All In The Translation: Leaked Spanish Memo Does NOT Show Bush “Planned To Invade Iraq No Matter What”
Yesterday we carried a post on reports about leaked Spanish memo that reportedly showed that in a private conversation President George Bush indicated he wanted to invade Iraq no matter what to take out Saddam Hussein.
But a new translation indicates that was a bad translation and that was not the case. The Spain-based Barcepundit reports:
MUCH IS BEING MADE of the scoop by pro-Zapatero’s daily El PaÃs, in Madrid, of the transcript of the memo of a conversation between Bush and Spain’s former PM Aznar in Crawford in March 2003 as the Iraq war was about to start. Editor and Publisher has a machine translation, which is quite atrocious. If you can read Spanish, the full text is here. I’ll try to have a proper translation asap, but I am really short on time, so I don’t know how soon I’ll have it ready.
But what the transcript doesn’t say, no matter the headlines, is that Bush was going to invade even if Saddam complied. What it says is that the US would be in Iraq in mid-March whether there was a second UN resolution or not, one that Bush said he would try to get by all means, which is an entirely different matter. As everybody knows, there’s certainly a debate on whether the first resolution was enough or not -many reputable experts think it was, though there’s not unanimity on this, certainly. But the issue is different.
Further down he writes:
If anything, the transcript proves precisely the opposing point that critics want to make. The conversation shows both Bush and Aznar trying to avoid war; that they were concerned of its human toll, and that Saddam wanted to flee with money… and WMD information. I guess all the people who are trumpeting this will stop saying now that Bush lied and mislead us on the WMD issue. Won’t hold my breath, though.
Read the post in its entirety (he offers parts in Spanish as well) and judge for yourself.
Note: I lived and wrote from Spain for 4 years. A translation can indeed alter the meaning significantly of the original statement or document.
Another view on this (that takes a swipe at the magazine that reported the original) comes from Jules Crittenden.
