Woodward at War
A "Plan of Attack" against George W. Bush?
WSJ.com
CAMPAIGN 2004
BY RUSH LIMBAUGH
Wednesday, April 21, 2004 12:01 a.m.
<font size=4>
Bob Woodward is back with yet another book, "Plan of Attack." That title made me first think the work was a manual on unseating George W. Bush. Discussing his book on CBS's "60 Minutes," Mr. Woodward said, in essence, that Dick Cheney ran the Iraq war and talked President Bush into it, though President Bush was never crazy about it; the CIA botched everything again; the one man in the administration we can trust, Colin Powell, was kept out of the loop; God talks to President Bush and President Bush listens; and President Bush is an idiot who disdains the truly smart people of the world.<font size=3>
Frankly, I don't understand why the president or anyone else in the administration who supports the war against Iraq would give Mr. Woodward the time of day. Surely they had to know that his reporting methods, and his popularity with the "beautiful people" inside the Beltway for whacking Republican after Republican, would result in the inevitable anti-Bush, antiwar screed.
<font size=4>
Few have yet read the book. It didn't become publicly available until yesterday, only after Mr. Woodward had an opportunity to hype his conclusions by way of a carefully choreographed release of selected excerpts in the Washington Post and friendly interviews on "60 Minutes" and other programs. But already, one of the main thrusts of his book--that the president, while in Crawford, Texas, decided to go to war in January 2003--is disputed by Condoleezza Rice, who was with him at the time. On another CBS show, "Face the Nation," Ms. Rice recalled that President Bush said, "Now, I think we probably are going to have to go to war, we're going to have to go to war." But, she said, it wasn't until March 2003 when he finally made the decision.
But even if the president had decided to go to war against Saddam in January 2003, what's the big deal? Congress knew full well that war was imminent, as did the rest of us.<font size=3> In October 2002, Congress voted overwhelmingly to give President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq. The Senate approved the measure 77-23, the House by 296-133. In November 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 giving Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations." There's nothing secret about these public acts, which were deliberate and debated. Saddam remained belligerent, making war unavoidable. If he'd opened his country to unencumbered inspections, there would have been no war.
<font size=4>
The other Woodward "revelation" is that the president asked Donald Rumsfeld on Nov. 21, 2001, to develop a plan for war against Iraq. The inference, I suppose, is that President Bush planned to attack Iraq shortly after 9/11.<font size=3> But, of course, he didn't order Iraq attacked immediately after 9/11. The war wasn't launched until March 2003.
In any event, <font size=4>on April 28, 2002, the New York Times reported that "in developing a potential approach for toppling . . . Saddam Hussein . , . [the Bush administration] is concentrating its attention on a major air campaign and ground invasion, with initial estimates contemplating the use of 70,000 to 250,000 troops." On July 20, 2002, the AP reported that Mr. Rumsfeld "ordered an internal investigation into who leaked [to the New York Times] a highly classified document on possible military actions to topple" Saddam. So, we all knew the Pentagon was developing a contingency plan.<font size=3> Why does it matter whether the plan was ordered on Nov. 21, 2001, Dec. 21, 2001, Jan. 21, 2002, and so forth?
Besides, Mr. <font size=4>Woodward's been around Washington long enough to know that the Pentagon and State Department prepare war scenarios and contingency plans all the time. For example, on Feb. 7, 2003, CNN reported that in response to war threats from North Korea, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "Obviously the United States is very prepared with the best plans for any contingencies." Of course, that doesn't mean the U.S. is going to war with North Korea, but that our forces must plan for the possibility. There are certain hot spots in the world in which the U.S. must be prepared to act.
As for some of Mr. Woodward's observations about the president's intelligence, his supposed misapplication of funds for military preparations against Iraq, his personal relationship with God, etc.--how elitist! And strange. Remember this from JFK's inaugural address? "In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. . . . The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world." The World. It sure sounds to me like Mr. Bush is a man of his times and that his critics have lost their anchor. And their heroes.
<font size=3>
Mr. Limbaugh is a radio talk show host.
Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
