Will Saletan at Slate is honest enough to realize that president Bush has essentially outmaneuvered his opponents. Ignore Will’s silly credentializing with the left. Like many others, Will’s short memory simply ignores Bush’s campaign pledge to take Saddam out if he didn’t renounce weapons of mass destruction. But the good news is that Will recognizes that Bush has spectacularly called the U.N.’s bluff. As he puts it, “If you think that an American invasion of Iraq is unwise and that the world would be better off with unfettered U.N. weapons inspections backed by the serious threat of force, you’re probably right. But if you get what you want, thank Bush.” Even Howell Raines had to concede that the president is right today. The Times will now, of course, try to wriggle out of this. They call for a “thoughtful and resourceful plan” for weapons inspections, whatever that means. But they’re flailing. They can hardly back Saddam, but very shortly, when Saddam refuses to allow real and meaningful inspections, they will have to choose between supporting Saddam and supporting Bush. Even the Bush-haters on 43d Street may have to back the president, a delicious irony not lost on the White House. (Liberal journalist Patrick Tyler tries yet another anti-Bush spin-job today, but it’s looking desperate).
CHECK: It seems clear to me in retrospect that Bush’s summer strategy has been really, really smart. Let Cheney and Rummy threaten unilateral strikes. Get all those boomer lefties with Vietnam complexes to get so scared that they all but beg the president to go through the U.N. And then go through the U.N.! Now what do the Bumillers and Tylers and Kristofs do? Either they have to fess up and say they have no problem with weapons of mass destruction in Baghdad or they have to back real disarmament, which will, of course, mean war or regime change. The Times will try to argue for a long inspections regime, for the same merry-go-round that the Clinton administration fecklessly tried forever. But last March, they opined that “unless [Baghdad] fulfills those cease-fire requirements now, Iraq invites the kind of coercive actions Mr. Bush has threatened.” (My italics.) It’s now six months after “now”. How much longer can we afford to wait? Once again, advantage Bush.
A CASE IN POINT: Check out how desperate uber-lefty Robert Fisk has gotten. No, of course he doesn’t back Bush. But he does say that “one of the most telling aspects of the Bush speech was that all the sins of which he specifically accused the Iraqis a good proportion of which are undoubtedly true began in the crucial year of 1991.” (Again, my italics.) What’s interesting about this is that the anti-war left no longer disputes the mass of evidence that Iraq has flouted U.N. resolutions. How could they in the face of what Bush has so devastatingly outlined? They just think that nothing serious should be done about it. Fisk’s argument (Like Sontag’s) for doing nothing is that at some point in the past the U.S. had dirty hands in the matter. But even granting them this point, doesn’t that make it more incumbent on the U.S. now to set things right? Fisk doesn’t answer this. Because he cannot. The case Bush made today at the U.N. is basically unanswerable. So the anti-war left will simply come up more excuses, side-shows and changes of subject. I can’t wait. A reader writes to point out the similarities in Bush’s strategy with his tax cut and his war on terror:
On both issues he faced a vocal opposition to his policy and in both instances his strategy was the same: Silence & Patience. His initial stances on both issues were so rigid and resolute (as well as right), that the debate quickly moved away from the “if” of a tax cut or a regime change to more qualitative arguments, like the size of the tax cut, or the timing of the attack. I think this is more than coincidence. It seems Bush is becoming the rock against which his enemies break themselves.
And a rock on which this country can increasingly rely for its self-defense.
WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS? The short answer is that they’re so busy calling for us to have a debate that they’ve forgotten to join it. How many Democrats have come out clearly either for or against a war with Iraq? Very, very few. Daschle bravely said yesterday that the Democrats were “not prepared to make any commitment” to voting on a war resolution until yet more questions are answered. He’s scared shitless. The New Republic rightly puts the boot in this week. It’s one brilliant editorial. An honorable exception is Bob Kerrey, whose piece in the Journal yesterday was wonderfully sane and sensible. But he’s retired from the Senate! As for the rest of them? Pathetic weather-vanes. You know, the media hates the fact that Republicans might use the war on terror as a campaign issue this fall. But I think they’re quite right to. With a few exceptions, the Democrats’ contribution to one of the most vital discussions this country has had in many years has been next to nothing. Why should a party that has almost nothing clear to say on the most important matter before us be entrusted with control of the Congress? They deserve to lose big.
WHOPPER OF THE DAY: “Since the administration of former President George H.W. Bush, each time Mr. Hussein has pushed, we have pushed back.” – Madeleine Albright in the New York Times today. This is sadly untrue. While Albright was secretary of state, the U.S. sat back and let Iraq try to develop weapons of mass destruction with no inspectors present and no credible military threat to force his compliance with U.N. resolutions. She is one of the people who allowed us to get into this predicament. She’s one of the few Democrats who really should keep her mouth shut.
The Dish 