- The Washington Times - Thursday, July 24, 2003

About the time two of the world’s most repulsive bullies were being handed over to Allah with the compliments of the 101st Airborne, another of the Democrats’ hapless presidential contenders endeavored to demonstrate his foreign policy perspicuity. Addressing the Bar Association of San Francisco, the Hon. Richard A. Gephardt derided the Bush administration for its “chest-beating unilateralism.” “Foreign policy,” he pronounced, “isn’t a John Wayne movie, where we catch the bad guys, hoist a few cold ones and then everything fades to black” and he droned on about President George W. Bush’s “utter disregard for diplomacy.” Meanwhile the news was that Saddam Hussein’s sons, Uday and Qusay (known to contemporary wags as Ebay and Amway) had been cornered and dispatched John Wayne style.

Mr. Gephardt’s ill-timed outburst has its historic parallel. On December 7, 1941, just as the Japanese were attacking Pearl Harbor, an antiwar senator rose to address a huge meeting at Pittsburgh’s Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall. Speaking to the isolationist America First Committee, Sen. Gerald P. Nye savaged President Franklin D. Roosevelt for creating hostile relations with Japan and siding with the British — whom he called cowards, unwilling to endure casualties. Halfway through his speech, Nye was informed that the Japanese had an hour before announced “a state of war between it and the United States and Great Britain.” Unfazed, Nye simply rattled on against Roosevelt. When asked afterward about the Japanese declaration, Nye responded, “It sounds terribly fishy to me.”

Increasingly, the actions taken by the Bush administration in the war on terror sound “terribly fishy” to partisan Democrats and to their friends in the media. The critics are particularly suspicious of the White House’s use of intelligence. The media’s inflamed stories show once again their lack of proportion or for that matter memory. They also show that so pathetic is the condition of many Democrats they will exploit American foreign policy for their own partisan gain. On the face of it, the stories that Washington and London doctored intelligence estimates are preposterous. Who can believe the Bush administration made false claims about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction to justify sending in an army that would inevitably find there were no weapons of mass destruction? Who can believe the administration would confect a scheme that was bound to be exposed?

Apparently Dr. Howard Dean believes it. So apparently do some of the other born blanks now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. But then they also believe President George W. Bush is as stupid as President Ronald Reagan. Yes, Mr. Reagan too was accused of putting intelligence to political purposes, namely to end the Cold War. So, Mr. Bush mobilized the nation to send in an army to find weapons that he knew were not there. Apparently Howard Dean believes Mr. Bush expected the American people not to care if that the weapons were not discovered. Is Mr. Gephardt this far out?

The campaigning Democrats underestimate not only the president but also the American people. The story he doctored intelligence estimates is another of those news stories that we call a Black Cat News Story. A Black Cat News Story is a shocking new story that crosses a politician’s path supposedly to jinx his career forever. It is almost always a story without substance but that through constant fortissimo repetition hexes the politician.

It is also a story that pleases partisan opposition. The story puts me in mind of the horror stories confected after Pearl Harbor by the likes of Sen. Nye. According to these fantasies, President Roosevelt left the Pacific fleet vulnerable to Japanese attack so he could join the British in World War II. Like the Black Cat News Story now being used against the Bush administration, historians found this story was without substance. Nonetheless cranks still believe it, and those who believe President Bush knowingly relied on false intelligence to send hundreds of thousands of pilots, sailors and soldiers halfway around the world on a false mission are cranks.

Intelligence estimates are rarely totally factual. They always contain error. That is the nature of intelligence. We shall not know what happened to Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction for a long time. We do know he had the grisly stuff and that he used it on Iranians and on his own people. We have evidence right now that he possessed contraband weaponry. The United Nations arms inspectors even admit it. The burning question raised now is precisely what the American and British intelligence community developed as unassailable fact. It is an ignorant question.

The distinguished British historian, Paul Johnson, avers that intelligence information is always shaky. “One never gets to the bottom of such estimates,” he tells me from his London library. “It includes assertions and counterassertions” from one intelligence bureaucracy to another. “Reading intelligence reports is like reading a detective novel containing no final chapter. All you can do is weigh intelligence reports and guess. You can never be absolutely certain that the reports are completely sound.”

Of course, Mr. Johnson is right. Yet we certainly have enough information even now to recognize that our overthrow of Saddam was justified. All the cranks are achieving now is the discrediting of a thoroughly admirable effort. The Bush administration acted properly with the support of a prudent citizenry. Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose politics I generally oppose, acted heroically without much support at home. He is the first politician I have seen in years who carried out the dictates of his conscience to the peril of his political career. His achievement will be honored by history.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is editor in chief of the American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun and an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide