The surreal world of “Baghdad Jim” McDermott.
In a political climate where Democrats everywhere — from Harry Reid to Barbara Boxer — face a political tsunami, one member of the party faithful remains safe from the storm, set to cruise easily to yet another reelection. That Democrat is Jim McDermott, who ought to be forever known as “Baghdad Jim,” and for reasons that, in a sane universe, would forever keep him from being reelected. Only in a congressional district like Washington state’s District 7 — dominated by wealthy, white Seattle liberals — could this be possible.
So protected is McDermott that there isn’t even a Republican running against him, and the independent challenger, Bob Jeffers-Schroder, is on record conceding “there is no way” he will defeat McDermott. “I’m not at all concerned with trying to win,” says Jeffers-Schroder.
Perhaps that’s a badge of honor. Given McDermott’s views and actions, and, nonetheless, repeated massive re-election, who would want the approval of these voters?
There are many ways to illustrate McDermott’s wild liberalism, but one case continues to say it all. It was September 2002. The Bush administration was making its case and preparing America and the world for war in Iraq. So, three anti-war Democrat congressmen traveled to Iraq, hoping to dissuade military action. They were Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. David Bonior (D-Mich.), and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.).
All three were predictable anti-war, anti-Bush votes. If Saddam Hussein was fishing for suckers, McDermott and Bonior in particular would be among the very best candidates in Congress. McDermott, in particular, was primed.
Naturally, Saddam’s aides could not wait to get a microphone in front of McDermott. More than that, they had a studio ready. And it was there, on September 29, 2002, that the Iraqi government eagerly positioned McDermott for an interview with ABC News’ “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.
Right on cue, McDermott mouthed the Iraqi Baathist Party line. When Stephanopoulos asked McDermott if he stood by his claim that President Bush “will lie to the American people in order to get us into war,” the congressman held firm: “I think the president would mislead the American people.” The Seattle congressman deduced that Bush and his administration would “give out misinformation.”
When Stephanopoulos asked for evidence, McDermott simply reaffirmed his conviction that the president was a deceiver. Stephanopoulos, a former top Clinton aide, was surprised when McDermott suspended the same suspicion toward his endearing hosts in Iraq. After all, Saddam had lied for decades. And yet, whereas Bush allegedly operated on duplicity, McDermott said of Saddam and his regime: “I think you have to take the Iraqis on their face value.”
Part of that “face value,” said McDermott, was for the Bush administration to understand that Saddam, after a decade-plus of obstructing U.N. inspectors, was now suddenly supportive of “unfettered inspections.” The Iraqis, added McDermott, had given him “assurances” of that.
The three congressmen were a hit in Iraq. Every stop on their goodwill tour was circulated by Saddam’s Ministry of Information, which published their itinerary in government-controlled newspapers, television, radio, and on the ministry’s website in both Arabic and English. As Stephen Hayes reported at the time, these stories were headlined on front-pages and news broadcasts; they ran aside other celebratory Iraqi news items, such as stories on the “criminal Bush,” on U.S. “war crimes” against Iraqi children, on how the “U.S. embargo” starved Iraqi infants and killed seniors, on non-stop U.S. military “war waging” around the world, on heroic Palestinian suicide bombers, and how Jews were responsible for 9/11.
It was quite a display. Even friendly news sources in America seemed embarrassed by the congressmen. A CNN reporter asked McDermott if he minded being exploited for propaganda by Saddam’s tyrannical regime. “If being used means that we’re highlighting the suffering of Iraqi children, or any children,” replied the congressman, “then, yes, we don’t mind being used.”
McDermott’s fellow Democrats, from the head of the DNC to Bill Clinton to John Kerry to leading members of Congress like Dick Gephardt, Barney Frank, and even Nancy Pelosi, were stunned, some into complete silence, others into brief replies of “no comment.”
And the congressman wasn’t finished. Upon his return from Iraq, speaking on PBS’s “News Hour,” McDermott said Congress was faced with a war authorization that was really about whether “the United States can decide to wipe out another country’s leader whenever we don’t like them.” The interviewer, Gwen Ifill, was compelled to ask McDermott to respond to the charge that he had been “an apologist for Saddam Hussein.” McDermott said that those making such accusations “are stupid.”
So blatant and successful had been the manipulation by Saddam that conservatives around the country began derisively calling McDermott “Baghdad Jim.” But even they could not have known just how badly McDermott and friends had been rolled.
As the Associated Press would report six years later in a March 2008 story, based on the verdict of federal prosecutors, Saddam’s intelligence agency had “secretly financed” (AP’s words) the trip by the three U.S. lawmakers. Prosecutors determined that the trip was arranged by a Middle Easterner in Detroit, named Muthanna Al-Hanooti, who was charged with setting up the trip “at the behest of Saddam’s regime.” Iraqi intelligence officials, prosecutors learned, reportedly paid for the trip through an intermediary, and rewarded Al-Hanooti with two million barrels of Iraqi oil.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?