More On The Plate Than
Freedom Fries
WASHINGTON, March 13, 2003,
CBSNEWS.com
In
her latest Political
Points commentary, CBS News Senior Political Editor Dotty
Lynch offers food for thought on the looming war with Iraq.
Au revoir French fries. Howdy Freedom toast and Freedom fries. Now that's the
way to get under the skin of those nasty French.
With Americans growing weary (or angry or embarrassed) by the refusal of the
French to sign off on a military invasion of Iraq, two members of Congress
decided to fight back and rename two favorite foods in a House office building
cafeteria.
A juvenile stunt, but somehow it tickled a tense Capitol. A CBS News/New
York Times poll conducted over the weekend showed that the number of Americans
wanting to give U.N. inspectors more time dropped from 60 percent to 52 percent.
And 50 percent now believe that the Iraqi threat requires military action
immediately – up from 45 percent last week.
There is still significant concern about military action, and Americans are
split 52 percent to 46 percent on whether they are confident or uneasy about
President Bush making the right decision on Iraq. But they are even more unhappy
with the United Nations, with 58 percent saying the U.N. is doing a poor job
handling the Iraq issue.
The American people have taken note of the international dissing of the U.S. A
year ago, by 67 percent to 22 percent, people thought that world leaders
respected President Bush; last week the public split 45 percent-45 percent on
this issue, with even 21 percent of Republicans conceding that foreign leaders
lack respect for him. We make jokes about the heavy diplomacy going on to get
Guinea or the Cameroon behind us, but our ally Tony Blair is tanking in Britain
– just 19 percent of Britons are with him on this war.
With the lack of sustained opposition from the Democratic political leadership,
the loudest anti-war message in media has come via Hollywood actors. However,
there are some strong, serious voices of dissent breakthrough the clutter. Sen.
Bob Graham of Florida and former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart are predicting a
serious terrorist attack if military action is taken. Graham, the only
Democratic senator running for president who voted against the resolution giving
President Bush the authority to wage a preemptive war against Iraq, said this
week that intelligence experts have told him there's a 75 percent likelihood
that terrorist attacks would be initiated if Saddam feels he is threatened.
Hart has said much the same thing, citing CIA Director George Tenet’s public
words to this effect last fall. And Hart keeps harping on the fact that the U.S.
is not prepared to deal with these attacks. From his perch as co-chairman of the
U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century, which came up with
the idea for a Homeland Security office, he has leveled scathing criticism of
the Bush administration for not putting clout and resources behind the new
Cabinet department.
Another serious line of attack has come from former New York Times reporter and
columnist Tom Wicker. Writing on the Editor & Publisher Web site (editorandpublisher.com),
Wicker levels criticism at journalists who he says are playing on the
administration's team and not asking the right questions.
The question Wicker wants asked is how the administration makes linkage between
Iraq and al Qaeda. "Will al Qaeda be damaged by an American attack on an
Islamic nation? If not, how does a war on Iraq help the so-called war on terror,
against al Qaeda?"
Forty five percent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was personally
involved in the Sept. 11 attacks – a fact that has never been substantiated.
Wicker says, "The administration insists that Iraq and al Qaeda are, in
fact, linked and that Washington has the evidence to prove it. But that evidence
can't be revealed, lest it disclose how we know and from whom we know it.
"That may be true, as it often is with secret intelligence information, but
this argument raises at least two questions: What kind of democracy allows its
leaders to take it into war without fully specifying the reasons? And should a 'watchdog'
press present the supposed link between Iraq and al Qaeda as if it had been
demonstrated, because President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell say so,
or point out that it hasn't really been proven, even at the United Nations?"
It's been reported that President Bush is terrified that another Sept. 11 will
occur on his watch, and he clearly believes that waging war with Saddam will
make that less likely. One wonders what he knows that the rest of the world
doesn't. Despite pleas from religious and world leaders, it seems he's
determined to go forward. We can only pray that he's right.
THE
BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE
BOTTOM LINE