Orwellian Left Toying with Language

By Jim Stebinger

For at least a month I have been watching with mixed amusement and anger as the American Left has spent its time trying to weasel out of support for the proposed attack on Iraq.

The latest contribution is Frank Gruber's have-it-both-ways -and-have-it-no-way attempt to wriggle out of the noose of fact. ("WHAT I SAY: War, Peace and Tourism," Feb. 17)

The second paragraph of his recent column is a dubious masterpiece. The late George Orwell spent a great deal of time skewering such examples of sloppy thinking and linguistic abuse.

Gruber attempts to argue that there are two "wars" proposed, one just, one unjust. The bad one is essentially the action proposed by the Administration, the good one is one sanctioned by the UN.

Gruber would support the "just" assault but is worried that he won't get the chance because the "unjust" one is what he is going to get. His terms for a "just" conflict are, coincidentally and conveniently, impossible to arrange. In fact he asks for a sanction from the same UN that has recently tapped Libya to chair the human rights committee and Iraq, yes, that Iraq to chair the disarmament committee.

Moreover, he insists on waiting until all peaceful means have been exhausted -- as they already have been. This is a wonderful internal self-contradiction because the left has long been upset by the already imposed sanctions which they say only hurt women and children. More inspections more time equals more sanctions more hurt. This fact is now conveniently ignored.

More importantly, Gruber derides Administration policy based on a series of key misstatements, close to knowing falsehoods, which he uses to describe the administration's careful buildup of policy. He begins his loose recitation of fact by alleging that President Bush is "unilateral" in his efforts to disarm Saddam.

If Great Britain were our only support at the very least it is a bilateral venture. Actually, there may be as many as 40 countries in our coalition, right now, ranging from willing and enthusiastic to reluctant at best. Slovakia and Australia reportedly have committed troops. I believe Canada is also militarily involved -- as they have been in Afghanistan, at the cost of valiant Canadian lives. There are the 16 of 19 members of NATO, including poor almost abandoned Turkey. The European Union has, like Gruber, tried to have it both ways, but at least they have told Saddam time is running out.

There are Moslem countries that have, reluctantly and with public distance, permitted over flights and even the stationing of troops. This is by no means a unilateral venture. Nor, more than one year in the making, with every conceivable diplomat (even the Pope) enlisted, is it somehow an unseemly rush. The unfortunate fact is Saddam is no more likely to budge today than he was in 1991.

The Orwellian left is toying with language implying that reluctant support or support from less-powerful countries somehow doesn't count. It must be remembered that this nation is one of the few with the power and the will to make this kind of coalition assault possible. It is also true that some countries, particularly ones with large fundamentalist Islamist minorities, are caught between the devil that is Saddam and the devil that is alliance with us.

More important is Gruber's implicit assumption that the US has no authority to attack Iraq. Since I am not a lawyer, much less an expert on UN resolutions I am forced to leave that questions to experts -- experts such as former President Clinton's UN Ambassador, who spoke a few nights ago on Nightline.

He said three things: 1) Our current Secretary of State had handled Resolution 1441 with masterful diplomacy. 2) Resolution 1441 is all we need to legally justify an attack. 3) Efforts to convince a reluctant Security Council are wholly unnecessary and probably counterproductive.

This means the Administration has passed all diplomatic and legal challenges. Diplomacy simply will not work with Saddam. It never has. Orwell would probably note that none of the "anti-war" protests have demanded Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions, nor were they very much in evidence when he attacked Iran or even Kuwait.

Gruber then goes on to argue that the Administration has not convinced anyone that Saddam has WMD or is a threat to us or his neighbors. For now we shall forget that this directly contradicts his last paragraph in which he gives a partial list of Saddam's transgressions that already includes two invasions and a slew of attempted genocides.

We will also forget that the Administration has been at pains to establish a case and that case did in fact impress at least one of California's US Senators. I guess that is two of us.

I have noted with amusement that the Left is now in the position of indirectly defending one of the worst mass murderers of this generation. If the Left were consistent, the GreenPeace/NOW Brigade would be joining the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in military history. Or at least they would have the decency to demand he disarm.

As usual, there is a hint that Administration policy is wrong because it is "preemptive." This is plain nonsense. Militarily, you can be pre-emptive in two ways. First is the surprise attack. No one in his right mind could possibly call the well-telegraphed proposed assault on Saddam a surprise.

Once you have been attacked, however, preemption is vital, even necessary. In fact, all military action after hostilities begin is in effect pre-emptive because it is designed to counter the next anticipated move by the attacker.

President Bush has been clear since 9/11 that Iraq is considered a real and continuing threat. Saddam Hussein has so far been reluctant at best in his compliance with the UN - compliance being, by the way, the surest way to call off the proposed attack.

Don't forget that Saddam is a suspect in an attempted murder of former President Bush. State sponsored murder of American leaders, past or present, calls for the greatest response possible. It is as direct an attack on us as was 9/11. Saddam is also very much a suspect in both attacks on the World Trade Center.

The Left carries on as if there were no threat from Saddam at the same time acknowledging the reality of his past. It is this internal contradiction that so frequently damages their arguments.

Gruber also implicitly dismisses the synergy of the case against Saddam. For more than 12 years Saddam has evaded UN resolutions. He is a career criminal on his ninth strike. His past behavior leaves one to suspect there is little crime he wouldn't turn his hand too. I believe there are probably one dozen reasons, good reasons, to justify an attack now. They add up and continue to add up.

I am one of many Americans who believes in a deep and powerful connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. If you doubt this, consider that Iraq is one of the few nations not to offer condolences to America after 9/11. Listen to the recent statements of Osama bin Laden, which are evidently authentic.

I am indebted to the Wall Street Journal for pointing out recently that the state controlled news media of Iraq has not only praised Osama as far back as July 2001 but in several instances offered scenarios in which the Iraqis would assist him.

In one instance in early 2001 the Iraqi media made a reference to Frank Sinatra to the effect he (Sinatra) would soon sing a different tune. It is a very strange reference and makes little sense unless Iraqi journalists were referring to Sinatra's songs about Chicago and New York, both of which were either attacked or targeted. This clearly implies prior Iraqi knowledge of 9/11.

How can that be? There are lots of Iraqi fingerprints on both attacks on the World Trade center, including the strong suspicion that some of more than 500 Kuwaitis who disappeared after the Gulf War were murdered for their identities. The name of one of these dead people has been used by a man almost certainly an Iraqi operative who has ties to both attacks on the World Trade Center. Enough to go to court? Perhaps not, but certainly important in the synergy of the mountainous case against the Hussein regime.

Recently, a former Iraqi scientist and dissident said that Saddam not only has chemical and biological weapons hidden deep underground, but has plans to smuggle them to supporters abroad. Both Saddam and Osama have as primary goals the eviction of the US from Saudi Arabia and the destruction of that flawed monarchy in order to further their admittedly different goals. I hope you remember just how far Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin would walk hand-in-hand in the furtherance of their goals.

Finally, Gruber claims the Administration has no plans for the future of Iraq. This is nonsense. For months the Administration has been attempting to enlist exiled Iraqis as a government-in-exile. The rebuilding of a nation torn by dictatorship is not easy, witness Russia after the Soviet Union or continuing efforts in Afghanistan. On Nightline Wednesday night an Iraqi family was profiled whose father has been approached by the government to help with the transition.

Perhaps Gruber's column reflects a genuine uncertainty of mind. He is, after all, highly critical of the lock-step thinking of our own City Council, which, he argues, was so eager to condemn Administration policy that it didn't even bother to comprehend which resolution was on the table.

I have long suspected that if Orwell were alive he would be an avid reader of council transcripts, which contain many gems of double and triple think. Unfortunately, I don't believe Frank Gruber has held his own thoughts to the same standard to which he holds theirs.

As a nation we now face severe challenges and mounting global threats. We may or may not attack Iraq but with the case against war based on such shoddy and deceptive use of language, and such deceptive thinking and reluctance to face facts then my faith is in the Administration and its careful, logical and precise thinking.

Jim Stebinger has been an occasional contributor to The Lookout, having covered police and legal issues.