Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Oct. 9, 2002 / 3 Mar-Cheshvan, 5763

Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

The president makes his case | President Bush has soberly and systematically laid out his case for why Iraq's Saddam Hussein must go. In a speech Monday night (Oct. 7), delivered to an audience in Cincinnati and carried only on the all-news cable channels (more about that in a moment), the president lifted the curtain on some of the intelligence information that has led him to oppose further delay in forcing Saddam Hussein to disarm. He said he believes delay is the riskiest of several options.

Calling Iraq's leader"a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction," the president said Saddam is developing an"arsenal of terror" with crude but effective delivery systems that include"a growing arsenal of unmanned aerial vehicles" (UAV). He said such UAVs could carry anthrax or other biological and chemical agents over the United States and be easily flown or brought in by a terrorist or Iraqi intelligence officer.

Delivering his remarks in a somber tone, the president also addressed a few of the objections to war with Iraq made by some members of Congress and many editorial writers. To those who claim that Iraq and the war on terrorism are separate, the president said, "They are two faces of the same evil." He said we must assume the worst about Saddam and that includes his pursuit of nuclear weapons. While the president left open the possibility there would be no military action, he said that Saddam would have to turn from his defiant and deceptive behavior of the last 11 years, a period that has seen him break every provision of the agreement ending the Gulf War.

The president called Saddam a"student of Stalin" because of the way he liquidates all opposition and tortures anyone thought to be a threat to him.

Before a country goes to war, it must demonize its enemy sufficiently for soldiers to risk their lives and for its citizens to back the objective and tolerate possible loss of life for what they must see as self-defense and, if possible, a noble cause. The president sought to prepare the nation to pursue each of those goals.

The broadcast networks, which refused to carry the address live, again exposed their political leanings. Network executives said the White House didn't formally ask for airtime, but given the threat, ABCCBSNBC (all the networks think alike) should have carried the address. One unnamed broadcast network spokesman told The Washington Post,"It's a pep rally. They're trying to move Congress forward."

When war seems imminent, the broadcast networks - which still reach more people than cable - have a responsibility to let the president make his case and inform the public of his rationale for war. They failed in that responsibility, and their level of trust, already in decline, will likely drop further as more people sense a political bias behind the decision to air entertainment programs over the president's important address.

After this speech, expect most Democrats to join most Republicans in voting for the resolution authorizing the use of force to disarm and even topple Saddam. Democrats see the writing on the election ballot. Already in trouble and unlikely to change the subject from war to the economy by Election Day, most Democrats will raise doubts (in case disaster strikes and they can have the cover of"see, I told you so"), but when the roll is called, most will vote to support the president.

Writing in the Oct. 5 issue of National Journal, Stuart Taylor Jr. correctly says, "The Bush preemption doctrine is not an abandonment of our traditional strategy of deterrence. It is a necessary updating of that strategy to meet the new kind of nuclear threat posed by terrorists and rogue regimes."

Precisely! The old ways of agreements and inspections no longer work. The president has said this new warfare will require new strategies and so preemption in limited and specific instances is necessary against Saddam. Delaying action against Saddam is like waiting for a killer to knock at the door. It is more difficult to stop him when he knocks at (or breaks down) the door than if he had been stopped several miles away. The kind of harm Saddam can deliver will take thousands of American lives if we wait. Never has the strategy of getting our enemy before he gets us looked more defensible - or more urgent.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Cal Thomas is the author of, among others, The Wit and Wisdom of Cal Thomas Comment by clicking here.

Cal Thomas Archives


© 2002, TMS