Year: 2003

“Pardon the sardonic giggle: It arises from the thought that George W. Bush, the unelected President, is going to teach democracy to the Iraqis. When it comes to rigging or stealing elections, Mr. Bush and Saddam Hussein are brothers, or at least cousins, under the skin. The difference between the two is that Saddam gets 99.9 percent of the vote and Mr. Bush gets 49 percent, but they both get the job. Election returns giving the winner 99.9 percent-especially if there is but one candidate in the race-give rise to rumor and talk. By introducing the hanging chad to American-sponsored Iraqi democracy, Mr. Bush can show future Saddams how to look good when winning while losing.” – Nicholas von Hoffman, the man who predicted disaster in Afghanistan, amazingly still published, in the New York Observer.

Saddam uses chemical weapons? I’ve been thinking about that for weeks. There’s no doubt that U.S. and U.K. forces will prevail against them. But what of American public opinion if such horrors occur? Will there be a wobble? My view is that it will only confirm the justice of this intervention and its timeliness. I also believe that Saddam, if he wants to wound the United States, could not do anything more destructive to the cause of our enemies. Americans will feel one thing if such an atrocity occurs: rage. And more than Saddam will feel the ultimate consequences of that anger. There’s nothing we can do about it now, of course, except pray. So I’m praying – for an overwhelming, swift and casualty-scarce victory; that the worst won’t happen; that we haven’t waited too long; that the young men and women defending us know deeply that we are all behind them. God bless and save them. I’m inspired by the words of a soldier captured by Mike Kelly in Kuwait right now: “A thousand things can happen to make life absolutely miserable for us. There is not one thing that can happen to stop us.”

Those of you who read my postings and extracts yesterday of Tony Blair’s magnificent speech to the Commons will be aware of exactly how momemntous an occasion this was. This is how the New York Times spun it. That’s all you really need to know. Compare it with the fiercely anti-war newspaper in Britain, the paper that publishes Robert Fisk, the Independent. This is what their editorial says today:

Mr Blair has not shrunk from debate. He has taken the argument to all quarters of his restive party. He has allowed the Commons its say. And despite all the doubts about this war, Mr Blair has shown himself in the past few days to be at once the most formidable politician in the country and the right national leader for these deeply uncertain times.

Gracious; principled; smart. How different from the yuppie mewling of others.

As usual, Jon Rauch makes a huge amount of sense on the next pressing issue after Saddam.

EVEN THE GUARDIAN …: … notices how out of touch the BBC has become:

“[T]he impression has been given, on the BBC in particular, that public and expert opinion is strongly and almost exclusively opposed to military action. This expectation has entered the cultural stratum that the majority of broadcasters exist in, and so dominates that it has become that most dangerous of wisdoms – not so much orthodox, as axiomatic.

Could be describing Planet Raines as well.

A RIVETING RADIO EXCHANGE: A “peace” activist is confronted by an Iraqi exile on live radio.

FROM THE MOUTHS OF BABES: “Just thought I’d pass along a conversation that took place at our breakfast table yesterday. My daughter, who just turned seven in January, saw a picture of a women holding up a “No War” sign on the front page of our newspaper. She asked why the women was holding the sign. My wife told here that some people believe that you don’t have to fight wars in order to solve the world’s problems.
My daughter’s response? ‘Then how do you get the bad guys?'” – more reader comment, including a defense of Hans Blix, a critique of Oriana Fallaci, and a job offer for Jimmy Carter, on the Letters Page.

Dan Drezner notices an interesting surge of pro-U.S. sentiment in the far east.

BEGALA AWARD NOMINEE: “‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ describes a totalitarian future in a fundamentalist America, where young women are kept as reproductive slaves by aging patriarchs of the religious right and their barren wives, and ritually raped by both spouses. (The conceit seemed flimsy to me when the book was first published. Recent history has given it a faintly prophetic glimmer.)” – Judith Thurman, “The Wolf at the Door,” New Yorker, March 17.

THE SPIN FROM JENNINGS: A useful report from the conservative Media Research Center on the differences between ABC News’ coverage of the build-up to war with Iraq and that of CBS News and NBC. No surprise that Peter Jennings is clearly hostile to the Bush administration. But a bit of a surprise that he has had such a hard time concealing it. One simple example: a comparison between the networks’ description of the British Marxist Tony Benn’s fawning interview with Saddam Hussein:

CBS’s Bob Simon stood apart by describing Benn as “a 79-year-old British politician and lifelong left-wing activist.” NBC’s Andrea Mitchell explained Saddam “told an anti-war British politician he has no links to al-Qaeda and no illegal weapons.” But ABC tried to disguise Benn’s left-wing perspective as Peter Jennings intoned: “The Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, has given his first television interview today, to a non-Iraqi, in 12 years. It was conducted by a former member of the British Parliament, Tony Benn, one of Britain’s most famous and outspoken politicians.” He couldn’t even identify Benn with the Labor Party, which would have informed at least the political junkies. Only late in the story did reporter Dan Harris reveal that Benn “said he conducted this interview to stop the war.”

I’m sorry to say I can’t watch Peter Jennings any more. But Nightline has been, in contrast, consistently superb.

I hope the editors of the New York Times absorb Tony Blair’s speech to the House of Commons this afternoon. It outlines in excruciating detail exactly what happened in the last couple of weeks. There is no question that it was France that scuppered any deal, any ultimatum, any attempt to get U.N. support for final pressure on Saddam. Not Cheney. Not Wolfowitz. Not Bush. France:

We then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests based on the document they published on 7 March. Tests like interviews with 30 scientists outside of Iraq; production of the anthrax or documentation showing its destruction. The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to cooperate with them. So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full cooperation; that if he did so the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme and that if he failed to do so, action would follow.

So clear benchmarks; plus a clear ultimatum. I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable position.

Last Monday, we were getting somewhere with it. We very nearly had majority agreement and I thank the Chilean President particularly for the constructive way he approached the issue.

There were debates about the length of the ultimatum. But the basic construct was gathering support.

Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate.

Last Friday, France said they could not accept any ultimatum. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. But they remain utterly opposed to anything which lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.

Just consider the position we are asked to adopt. Those on the security council opposed to us say they want Saddam to disarm but will not countenance any new resolution that authorises force in the event of non-compliance.

That is their position. No to any ultimatum; no to any resolution that stipulates that failure to comply will lead to military action.

The failure of diplomacy is not the Bush administration’s fault. And the attempt to make that argument must deal with Blair’s chronology. The people of this country see it. It’s the partisan elites who are still blind to reality.

NO RUSH TO WAR: Blair also spelled out with stunning clarity the absolute vacuousness of the notion that we have been engaged in a “rush to war.” This wasn’t a Churchillian speech. It was a lawyer’s brief, backed by a Christian faith, a faith mocked by many, but a faith that can still see evil where others prefer not to look:

Our fault has not been impatience.

The truth is our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and years ago. Even now, when if the world united and gave him an ultimatum: comply or face forcible disarmament, he might just do it, the world hesitates and in that hesitation he senses the weakness and therefore continues to defy.

What would any tyrannical regime possessing WMD think viewing the history of the world’s diplomatic dance with Saddam? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions is only matched by our feebleness in implementing them.

That is why this indulgence has to stop. Because it is dangerous. It is dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us.

Dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation, even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace, against us.

Dangerous because one day they will mistake our innate revulsion against war for permanent incapacity; when in fact, pushed to the limit, we will act. But then when we act, after years of pretence, the action will have to be harder, bigger, more total in its impact. Iraq is not the only regime with WMD. But back away now from this confrontation and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating.

Can anyone honestly say he’s wrong about that?

THEN THE CLINCHER: “11 September has changed the psychology of America. It should have changed the psychology of the world. Of course Iraq is not the only part of this threat. But it is the test of whether we treat the threat seriously.” This speech is one of the finest any prime minister has given in the House of Commons. Period.

When you lead, people respect you. Blair’s ratings are now rebounding in the UK, pro-war sentiment is now beating anti-war sentiment among men and among Labour party and Tory party voters. More to the point, a majority – 53 percent – now say that they have confidence in George Bush to make the right decisions on Iraq. My prediction: when war starts, these numbers will increase dramatically. Blair is past the worst. And he’s stronger for it.

That’s the proportion of Americans supporting the president’s ultimatum to Saddam, according to the Washington Post’s poll. 75 percent: That’s the proportion disapproving of the way in which the United Nations has behaved with regard to this matter. 71 percent support going to war with Iraq. 72 percent believe that the administration has “done enough to try to win support from other countries for taking military action against Iraq.” Those are stunning figures. There may be less public division about this war than any war in recent history. That’s worth remembering as you read the front-page editorializing put out under the guise of “news analysis,” by the New York Times.

“The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety.” – George W. Bush, making the essential, to my mind unanswerable, case.

QUOTE OF THE DAY II: “[I]f we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam… In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult spot, Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope the British people will too.” – Bill Clinton, despite a few, lame swipes at the Bush administration, backing Blair.

Please read Ann Clwyd’s devastating piece in the Times of London today. Here’s how it starts:

“There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food … on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.”

What Clwyd says – clearly, unforgettably, indelibly – is something that some people think is unsophisticated or crude or manipulative. What she says is that the Saddam regime is evil. I’m aware of the argument that there are many evil regimes in the world and we aren’t invading to destroy all of them. But there comes a point at which such arguments say less about the world and more about the people making them. Saddam’s regime is certainly one of the vilest on earth. Its malevolence and brutality is documented beyond dispute. In a world in which morality matters, the leading theologians and moralists and politicians would not be bending over backwards to find arguments to leave this regime alone, to lend credence to its lies, and to appease its poisons. They would be casting about for reasons to end it. I think that is what has given Blair his strength these past few months. He knows he’s right. So does Clwyd:

I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight.

THE WAR: This would be true even if Iraq were not already in violation of umpteen U.N. resolutions. It would be true even if Saddam didn’t pose a genuine threat to the region and, via terrorists, to the West itself. How much more morally indefensible is appeasement when we also have complete international authority to do what must be done? I think we will look back in the future and not ask, as so many now are, how it was that diplomacy didn’t get unanimity on this matter. We will look back and see the moral obtuseness of Chirac and Putin and Schroder and Carter and feel nothing but contempt for them, and their preference for state terror over the responsibilities of the free world. That’s why I felt enormous pride tonight in the stand being taken by Blair and Bush. The president’s speech was measured, firm, just. Blair’s political risks – in order to do what he believes is plainly right – will confirm him in history as a great prime minister, the conscience of his party, and the leader of his country. I say that before this war begins, because the cause is just whatever vicissitudes of conflict await us, and there will be plenty of people who will make this point if and when the war succeeds. But the truth is, regardless of what happens next, we know something important about the two major leaders of the free world right now. Neither man has blinked at evil. The only question in the next forty-eight hours is whether evil will blink before it is destroyed.