WHY THE HEAD FAKE by the White House? Why the chatter from aides suggesting Iraq would not be the focus of President Bush’s State of the Union address? Why the insistence that reporters would be asking about matters other than Iraq the day after the president’s speech? My guess is there’s worry Bush might suffer the fate of his father, losing reelection because voters feel he’s indifferent to fixing a weak economy. That, plus fear Bush is seen as not merely alarmed about Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) but downright obsessed with uprooting Saddam Hussein.
No need to worry. One of Bush’s favorite words is “prioritize,” and that’s what he’s doing quite properly on Iraq. After the September 11 terrorist attacks and the victory in Afghanistan, Iraq became the next logical step in the war on terrorism. Bush believes September 11 revealed Saddam now has a delivery vehicle to reach the United States with his WMDs–not intercontinental missiles but al Qaeda terrorists who’ve proven their ability to slip into the United States. This threat is imminent and must be granted a higher priority than cutting taxes and reforming Medicare, important as those initiatives are. The truth, of course, is that Bush can handle all three at once, though Iraq takes more of his time, and should.
Iraq colors his view of foreign leaders. Bush is far from forgiving German chancellor Gerhard Schröder and French president Jacques Chirac for abandoning him on Iraq. He talks to many European leaders on the phone these days, but not Schröder or Chirac. He feels Schröder personally betrayed him by exploiting anti-Americanism in his reelection campaign last year. And he faults Chirac for joining Schröder in opposition to Bush on Iraq for domestic political and commercial reasons–and for not informing Bush before announcing he was jumping ship. According to a senior administration official, Bush believes that once Iraq is liberated Schröder and Chirac and their countrymen will regret “in their soul” that they didn’t take part in “freeing people from repression.” Bush, by the way, loved the New York Post’s front-page picture of the two with the headline: “AXIS OF WEASEL.” Three days later, a copy of the Post was still on a desk in his secretary’s office next to the Oval Office.
Bush’s new favorites are prime ministers Jose Maria Aznar of Spain and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy. They were behind the letter signed by eight European leaders and sent to the Wall Street Journal and European newspapers backing the United States on Iraq. (Three other nations later asked to sign.) When Berlusconi visited the White House last week, Bush referred to him, without irony, as “my friend Silvio.” They traded bouquets. America, Berlusconi said, is “the best friend of my country.” Bush responded, “Your English is very good.” “No, no,” the prime minister said. “I have never the time . . . to learn better English.”
More important, Berlusconi sounded like Bush with an Italian accent in spelling out the danger posed by Iraq. “We really fear that after the series of terrorist attacks, which culminated with the attacks of September 11, there is the intention of the terrorists to really come to a terrible disaster,” he told reporters at a photo opportunity. “And to do so, they have to avail themselves of the biological, chemical weapons that we know were available to Saddam Hussein.”
As best one can tell, Bush has internalized the case against Saddam. He is appalled at the murderous nature of Saddam’s dictatorship and frustrated that some other leaders aren’t as horrified. When the president met over lunch with TV news anchors on the day of the State of the Union speech, he said Saddam has “tortured, maimed and killed people.” In the speech, he said Saddam has left “thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured.” The senior official characterized Bush’s view this way: “The thought of people living under the barbaric hand of this guy . . . there doesn’t seem to be much concern about the Iraqi people,” particularly by Schröder and Chirac.
The next day Bush’s closest ally, British prime minister Tony Blair, visited Bush at Camp David. Despite strong dissent in his own Labour party, Blair is following Winston Churchill’s advice never to let the English get separated from the Americans. He echoed Berlusconi. There are “two key issues that face our world today,” terrorism and WMDs, he said. “We should realize those two threats are not different, they’re linked.” Bush said of his friend Blair, “I trust his judgment and his wisdom.”
What’s striking is how different Bush’s concerns are from his father’s during and after the war in 1991 against Saddam. Bush senior left Saddam in power and Iraq intact, all in the name of stability, and exited quickly. He is a foreign policy realist. But Bush junior is an idealist who wants to spread democracy and freedom and make sure other hostile countries rid themselves of WMDs or don’t acquire them in the first place. Stability is not his overriding concern. For Bush, “this is an ongoing war,” an aide says. And he believes that there’s a unique opportunity now to turn nations into democracies. It’s become a cliché to say Bush is more like Ronald Reagan politically and ideologically than his father. However, in his vision of a new world where democracy is triumphant with major U.S. help, Bush is an updated version of Woodrow Wilson.
His passion about Iraq and democracy was evident in his delivery of the State of the Union. The first part of the speech dragged, but when he got to terrorism and Iraq he spoke with more drama and emotion. “It’s what animates him,” an aide says. “It’s on his heart, his mind, his agenda. This is what he wants to talk about.”
Bush likens the past two months, when popular support for regime change in Iraq was drifting downward–and his job performance rating was declining–to the period in the late summer of 2002 leading up to his September 12 speech at the United Nations. It led to a stronger resolution on Iraq than expected and to new inspections. “There was great angst,” the senior official says. The prestige press was against intervention in Iraq and treated Bush as “way off base.” But with the president’s U.N. address, “clarity came to the situation.” Bush thinks it’s coming again, which is one reason why, in his prioritizing, Iraq stays at the top of the list. Any White House head fakes to the contrary should be ignored.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
