IN THE COMPLEX universe of international politics, Iraqi sovereignty is what we call an overwhelming success.
We already knew that underestimating President Bush—or, “misunderestimating,” I suppose—was the practice of a fool. Yet, almost as if we’re being clandestinely controlled by an unseen force, we continue to do so on a regular basis.
Even I, certainly one of the most enthusiastic proponents of our Iraq policy, was dutifully crossing my fingers in anticipation of June 30. Surely I was optimistic about the transition, but I was also optimistic about the presidential election of 1996, and we know how well that worked out.
It was in Istanbul that Bush, along with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, learned that the handover of power had been successful. "Mr. President,” wrote his National Security Adviser in a note passed to him by Donald Rumsfeld, “Iraq is sovereign. Letter passed from Bremer at 10:26 AM Iraq time—Condi." The President read the note, grinned triumphantly, and then, with a black marker, added the glorious words, “Let Freedom Reign!” He passed the note back to the Secretary of Defense, who beamed with what was likely the splendid combination of relief and joy.
Appropriately, French President Jacques Chirac hadn’t an inkling about what had taken place until Bush announced it at the meeting.
This scene, and indeed the transition itself, can be described only as quintessential George W. Bush behavior. One might apply the word “Reaganesque” to this White House, but it goes beyond that. President Bush leads with a practical, honest optimism, and his idealism is always apparent.
Inasmuch as this kind of leadership benefits the country, the press is naturally pained by it. They need a story—and when they don’t have one, they make it up. One of their favorite make-believe themes is that Bush craves the power of mystery and secrets.
In the new book, "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush," John Dean writes that the Bush White House is “the most secretive” of his lifetime, and that it’s “truly scary…frighteningly dangerous.”
In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Michael Moore also tries to advance this perception. He solemnly reports that in the days after September 11, 2001 over 100 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the United States. This is supposed to cause audience members to gasp in astonishment, quietly take another sip of Diet Coke, and frantically rush out of the multiplex to register Democratic.
Moore is implying that while everyone else in America was sleeping in those uncomfortable airport chairs and praying for a 757 to take them home, the devious Bushies at 1600 Pennsylvania were allowing Saudi criminals to go home. In fact, however, the flights in question were perfectly legal, and were approved by Richard Clarke.
To be sure, many people could fly soon after 9/11. Aircraft from outside the U.S. were not allowed in, but we did allow flights originating in the United States to leave the country. The 142 Saudis who left the U.S. did so not because of some intricate, Machiavellian relationship between Bush and the Saudis, but because they adhered to national flight rules at the time.
The left truly has a fixation with this “secrecy” nonsense. Sometimes you’ll find yourself having what you thought was a reasonable conversation, and then the liberal in the room will suddenly start spewing statistics about how many news conferences Bush has given, compared to every other president in the last fifty years.
So it was fairly predictable that The New York Times would label the handover in Iraq “secretive.” And in fact they did. In a Tuesday editorial entitled, “A Secretive Transfer in Iraq,” The Times called the handover “hollow and uncertain,” and said it happened under “a veil of secrecy and a tight security lockdown.”
No one, least of all The Times, knows what the future of Iraq will hold. But we can be confident that President Bush is doing what he believes is right. Even if his plan fails, and there’s no indication that it will, it will be superior to the plan of his opponents. For while we’ve been underestimating Bush for the last three years, we’ve been overestimating Democrats for the last fifty.
© Copyright 2004 by Isaiah Z. Sterrett
