by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 30, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

utting Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz in the hot seat, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tried to answer some nagging questions about Iraq, including the justification for war and the current price tag. With phony claims about African uranium [in the State-of-the-Union speech] still dogging the White House, Wolfowitz went to Capitol Hill to stem the controversy, helping put the president's remarks to rest. Even President Bush tried to take some blame, after pointing fingers at CIA Director George J. Tenet and, more recently, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. “I take personal responsibility for everything I say, absolutely,” said Bush, at a hastily called news conference in the White House Rose Garden, also trying to end the worst public relations snafu of his administration. With his poll numbers slipping and credibility at stake, Bush took matters into his own hands.

      “Wolfy,” as he's affectionately known at the Department of Defense, fielded pointed questions, especially since his public remarks in Vanity Fair, admitting he seized on weapons of mass destruct to sell his case for war in Iraq. Though trivialized by the White House, the nuclear threat in the State-of-the-Union speech mirrored two years of unrelenting hype that Saddam was dangerously close to producing a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb. In a post 9/11 era, the nuclear threat was the most powerful argument for preemptive war. With no weapons of mass destruction in sight and soldiers falling daily, the White House is under pressure to redefine its mission. “Because of a combination of bureaucratic inertia, political caution and unrealistic expectations left over before the war, we do not appear to be confident about our course in Iraq,” said Richard O. Lugar (R-Ind.), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

      Lugar's remarks resonate with polls showing that growing numbers of people have doubts about the White House's Iraq policy. Both Wolfowitz and Budget Director Joshua Bolton fielded tough questions about the war's price tag. Sen. Joseph E. Biden (D-Del.), ranking Democrat on the committee, rejected Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's idea that the costs are “unknowable,” expecting Wolfowitz to give estimates. “Please don't waste our time or yours saying the future is simply unknowable. Pick a number. Pick and idea,” said Biden. Bolton estimated that current costs at about $4 billion a month could grow as circumstances change. Showing why he's known as a “prickly-pear,” Wolfowitz blasted Congress for not allocating $200 million in beefed up security, blaming senators for causing recent casualties, including three deaths guarding an Iraqi hospital.

      Wolfowitz and Bolton encountered growing skepticism about the White House's justification for war. He told the committee that the military was making steady progress rebuilding infrastructure, creating democratic institutions and winning over the Iraqi people, despite escalated violence since the deaths of Saddam's sons, Uday and Qusai. Even moderate committee member Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) noted the White House's “shifting justifications” for war, now citing Saddam's atrocities, war crimes and genocide. “It was a steady drumbeat of ‘weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction.' And secretary Wolfowitz, in hour almost hour-long testimony, here this morning, once—only once—did you mention weapons of mass destruction, and that was an ad lib. I don't think it's in any of your written testimony,” Chafee said, raising more doubts about the U.S. mission in Iraq.

      Most Americans supported preemptive war in Iraq to improve U.S. national security in the wake of Sept. 11. Wolfowitz returned to his talking points that “the battle to secure the peace in Iraq is now the central battle of the global war on terror,” yet met skepticism on both sides of the aisle. Before president Bush promised to use the military to “fight and win wars,” he critiqued the Clinton policy of "nation building" in Bosnia and Kosovo. At $4 billion a month, the U.S. is now embarked upon the most ambitious “nation building” since the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe after World War II. If Iraq's reconstruction is crucial to the global war on terror, Wolfowitz hasn't made his case. With all the past emphasis on weapons of mass destruction, it's time for some new talking points explaining why taxpayers should foot the bills—Wolfowitz has some explaining to do.

      Without finding weapons of mass destruction, the White House must make convincing case for spending $4 billion a month to democratize Iraq. It's not up to taxpayers to figure out the U.S. mission in Iraq. It's up to the White House to justify the enormous undertaking and continued loss of life. Strategic basing in Iraq may be necessary to neutralize a growing Iranian nuclear threat. Keeping Tehran in check requires containing Iraq's Shiite population, now threatening to dominate Iraq's new political order. “This administration has grossly exaggerated the connection between the war on terrorism and the Iraq situation,” said Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), questioning whether Iraq ever represented a real threat to U.S. national security. Instead of blaming Congress, “Wolfy” should explain how the White House's Iraq policy fits into the global war on terror.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.