Peggy Noonan: Just the Facts

Opinion Journal ^ | 01/27/03 | Peggy Noonan

[Pokey78]

Nothing personal, Mr. President: How to make the case against Saddam.

Nothing is more beautiful, more elevating, more important in a speech than fact and logic. People thinks passionate and moving oratory is the big thing, but it isn't. The hard true presentation of facts followed by a declaration of how we must deal with those facts is the key. Without a recitation of hard data, high rhetoric seems insubstantial, vaguely disingenuous, merely dramatic. Without a logical case to support rhetoric has nothing to do. It's like icing without cake.

[Wait4Truth]

I am going to comment before reading the replies of others and I may be a minority voice on this article. That's ok with me. Peggy Noonan doesn't get it any more than many of the talking heads do - or, she is so worried that President Bush will outshine President Reagan that she is refusing to face the reality of what IS. By the way, she has been criticized in the past and to this day for not wanting anything or anyone to ever upstage her hero, President Reagan. That is a worthy goal since he is a remarkable man and was a wonderful president.

On the other hand, it may cloud her views. She has been nit-picking President Bush for awhile now. Is she afraid of something? She has taken to using psycho-babble to analyze what he thinks, why he thinks it and why he is who he is. I have been offended at some of her comments recently.

So now, she thinks he must reveal his smoking guns even if it means the lives of sources. She thinks he needs to lay all the facts on the table NOW...even if we are not militarily ready...even if the timing is not right. This is foolish. And revealing the conversation her friend had with the President was wrong.

President Bush, as she says, knows things the rest of us don't know. Yet instead of trusting him on this, she tells him what he MUST do. She wonders aloud if this is just personal with him since Saddam tried to kill his father (who just happened to be a former president of the United States). She sounds no different than the liberal talking heads and senators that say the President has made no case.

This President will do what is right when the time is right. It will not be decided on the daily polls or the opinions of France or Germany, Paul Begala, bill and hillary clinton, or tom daschle. Period.

[John O]

It leaves the world and the American people wondering if Mr. Bush isn't a little too hot, too quick on the draw, too personal in his handling of international challenges.

I think that he is far too slow on the draw. I wanted the nukes to start falling on the entire arab world on Sept 12, 2001. We knew the arab muslems did it, why are we waiting.

President Bush is fighting this war through a one country at a time cleansing process. Taking out each terrorist sponsor in order, and hopefully converting them to Christianity in the process (Ann Coulter, as always, was right). He is doing it exactly the right way.

I'm far more impatient than he is. I would have nuked them all and let God sort them out.

This war will end only when islam no longer plagues the earth. Islam is the enemy

[Carolinamom]

Peggy has been off form for some time now IMHO.

[joesbucks]

Sometimes the White House will find "friendly" pundits to run trial balloons through. Thus even though it appears that Noonan is telling the pres what to do she may be doing the advance work of White House as to what will work and what won't.

Done all the time.

[joesbucks]

There may be an element of hero worship and trying to protect Reagan. And you are right, Noonan does go to great legnths to further Reagan's legacy.

But remember, even this White House uses polls and other barometers to gauge what the public thinks and how to "frame the debate". I've even had this conversation with Rush......since he so much decried Slick on his use of polling. Sure, it's not so blatant and obvioius, but it exists. Even El Rushbo complains about it from time to time.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Bush still has not yet made a good case that many 'average Americans' accept. Facts, as she suggests, should do that...

Here's a fact: ~ Iraq is in material breach of Resolution 1441.

Iraq is: ~lying (we don't have no stinkin' WMD) ~ playing a cat and mouse game with inspectors and NOT proactively proving its weapons have been destroyed ~ and threateneing its scientists and their families with death if they speak to inspectors alone.

In short, Iraq has spit all over Resolution 1441 ~ and material breach means war.

[Quilla]

Bush still has not yet made a good case that many 'average Americans' accept.

I respectfully disagree. After listening to the President's address to the UN (and re-reading it several times), I'm convinced from that one speech alone. The American public has been inundated with anti-war rhetoric from the leftist media. Huge protests staged by communists are being reported as reflecting the passions of average Americans. Anytime a conservative government offical makes a statement, the statement is merely repeated by the media followed by lengthy interviews from the President's political opponents. IMHO, the media is responsible for most of the anti-war opinions in this country and abroad.

[Wait4Truth]

I'm sure President Bush sees the polling data but it's quite obvious that he is not governed by it. If he were, he would let this inspections sham continue for months and months, as the American public thinks it wants. If he was governed by polls, he would give in to world opinion which views him as a mad cowboy, as one who wishes to take over the world. He has been called every name in the book by other countries and also has bill and hillary clinton bashing him on a daily basis about his foreign policy. He is standing firm. When he is ready and the military is ready, he will go.

By the way, bill clinton said today that he was held back when gore was running but now he will show the Dems how to beat the Republicans and Bush. He intends to trash the President throughout the next two years to damage him as much as possible. When has a former president ever done such a thing? The media will love it and will side with him. It will be interesting to see how the Bush team deals with this constant barrage...will also be interesting to see how the public views this. Will they find it unseemly or will they embrace him? We will see how much the public has really changed, if at all.

[baseballmom]

... he has been having some trouble sleeping, and that when he awakes in the morning the first thing he often thinks is: I wonder if this is the day Saddam will do it.

"Do what exactly?" I asked my friend. He told me he understood the president to be saying that he wonders if this will be the day Saddam launches a terror attack here, on American soil.

This segment jumped out at me. Why would this person reveal a conversation filled with such frightful implications to Peggy? A true and trusted confidant of the President wouldn't ever reveal something of this magnitude. And, I don't think GWB is so careless with his remarks in front of those not in the immediate loop.

I object to Peggy so callously dismissing a "source or operation". Those sources are precious Americans whose lives are on the line. Their blood is just as red and dear as Peggy's. What they do could end up saving many thousands of lives. We should compromise them so that a relative few whining libs will come to agree with the President? No. They are never going to agree with President Bush no matter what he says or does. Bush is the bad guy, America is the imperial Great Satan and nothing is going to change their minds.

Blame America first - it's hip, it's cool, it plays well to the elite. My bottom line is, do I trust this President? Yes, I do. The whining Blame America Firsters appear to trust Saddam more than our own President.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up! As you know, I have agreed with you from the beginning that the anthrax attacks were tied to Saddam and that it was a shot across the bow.

I don't believe Bush has done anything out of fear but rather, determination; the people can't handle the truth of their own imminent peril at the hands of a biochem attack. IMHO, they would panic.

But in the time from then to now, our intelligence capabilities have been renewed from the ashes, our smart bomb inventories rebuilt, new methods developed, vaccines and treatments put in place (here, U.K. and Israel), emergency systems readied, and the military honed and ready.

Bush is a careful man and always underestimated. But I see no fear in him.

[William McKinley]

I tend to agree with Peggy on this piece. I understand what you are saying, and it may be true that she is overprotective of the Reagan legacy. But at the same time, one of Reagan's great strengths was in communicating to the public (hence his nickname of "The Great Communicator"), and Peggy was a part of that, so when she speaks of what the public needs to hear, I tend to give her the benefit of the doubt. Plus, what she says here simply makes sense to me. His speech to the UN was fantastic because it was logical and passionate and clearly spelled things out with facts that could not be simply dismissed. His SOTU speech would do well to follow that template.

[Sacajaweau]

Giving away evidence is the same as giving away sources. We know we have lost a few guys thanks to "leaks". If you don't think this is war and don't believe in "classified" information, then we might as well just turn ourselves over to the rule of these "insane dictators".

[OldBlondBabe]

"I think a lot of the time we as Americans have very short attention spans.

...and very short memories.

[Dog Gone]

If President Bush plans to reveal what some would term a "smoking gun" regarding Iraq, tomorrow night is not the time to do it. The time to do it would be in his address to the nation from the Oval Office 15 minutes after the first cruise missiles are fired.

If he revealed it tomorrow night, Saddam would know that the game is over and that war is inevitable. At that point, Saddam might as well use his WMD.

It's important to have Saddam still thinking that he's successfully delaying an attack clear up to the very moment when a cruise missile lands on his head.

[Charlie OK]

I agree with Noonan, to a point. I do think President Bush needs to clearly spell out why we are justified in attacking Iraq so that people that think we are being a bully will hear the truth. But I do not think he should say something that would reveal intelligence that we have gathered.

I have thought for a long time that he would be most effective if he were to clearly explain Resolution 1441, what it says Iraq must do and why, and how Saddam is not holding up his end of the deal. Basically hold people's hands and guide them through what is exactly going on. This would do the most to combat those anti-war people who think this is "all about oil", IMHO. What do you think?

[Wordsmith]

I don't believe Bush has done anything out of fear but rather, determination; the people can't handle the truth of their own imminent peril at the hands of a biochem attack. IMHO, they would panic.

I'd like to believe that the American people could handle the truth and not panic, but sadly enough would probably freak out to make it a genuine crisis.

Heard the last seconds of an NPR interview with Andy Card this morning. He said something I hadn't heard before. To paraphrase, he said that terrorists hope to unleash anarchy in America and that it's the President's solemn duty to do whatever he can to prevent anarchy. He said the word "anarchy" twice.

What other than a domestic bioterror attack, or the threat of one, could provoke anarchy? If the administration genuinely considers anarchy a real possibility, than it would certainly choose to be very careful about what it said. And thus, I creep closer to the "full Satan". ;-)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! You have the perfect handle, Wordsmith, for you have seamlessly conveyed the importance of the matter.

Thank you for the information on the interview! It does fit nicely with this analysis of the situation!

[Wordsmith]

Well, thank you, but I may have spoken too soon. Perhaps anarchy can be provoked in America by even more trivial events. Here's the lead sentence from another thread... ;-)

Anarchy broke out on the streets of Oakland Sunday night when beefed- up police forces proved inadequate to stem eruptions of mayhem after the Raiders' loss in the Super Bowl.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post! Indeed, sports and race riots have been known to break out here and there. A biochem riot would be widespread as people would rush the doctors and hospitals insisting on treatment. The will to survive is quite selfish.

[Wordsmith]

I think you've hit the nail on the head with "the will to survive". However, I think the most difficult manifestation for the US to cope with would be mass exodus from urban centers. It wouldn't take long for people to realize - in either the event of a major attack or even just in the event of a widespread acknowledgement of the risk of one - that doctors and hospitals can do little for them. If people just up and leave - pack the kids in the car, take all their cash out of the bank, and head for the hills - then you could see major economic collapse. Businesses will shut down because employees won't show up for work. It would take a serious manifestation of a kind of herd mentality to drum up this kind of panic, but it could happen.