| [an error occurred while processing this directive] |  |  |
 |  | |
| ||
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
 Recent commentary from National Journal: Media: The Poodle Speaks (February 19, 2003) Foreign critics are barking up the wrong tree when they complain about U.S. news media coverage of Iraq. By William Powers. Social Studies: America Can Beat Iraq. But Can It Vanquish France? (February 19, 2003) There's nothing new about France's self-defeating line. What is new is that the administration isn't buying it. By Jonathan Rauch. Legal Affairs: Perverting the Legal System: The Lead-Paint Rip-Off (February 19, 2003) No victim of lead poisoning will get a dime in compensation from Rhode Island's pending lawsuit. By Stuart Taylor Jr. Media: Tragedy Becomes Us (February 12, 2003) We don't just report the horror of tragedy anymore, we wallow in it. By William Powers. Political Pulse: Still Asking, 'Why Now?' (February 12, 2003) Less than one-third of the American public says it considers Iraq an immediate threat. By William Schneider. Legal Affairs: The Case Against the Attacks on Bush's Case for War (February 12, 2003) Some ordinarily astute Bush critics have lapsed into arguments that seem neither astute nor logically tenable. By Stuart Taylor Jr. Wealth of Nations: America Is An Empire, It Had Better Start Acting As One (February 12, 2003) America's challenge is to run the empire well, but that means first acknowledging its existence. By Clive Crook. More from National Journal. |
Political Pulse 
The Cowboy and the DiplomatTogether, Bush and Powell bring leadership and legitimacy to the U.S. policy on Iraq by William Schneider .... How often does a Cabinet member overshadow a president in stature and popularity? Rarely, but examples do come to mind: Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon, Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, George Marshall and Harry Truman, and now Colin L. Powell and George W. Bush. Bush was conscious of the parallel when he nominated Powell to be secretary of State. "In this office, he follows in the footsteps ... of one of his personal heroes, General George C. Marshall," the president-elect observed, adding, "I would say of General Powell what Harry Truman said of General Marshall: 'He is a tower of strength and common sense.' " One might also say of Bush what was said of Truman—that he feels secure enough to surround himself with people who are more knowledgeable and popular than he is. During the 2000 contest, the Bush campaign showcased Powell. It wanted to reassure voters that, as president, Bush would have a man of world experience on his team. Once Bush became president, however, Powell seemed to shrink from a leadership role. On global warming, missile defense, North Korea, and the Balkans, Powell was overshadowed by more unilateralist voices. "Where Have You Gone, Colin Powell?" asked a Time cover story dated September 10, 2001. Nowhere, as it turns out. Powell was biding his time, marshaling his resources for the issue that really counted: Iraq. Iraq is an issue on which Powell has been onboard since day one, December 16, 2000, the day he was nominated. Powell said then, "Saddam Hussein is sitting on a failed regime that is not going to be around in a few years." Bush and Powell are a strange team. One is a WASP born to wealth and privilege, a graduate of Yale and Harvard, and a corporate executive with great family connections. The other is an African-American, the son of immigrants, and a City College graduate who made his career in America's ultimate meritocracy, the army. Each man brings something crucial to the administration's Iraq policy. President Bush brings leadership. He told the U.N. General Assembly in September, "By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well." Secretary Powell brings legitimacy to a policy—pre-emptive action—that makes the rest of the world nervous. Three days after Bush laid down his challenge at the United Nations, Powell said, "We want to work within the multilateral organization that has been designed for this purpose, the U.N." He added, "The president always has the option of doing whatever he believes is necessary to defend U.S. interests." Powell also brings domestic legitimacy. In this month's Gallup Poll, Republicans are almost unanimously supportive of Bush (95 percent favorable). Most Democrats are not (38 percent favorable). Powell's standing among Republicans is comparable to Bush's (96 percent favorable). But Powell also has impressive standing with Democrats (76 percent favorable). Unlike Bush, Powell is above party. He helps make Iraq a less partisan issue. "I'd like to move the nomination of Secretary of State Powell for president of the United States," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said after Powell's U.N. testimony last week. Powell accomplished two things at the United Nations on February 5. He directly addressed the question on many Americans' minds: Why now? "Should we take the risk that [Saddam Hussein] will not some day use these weapons at a time and place and in a manner of his choosing?" Powell asked. In other words, should we wait until Saddam Hussein commits an atrocity like 9/11? By his own admission, Powell produced no "smoking gun." How could he? The United States is proposing pre-emptive action, and a "smoking gun" exists only after the crime has been committed. What Powell did produce was an impressive array of evidence to back up his central argument that "Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort—no effort—to disarm." As a result of Powell's testimony, Iraq is now presumed guilty of failing to comply with U.N. disarmament resolutions. The burden is on Iraq to prove that it will, after all, disarm. The Russians say that's so. "Iraq should be the first to be concerned about providing final clarity about the question of weapons of mass destruction," Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said. The Germans also say so. "Quite a few states suspect Saddam's regime is withholding relevant information and concealing capabilities," German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said. "This strong suspicion has to be dispelled beyond any doubt." The U.N. inspectors say so. "They need to show drastic change in terms of cooperation," declared Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. And even Democrats say so. "War or peace is now Saddam's choice," Biden said. Bush's critics have to acknowledge that despite the tough talk about going it alone, the administration has been conscientious about working to build international support. That's called teamwork, and so are the pairings of the cowboy and the diplomat and of leadership and legitimacy.
What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. Copyright © 2002 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved. | [an error occurred while processing this directive] | ||
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Back Issues |
Forum |
Site Guide |
Feedback |
Subscribe |
Search
| ||||
