THE ANTI-BUSH BRIGADE
by Herbert I. London
Townhall
July 17, 2003

The anti-Bush brigades have brought the war in Iraq home. More ink has been devoted to sixteen misplaced words than a year's worth of New York Times editorials. "The president lied"; "the president duped the public"; the president found a reason to justify the attack."

As almost every American and most Europeans now know the president stated in his State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to acquire fissionable materials from Africa. George Tenet, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, took responsibility for the gaffe, but the political storm rages.

One pundit maintains that it is sheer hypocrisy for the Republicans to accuse Clinton of lying when their president engaged in this "whopper." Of course, President Bush probably didn't know he was engaged in a deception and, after all, he didn't perjure himself. Then again there are lies, damn lies and political needs.

What are these detractors trying to say? Is the contention that the president had to lie in order to justify the Iraqi invasion? Surely everyone knows there were human rights violations, use of chemical weapons, attempts at regional destabilization, and terrorist support in Hussein's regime. The war didn't rest on the acquisition of nuclear material.

There isn't any evidence that the president or anyone in this administration sought to deceive the public about Saddam Hussein's threat. The Bush-wackers have seized on this mistake to embarrass the administration and, I should hastily note, deny the notable victory in the war.

For them the "yellowcake" (high grade plutonium) is the functional equivalent of the Lewinsky dress - incontrovertible evidence of deception. The fact that they are not equivalent does not in any way deter Bush critics. They have found an issue and won't let go. Even the Nine Dwarves running for the Democratic nomination for president have hopped on this bandwagon.

Overlooked in this brouhaha is that even if the presidential statement is untrue, it in no way undermines the case for war. The furor over nuclear material is a sideshow conducted to mobilize Democratic voters. As such, it is a sideshow with deadly consequences because it tries to obviate the legitimate conditions for invasion.

This attenuated news story emphasizes the unreliability of much intelligence data and the president's judgment call in the face of less than perfect information. That news may not be entirely comforting for the public; CIA analysts offer only one perspective, and at times a dubious perspective, on complex issues. Presidential judgment must factor the known, unknown and fragmentary into a decision. Intelligence is an instrument of policy, not its determinant.

Of course the Democratic critics know as much since the intelligence about the Soviet Union during the Cold War routinely exaggerated or underestimated Soviet military assets. Their motive isn't about assailing intelligence; rather it is designed to undermine President Bush's credibility.

In the process, the Democrats have put at risk an intelligence system on which the nation relies as its first line of defense against terrorism. This government needs intelligence analysts that will speculate and challenge assumptions. Surely the president must be more adroit in selecting passages in his speeches, but that is a pettifogging issue compared to the need for a robust counter terrorist operation willing and able to offer judgments about our enemies.

This blame game won't evanesce because there is political gain to be made. Terry McAuliffe, Democratic National Committee chairman, has already made an attack ad about the matter. And talk show hosts respond to the issue like catnip. Fortunately, most people see through this desperate gambit. Support for the president hasn't wavered.

Try as Democrats will, this mistake is not a grand deception. President Bush hasn't suborned the head of the CIA, yellowcake isn't yellow rain, and Saddam Hussein lives in a rat hole where he belongs. Some day this matter will pass, but until it does, the public will be obliged to live with rancorous partisan political commentary. So what else is new?


Herbert London is President of the Hudson Institute, John M. Olin Professor of Humanities, NYU, Author of the recently published book "Decade of Denial," Lexington Books. He's available through www.benadorassociates.com.

Copyright 2003 Herbert London

Printer-friendly version   Email this item to a friend