Rodent Regatta

TRAPPED BY THEIR OWN RESOLUTIONS

BUSH CALLS HIS OPPONENTS’ BLUFF: Will Saletan at Slate is honest enough to realize that president Bush has essentially outmaneuvered his opponents. Ignore Will’s silly credentializing with the left. Like many others, Will’s short memory simply ignores Bush’s campaign pledge to take Saddam out if he didn’t renounce weapons of mass destruction. But the good news is that Will recognizes that Bush has spectacularly called the U.N.’s bluff. As he puts it, ”If you think that an American invasion of Iraq is unwise and that the world would be better off with unfettered U.N. weapons inspections backed by the serious threat of force, you’re probably right. But if you get what you want, thank Bush.” Even Howell Raines had to concede that the president is right today. The Times will now, of course, try to wriggle out of this. They call for a ”thoughtful and resourceful plan” for weapons inspections, whatever that means. But they’re flailing. They can hardly back Saddam, but very shortly, when Saddam refuses to allow real and meaningful inspections, they will have to choose between supporting Saddam and supporting Bush. Even the Bush-haters on 43d Street may have to back the president, a delicious irony not lost on the White House. (Liberal journalist Patrick Tyler tries yet another anti-Bush spin-job today, but it’s looking desperate).

CHECK: It seems clear to me in retrospect that Bush’s summer strategy has been really, really smart. Let Cheney and Rummy threaten unilateral strikes. Get all those boomer lefties with Vietnam complexes to get so scared that they all but beg the president to go through the U.N. And then go through the U.N.! Now what do the Bumillers and Tylers and Kristofs do? Either they have to fess up and say they have no problem with weapons of mass destruction in Baghdad or they have to back real disarmament, which will, of course, mean war or regime change. The Times will try to argue for a long inspections regime, for the same merry-go-round that the Clinton administration fecklessly tried forever. But last March, they opined that ”unless [Baghdad] fulfills those cease-fire requirements now, Iraq invites the kind of coercive actions Mr. Bush has threatened.” (My italics.) It’s now six months after ”now”. How much longer can we afford to wait? Once again, advantage Bush. [Andrew Sullivan]