Advertisement
It was in June that President Bush first began talking about “revisionist history”, a gambit that took some of us a little by surprise since he showed no previous signs of having read any history, revisionist or otherwise.
This was a little after he delayed the homecoming of several hundred American sailors by using their aircraft carrier to proclaim that the war was over. But if the war was over, and the point was to be rid of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, why were no weapons of mass destruction found, not even at the sites the U.S. said it had identified? It was those who were impertinent enough to raise this question that the president accused of revisionist history.
There’s been a lot of revisionist history around lately, from the president, and from the Democrats who are trying to distance themselves from a war that they couldn’t support strongly enough less than a year ago.
The president himself was a lusty reviser. Rationales for attacking Iraq were paraded across American television screens. As each was deflated, the administration cycled to the next, apparently in the belief that fast rotation would keep the public distracted and keep critics on the defensive.
Of the revisionists that Bush had in mind, those who focused on the lack of WsMD, a fair number are prominent Democrats and, coincidentally, presidential candidates. But how can this be, since most of these same prominent Democrats – Kerry, Lieberman, Gephart, Edwards – wrapped themselves in red, white, and blue in October and voted for the resolution that gave Bush the go-ahead to attack Iraq?
“Easy”, say the prominent Democrats. “We was lied to.” Candidates Gephart, Kerry, Lieberman, and Edwards lament the terrible deception that President Bush worked on them. They was befuddled by his powers.
In October, Congressman Gephart couldn’t line up behind the president fast enough, but in July his vision had improved to 20/20 – “President Bush’s factual lapse in his State of the Union address cannot be simply dismissed . . . This president has a pattern of using excessive language . . . This continued recklessness represents a failure of presidential leadership.”
John Edwards echoed Gephart’s indignation. “The president when he speaks, has to take responsibility for what he said . . . And those 16 words were spoken by the president and he has to take responsibility for them.”
But what about the prominent Democrats? Were they not responsible for thinking independently about the claims that were made by the Bush administration in the run-up to war? Here are the things that were known about Bush’s case prior to the bombing:
* The evidence that Iraq sought uranium from Niger was fabricated
* Colin Powell’s speech to the Security Council included plagiarized and dated material
* The imported aluminum tubes touted by the administration were inappropriate to the production of fissile material
* Reports of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda were found not to be credible
In fact, twenty-three senators and 133 representatives voted against the war resolution. How is this possible, given the president’s loquacity? In the words of Senator Kennedy, “He did not make a persuasive case that the [Iraqi] threat is imminent and that war is the only alternative.”
What’s at stake here is more than just setting the record straight. Those concerned for the viability of democracy must be a little shaken by the path to war in Iraq. Democracy in America, as Jefferson dreamed it and Madison designed it, relies upon free discourse and the well-worn system of checks and balances. It is hard in a pluralist, federalist democracy to get anything done because power is widely distributed among groups that have, a priori, no reason to cooperate. When something does get done, in theory, it is after a long process of vetting in which likely consequences are weighed and disparate voices are heard. Thesystem is imperfect. But it is in the interstices between factions and interests and parties and bureaus and agencies that rights have meaning and there is latitude for the people to freely pursue their aspirations.
In this system, the loyal opposition plays an extremely important role. It is up to the opposition to ask questions and to keep the heat on those in power. The loyal opposition is at the heart of the pluralist vetting process.
Let’s face it – the Democrats just didn’t rise to their calling. They were cowed by the administration’s media blitz. (Unfortunately, as Christiane Amanpour, senior correspondent for CNN, has admitted, the “free press” was just as pusillanimous.) The resulting failure is exactly the kind that the founding fathers most feared – a “democratic excess”. The administration, using scare tactics rather than information, waved the flag, cowed the opposition and the press, and pursued a policy that, if the polls are correct, a majority of Americans now recognize as ill-advised.
If the prominent Democrats can pull this off, they can portray themselves as clear-eyed defenders of the nation’s integrity (the better to run for president). Of course, such defenders are most needed when the fat’s in the fire. That’s why the resignation of Robin Cook from Tony Blair’s cabinet is so impressive. It happened precisely at the time when it might actually have made some difference, and when it required real courage. Democracy in Britain is stronger for it. Try as they may to revise it, the true history is this – when you look at the prominent Democrats, those who were in a position of power, who had the chance to influence decisions, and who now want to be president, there wasn’t a Robin Cook among ‘em.
Gregory R. Weiher gweiher@uh.edu Department of Political Science, University of Houston 713-743-3924
This was a little after he delayed the homecoming of several hundred American sailors by using their aircraft carrier to proclaim that the war was over. But if the war was over, and the point was to be rid of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, why were no weapons of mass destruction found, not even at the sites the U.S. said it had identified? It was those who were impertinent enough to raise this question that the president accused of revisionist history.
There’s been a lot of revisionist history around lately, from the president, and from the Democrats who are trying to distance themselves from a war that they couldn’t support strongly enough less than a year ago.
The president himself was a lusty reviser. Rationales for attacking Iraq were paraded across American television screens. As each was deflated, the administration cycled to the next, apparently in the belief that fast rotation would keep the public distracted and keep critics on the defensive.
Of the revisionists that Bush had in mind, those who focused on the lack of WsMD, a fair number are prominent Democrats and, coincidentally, presidential candidates. But how can this be, since most of these same prominent Democrats – Kerry, Lieberman, Gephart, Edwards – wrapped themselves in red, white, and blue in October and voted for the resolution that gave Bush the go-ahead to attack Iraq?
“Easy”, say the prominent Democrats. “We was lied to.” Candidates Gephart, Kerry, Lieberman, and Edwards lament the terrible deception that President Bush worked on them. They was befuddled by his powers.
In October, Congressman Gephart couldn’t line up behind the president fast enough, but in July his vision had improved to 20/20 – “President Bush’s factual lapse in his State of the Union address cannot be simply dismissed . . . This president has a pattern of using excessive language . . . This continued recklessness represents a failure of presidential leadership.”
John Edwards echoed Gephart’s indignation. “The president when he speaks, has to take responsibility for what he said . . . And those 16 words were spoken by the president and he has to take responsibility for them.”
But what about the prominent Democrats? Were they not responsible for thinking independently about the claims that were made by the Bush administration in the run-up to war? Here are the things that were known about Bush’s case prior to the bombing:
* The evidence that Iraq sought uranium from Niger was fabricated
* Colin Powell’s speech to the Security Council included plagiarized and dated material
* The imported aluminum tubes touted by the administration were inappropriate to the production of fissile material
* Reports of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda were found not to be credible
In fact, twenty-three senators and 133 representatives voted against the war resolution. How is this possible, given the president’s loquacity? In the words of Senator Kennedy, “He did not make a persuasive case that the [Iraqi] threat is imminent and that war is the only alternative.”
What’s at stake here is more than just setting the record straight. Those concerned for the viability of democracy must be a little shaken by the path to war in Iraq. Democracy in America, as Jefferson dreamed it and Madison designed it, relies upon free discourse and the well-worn system of checks and balances. It is hard in a pluralist, federalist democracy to get anything done because power is widely distributed among groups that have, a priori, no reason to cooperate. When something does get done, in theory, it is after a long process of vetting in which likely consequences are weighed and disparate voices are heard. Thesystem is imperfect. But it is in the interstices between factions and interests and parties and bureaus and agencies that rights have meaning and there is latitude for the people to freely pursue their aspirations.
In this system, the loyal opposition plays an extremely important role. It is up to the opposition to ask questions and to keep the heat on those in power. The loyal opposition is at the heart of the pluralist vetting process.
Let’s face it – the Democrats just didn’t rise to their calling. They were cowed by the administration’s media blitz. (Unfortunately, as Christiane Amanpour, senior correspondent for CNN, has admitted, the “free press” was just as pusillanimous.) The resulting failure is exactly the kind that the founding fathers most feared – a “democratic excess”. The administration, using scare tactics rather than information, waved the flag, cowed the opposition and the press, and pursued a policy that, if the polls are correct, a majority of Americans now recognize as ill-advised.
If the prominent Democrats can pull this off, they can portray themselves as clear-eyed defenders of the nation’s integrity (the better to run for president). Of course, such defenders are most needed when the fat’s in the fire. That’s why the resignation of Robin Cook from Tony Blair’s cabinet is so impressive. It happened precisely at the time when it might actually have made some difference, and when it required real courage. Democracy in Britain is stronger for it. Try as they may to revise it, the true history is this – when you look at the prominent Democrats, those who were in a position of power, who had the chance to influence decisions, and who now want to be president, there wasn’t a Robin Cook among ‘em.
Gregory R. Weiher gweiher@uh.edu Department of Political Science, University of Houston 713-743-3924