It didn't take long.
That is, for Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic leader in the House of Representatives,
to run for cover. Days after her colleagues selected her to replace Dick "I'm
Outta Here" Gephardt, Pelosi appeared on Meet The Press. Out of the box,
Russert asked her about recent news reports on the increasing threat posed by
a resurgent al Qaeda. Pelosi, the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee,
confirmed the "threat is real" and added, "We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with
the President in the fight against terrorism." Is a new attack inevitable? Russert
wondered. "That certainly is a possibility," she replied, and added, "We stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with the president."
Clearly, she had inherited page one from Gephardt's playbook: regarding terrorism,
handcuff yourself to Bush. Russert asked if Pelosi supported the policy of monitoring
Iraqis who are in the United States. She did not answer directly, and Russert,
in his way, kept pushing. She remarked she was not familiar with the details of
this particular initiative, but asserted, "I stand with the president in rooting
out terrorism."
Russert turned to the subject of war in Iraq. He noted that Pelosi, who had
voted against authorizing Bush to launch a war against Iraq whenever he wants,
had said in September, "I have not seen the intelligence to justify the action
that the president is suggesting....What is the threat that [Saddam] poses to
the United States?" Russert then queried her, "Do you think that the situation
with Iraq is a distraction from the war on terrorism?"
Her reply: "I don't think its a distr--I mean, any decision--I don't question
a decision of the president of the United States on his timing or on the priority
he gives a threat." But wasn't that precisely what she had done in the remark
Russert had quoted? And hadn't she taken issue with Bush's priorities by voting
against the resolution? If she believed there was no justification for action
against Saddam, then she would have to consider a war against Saddam as something
of a distraction. On national television, she was undressing politically--and
undermining her previous stand and the arguments of fellow Democrats who had joined
with her in opposing the it's-up-to-Bush war legislation.
Pelosi caved further. Russert asked what she would do if Bush declared that
Saddam was thwarting inspections and ordered military action without consulting
the United Nations. "If our young people are called to duty, certainly we'll support
the action of the president," Pelosi answered. "I hope that it does not come to
that." She commented that she preferred the conflict be resolved "diplomatically
rather than just showing our power by going in militarily."
Had she given Bush a go-to-war-free card by signaling that she and other Democrats
would not stand in the way should Bush decide to attack Iraq without support from
allies? Russert tightened the knot: "But if the president decides to go unilaterally
or with the British and the Turks without UN approval, you would support the president?"
"Yes, I would support the president," Pelosi replied. At least, she dropped
the bit about standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the guy. But where was the intellectual
honesty? If, in her mind, the case has not been made that Saddam is a threat to
the United States, why back a unilateral move? And why permit Bush--whose credibility
she had previously challenged--to make the call on his own? Moments earlier, Pelosi
had noted she fears a US strike against Iraq will have negative consequences for
the war on terrorism. Consequently, in the event Bush does order such a war, it
should be incumbent upon Pelosi, as someone whose job it is to protect Americans,
to argue that a misguided action is under way. That, of course, would be a challenge,
for extensive pro-war sentiment usually accompanies the initiation of military
action. But with the position she has adopted, Pelosi doesn't have to fret in
advance about being rolled. Instead, she is ready to salute.
Here is the Pelosi position: I'll argue with Bush over this life-and-death
matter, but I won't criticize him if he makes a wrong decision that I believe
imperils the nation, in fact, I'll endorse it. This is the sort of opposition
that a president need not worry about.
David Corn is Washington editor of The Nation magazine.
Copyright © 2002 The Nation
###
