THE BUSH ROUT of his opponents on Iraq is nearly complete. In August, President Bush was beset with dissent inside his administration and criticism from Democrats and foreign allies. Now his aides are united, he’s won overwhelming congressional approval for war with Iraq, and Great Britain is no longer alone as America’s ally in likely military action against Saddam Hussein. Along the way, four things happened. Bush made the case forcefully for regime change in Iraq. He flummoxed Democrats so thoroughly they haven’t yet come up with a unified position on Iraq, much less one opposed to Bush’s. He’s touched base effectively with the United Nations, gathering allies behind new and intrusive arms inspections in Iraq, though perhaps not behind making war automatic when the inevitable happens and Iraq impedes inspectors. And Bush has exposed Saddam Hussein not merely as a tyrant, but as a uniquely evil threat to America, his own people, and the world. To achieve all this, Bush staged one of the most impressive exercises of presidential power in modern times. He used all the tools at hand: the bully pulpit, TV, personal persuasion in the Oval Office, and the skillful deployment of top officials in his administration. And, not to be underestimated, there was sheer presidential bullheadedness. When a president takes a firm and defensible position and doesn’t flinch, he normally prevails. In Bush’s case, the position is that the only way to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is by deposing Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. One telling result of Bush’s full-throttle use of his presidency was a far greater percentage of Democratic support for his congressional war resolution than the elder President Bush won in 1991 after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. Recall the state of play in August: As Bush sagged in polls and his Iraq policy drew criticism even from his father’s national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, Democrats were emboldened. Along with a few Republicans, they demanded Bush make the case for taking on Iraq. Their expectation was that a strong case could not be made, particularly by Bush. They were wrong. Two speeches on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks set the stage for Bush’s powerful address to the United Nations. It stressed Saddam Hussein’s defiance of U.N. resolutions and his increasingly threatening conduct. As it turned out, Bush saved material for another speech in Cincinnati last week: compelling intelligence information about Iraq’s drive for WMDs, including nuclear weapons. Democratic critics responded with silence, except Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who claimed wrongly that there was nothing new in the speech. Byrd, windy and self-indulgent, was but one example of Democratic self-destruction on Iraq. While some Democrats strongly backed Bush–Sens. Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, and Zell Miller, plus House minority leader Dick Gephardt, to name four–it was the critics who hogged media attention. Reps. Jim McDermott and David Bonior made fools of themselves by criticizing Bush from Baghdad. Having demanded Bush make the case, Democrats such as Sen. Barbara Boxer looked frantic when they suddenly asked, “Why now?” And in their eagerness to change the subject from Iraq to domestic issues, Democrats let politics intrude. Three of the smartest Democratic consultants–Stan Greenberg, James Carville, and Bob Shrum–offered advice in a seven-page memo on how Democrats could “present their [Iraq] positions effectively in a way that allows the election to move to domestic issues.” In an ideal world, the president wouldn’t have to bother with the United Nations. But consultations with foreign leaders over the summer led Bush to believe he’d be better off if his Iraq ticket were punched at the U.N. This means he must concern himself with the Security Council, whose members include Syria, China, and Guinea. But it doesn’t mean he needs U.N. approval to go to war against Iraq. President Clinton didn’t have it in 1999 for the war in Kosovo, and Bush critics like Bonior and Sen. Paul Wellstone didn’t demand it then. For now, Bush is seeking serious inspections that include allowing interviews of witnesses outside Iraq and, as Bush said in Cincinnati, “these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein’s terror and murder.” The idea is to put the Iraqi leader in a box: either accept arms inspections of unprecedented seriousness with thousands rather than hundreds of inspectors, or face a military attack. Bush’s easiest task was reminding the world of Saddam Hussein’s acts of evil and the continuing threat he poses. In the division of labor between Bush and his most courageous ally, British prime minister Tony Blair, the job of issuing a white paper on Saddam Hussein went to Blair. Bush topped off the case in his Cincinnati address by pointing to Iraqi ties with the al Qaeda terrorist network and to satellite photos revealing “that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.” So where do things stand now for Bush? Six weeks ago, a senior White House aide said Bush wanted to subject Saddam Hussein either to an American-led attack or to inspections so sweeping and coercive that his rule over Iraq would be shaken. Either way, he’d be doomed. At the moment, Bush is on the verge of having it one way or the other–real inspections or war. So I asked the aide if victory was at hand, at least in the non-military phase of the campaign against Iraq. The aide was too cautious to give the correct answer, which is yes. Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
