The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Iraq as in Wreck

7.22.03 @ 12:01AM

THE CORRY WARS
Re: John Corry's A Historic Blunder:

For many years I have with fondness and interest read The American Spectator, and John Corry's Presswatch column in particular. I write this cautionary note with utmost friendliness to Mr. Corry, re his piece of 21 July 2003 (excellent, as usual). He concedes rather more than is necessary, I think, in saying we have no proof that "Iraq was working hand in glove with Al Qaeda" or that "none (of Iraq's WMD) has been found".

I've seen pieces on the Weekly Standard's website over the past couple of months that suggest just the opposite. A WS writer noted that the New York Times itself ran an anti-U.S. story that blamed us for Iraqis having poisoned themselves with radiation. Seems that civilians had entered a nuclear site and swiped drums to use for water storage. The takers dumped out the uranium (!) the drums contained. The story opined (I don't recall if that was the Times or the Standard) that the uranium discovered would have by itself provided more than sufficient material to produce radioactive (or "dirty") bombs for detonation. No WMD?

Likewise, the Standard has at least twice run stories about a Baghdad newspaper's naming an Iraqi intelligence officer assigned to liase with Osama bin Laden. This publication occurred in 2002, as I recall, long after 11 Sep 01. As the paper was run by one of Saddam Hussein's sons for Saddam's benefit (and his version of the truth), may we not take Hussein's interest in bin Laden's work as a given? If Great Britain could go to war over seaman Jenkins' ear being sliced off, I should think that Iraq's own admission of official connection to Al Qaeda and possession of terrorist training grounds (e.g. Salman Pak) gives us sufficient causa bellum. The esteemed Senator Levin ought to be asked the question: what provocation he thinks we would need to go to war. He seems to believe that hijacked airliners, thousands of citizens dead, and direct attacks on our national command authorities don't make the cut.

Please accept this letter as encouragement from an engaged reader, not meaning in any way to be picky or combative. Keep fighting the good fight of faith for truth in our public press.
-- David James Hanson
Fayette, Iowa

John Corry's "A Historic Blunder" is historic blather. He wrings his hands about the "deteriorating situation" in Iraq that the unthinking ideologues in the Bush administration have gotten us into. The problem is, things aren't deteriorating. Security is improving, basic services are largely restored, the establishment of a new Iraqi government is moving forward. Yes, there are still some old regime holdouts shooting at us, but the fact that they are inflicting one or two more casualties a week than they were a few weeks ago doesn't constitute a "deteriorating situation." The only "deterioration" going on is in the stateside PR war, thanks largely to the-sky-is-falling journalists like Corry, and the mainstream press that headline the news of every solitary military death with "CASUALTIES CONTINUE TO MOUNT."

Corry misrepresents the past, as well as the present. He says that the "insular conservative journalists" and administration "ideologues" are changing their tune when they say "the U.S. is in Iraq for the long haul." From the beginning, the Bush administration has been quite clear that part of "regime change" was going to be helping the Iraqi's create a new democratic government. Did Corry think that meant a commitment of four months?

Corry has ridiculed "insular conservatives" for promoting the vision of a new democratic Iraq giving impetus for a freer, more modern, more prosperous, and less terror-ridden Middle East. But how can he argue that people with this vision did not foresee a long-term U.S. commitment in Iraq? His burning desire to call the Iraq war a failure seems to override his ability to represent the positions of his ideological opponents correctly.

Finally, Corry states that administration figures "seem to be modifying, or even reversing, their old positions" in proclaiming that the reason behind going to war in Iraq -- or, more correctly, the WMD portion of the reason behind going to war in Iraq -- was not based on "dramatic new evidence." Apparently, the insular Mr. Corry wasn't listening very carefully in the months leading up to the war. The heart of the WMD argument was, and always has been, the unaccounted for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that the UN and world intelligence organizations knew Iraq had when UN inspectors left the country in 1998.

It is Corry, not "insular conservative journalists," whose grasp on reality is shaky.
-- Brandon Crocker
San Diego, CA

Corry's article was perhaps rejected by the New York Times first?

I mean really -- it trots out the same tired arguments dolts like Graham and Daschle have been blathering about for six months now.

The single question Mr. Corry should ponder is why, if there are no WMDs, Saddam chose to go down rather than open his country to prove he didn't have them.

A pox on Mr. Corry. Fortunately a stinker or two every so often does not mar your otherwise fine political coverage.
-- W.

Mr. Corry's article on the continuing Iraq flap has some substance but it really misses the point of the whole thing. The point being that Saddam had to be removed because he posed a threat to the entire region there, more so than his fellow gangsters in Afghanistan, and his partner in crime Bin Laden. He also posed a serious threat to this nation due to the fact that our current environmental laws have made us very dependent on that region's oil. There are other factors also but the aforementioned ones will suffice for now.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Foreign Policy, Television, Environment, Movies, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Israel, NATO, Oil