’d say that as soon as we have a real president and a real congress, we’ll see much of our reputation restored.

  • I am not sure our reputation will ever be where it was without some serious, serious action. One lost, trust is trust is twice as hard to regain.

  • One can even point back to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in the mid-60s to find evidence of the U.S. using false or misleading information to support its official position. When you add in things like Watergate and Iran-Contra, why would anyone trust the U.S.?

    In that context, is it any wonder that there’s a significant number of people around the world that detests the U.S. government? No. It should come as no surprise. I certainly don’t trust our own government, so why should anyone else?

    Sad, but true.

  • At least Bush has succeeded in making it harder on himself to start another war. For all the swagger and tough talk, I doubt even Congress will go along with this maniac, especially when they see the administrations “intel”.

  • And Bush wonders why there’s no traction for his new Medicare drug program, the social security reform, Harriet Miers goind down in flames – his entire agenda is lost because the American people finally are realizing that the POTUS can, oh how did he say it – can “disassemble” with the best of the beltway boys.

  • Actually, not only does Iran have a good economic basis for wanted nuclear power, but the members of the current administration were key in encouraging Iran to go nuclear back in the 1970s so Iran could sell more oil rather than consume it at home:

    See “Past Arguments Don’t Square With Current Iran Policy” by
    By Dafna Linzer Washington Post Sun Mar 27 ’05:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

    Also, the British Parliament has looked into this, and has concluded that there is a good argument for nuclear power in Iran:

    The fuel behind Iran’s nuclear drive
    By David Isenberg
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH24Ak02.html

    • Comments are closed.