YIKES

Is former President Bush publicly criticizing current President Bush--over the war? I need to see the text of this speech...

Or maybe I don't. Maybe the Times of London's Roland Watson is just spinning things to suit his own purposes. From Watson's story on Bush 41's recent speech at Tufts University:

He said that the key question of how many weapons of mass destruction Iraq held “could be debated”. The case against Saddam was “less clear” than in 1991, when Mr Bush Sr led an international coalition to expel invading Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Objectives were “a little fuzzier today”, he added.

From the Boston Globe, covering the same speech:

The former president later drew a distinction between the importance of multilateral action in the Gulf War and today, saying that coalition-building is harder now, when the evidence that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction is ''a little fuzzier'' than when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

''Another ingredient we didn't have [during the Gulf War] was 9/11,'' Bush said. ''The United States must do what it can to protect itself and its friends against the use of weapons of mass destruction.''

Sounds reasonable to me. Those opposing the war remain as patriotic and classy as ever:

During Bush's speech, five young people near the front of the audience stood up and began chanting, ''We don't want your bloody war.'' One woman held a banner depicting an upside-down American flag with an antiwar message with an obscenity.

I wonder why the Times' story never mentions this. It does mention the Madrid Conference, though. What's the Madrid Conference, you ask?:

After the Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr steered Israel and its Arab neighbours to the Madrid conference, a stepping stone to the historic Israeli-Palestinian Oslo accords, in much the same way that the present President has talked about the removal of Saddam as opening the way to a wider peace in the region.

In an ominous warning for his son, Mr Bush Sr said that he would have been able to achieve nothing if he had jeopardised future relations by ignoring the UN. “The Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had exceeded the UN mandate and gone on its own into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces.”

"...ominous warning..." That's a bit over the top. Want more overwrought editorializing? Watson obliges:

The former President’s comments reflect unease among the Bush family and its entourage at the way that George W. Bush is ignoring international opinion and overriding the institutions that his father sought to uphold. Mr Bush Sr is a former US Ambassador to the UN and comes from a family steeped in multi-lateralist traditions.

Pardon me, but Mr. Watson, how the $#%%^ do you know anything about the Bush family and its take on the war? Have they had you over for lunch at the presidential library? Have they let you wrestle with Millie the dog at W's ranch in Crawford? Do you really have the kind of access that lets you in on the Bush family's inner workings, or are you just making things up?

And if you'd been paying attention you might have noticed that Bush 43 has spent the past few months trying to save the UN from voting itself into irrelevance. Surely Bush 41, former ambassador to the UN, approves of his son saving that worthless parliament of tyrants. D'ya think?

And oh yeah, remind me again why the Madrid Conference is so friggin' important. You'd think that it actually brought about peace in Israel, from Watson's tone. All it did was delay the killing a little. Invading Iraq may help do what couldn't be done at conference table--win the peace.

Back to the Globe's account to finish up, Bush 41 seems as nice as always, even to the undeserving:

Referring to the woman with the flag, he said, ''We've now found another real good reason to use duct tape.''

Supposing Bush 41 did have reservations about Bush 43's Iraq policy, do you really think he'd air them at Tufts University? When he could just call him up and chat him down from the war? Not bloody likely.

Roland Watson, consider your a$$ fact-checked.