Worst Safire Ever?

It would be fair to say that we at LGM may use the “Worst. . . Ever?” form a bit too liberally. Indeed, I think I’m probably more guilty of this than either Scott or Dave. The “Worst. . .Ever” form comes, of course, from Simpsons episode 4F12, The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show, where in response to the first “Poochie” episode, Comic Book Guy utters the immortal phrase “Worst Episode Ever.” The Lefarkins Collective began using the form even before we had a blog, typically in response to David Brooks columns. Our usage has spread to Bill Safire and, of course, Mickey Kaus.

Also, as Ezra Klein notes, it is perhaps past time for mockery of Bill Safire. He’s old, he’s crazy, and he’s about to retire. I can see the argument for letting him stumble blissfully into the sunrise. However, I see a much better argument for not letting the halo of retirement obscure the mendacity of his columns.

Thus. . .

Bill Safire’s December 20 column purports to suggest a sequel to Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America. In this world, President Bush decides not to invade Iraq, but rather to follow Colin Powell’s advice and continue the sanctions regime. Disaster results:

Dissolve to a scene in a Tikrit palace where Saddam lays out his plan to (a) amass billions through a U.N. oil-for-food scam and his secret oil pipeline to Syria, (b) increase contacts with Al Qaeda, (c) take leadership of the Arab world by developing W.M.D. or pretending to have them already, and (d) openly challenging Bush.

Great. It’s good to note that Bill finally seems to have admitted to himself that Al Qaeda and Iraq didn’t have much in the way of contacts in the 1990s; I seem to remember that he more or less believed that Mohammed Atta and Tariq Aziz were blood brothers prior to 9/11. He also argued, several times, that Al Qaeda was essentially a creation of Iraqi intelligence, and that as soon as we tore open the files we’d find that Saddam’s intel services were running Al Qaeda agents. It would be hard to “increase contacts with Al Qaeda” if that were the case, so Bill must have mellowed at least a bit on that question. Also, since no meaningful contacts existed, pretty much any communication at all could be interpreted as “increased contact.” It’s also good to see that Bill has given up on the WMD, as I was getting a bit worried. Of course, it would be bloody difficult for Saddam to take leadership of the Arab world with his non-existent WMD, since he was in a much weaker (and far more reviled) position in 2003 than he was in 1990, and he wasn’t leader of the Arab world back then. . . It’s also pretty unclear why Saddam would want to challenge Bush, since his primary motivation, we now know, was winning back US cooperation against Iran.

Back in D.C., at a critical go-no-go meeting in the Situation Room, Bush sides with Powell not to invade Iraq. Wolfowitz enters with news of a shoot-down of our “Northern Watch” aircraft by Iraq. Kofi Annan, on CNN, asks: What do we expect – the U.S. flies over sovereign Iraqi territory. Bush decides against his aides’ audacious regime-change proposal, and chooses a restrained, Clintonian pinprick response with cruise missiles.

Having gloriously faced down the U.S. – and gaining greater financial and weaponry strength every day – Saddam becomes an iconic, heroic figure in the Arab and Muslim world. Through massive kickbacks and smuggling operations involving France, Russia and China, the murderous despot ensures U.N. protection from inspections. Free from fear of retaliation, Saddam offers safe haven in Iraq to bin Laden and followers seeking a center of operations.

Since the overflight program was in part sponsored by the UN, it would be curious of Kofi Annan to make such an argument. The “gaining greater financial and weaponry strength every day” is really the rich part; it’s clear to everyone but Bill that Hussein’s military strength was waning every day. It’s also unclear that shooting down a US aircraft and surviving would make Saddam a regional hero. Check that; it’s pretty clear that such an action would not make him a hero. Saddam survived cruise missile strikes in 1993 and 1998, and never acquired the mantle of heroism. As for the Al Qaeda part, what can I say? I’m sure that Saddam, always committed to his own survival above all else, would have given safe refuge to the one group of people who would guarantee a US invasion. . .

Cut to Libya, where Qaddafi has purchased nuclear know-how and fissionable material from corrupt Pakistani scientists. The Libyan dictator shifts his fear of the U.S. to fear and envy of Iraq, and presses ahead to produce a nuclear bomb of his own. Intermediate-range missiles being shipped to him from North Korea are seized at sea by Israel.

Yeah. Well, we’ve talked about this before, no need to rehash at length. Qaddafi figured out a long time ago that Libya’s future was as a part of the international community, not as a pariah. This is why he started working on bettering relations with the US and the UK back in the 1990s. . .

The terrified royal families of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait demand that the U.S. and European nations station troops in their countries to act as a tripwire against Saddam’s longtime lust for their oil and from bin Laden’s vengeance. Bush, having rejected reforms to make our forces more mobile, is forced to decline. Europe, furious at the U.S. for failure to fulfill the leadership responsibilities of a superpower, passes. The U.N. resolves it is seized with concern.

OPEC, with Iraq’s shrewd acquiescence, retaliates by doubling oil prices, its price-gouging supported by Russia’s oil cartel, which triggers Western-world recession. Egypt, seeking protection from Saddam, merges with nuclear-armed Libya, and both embrace Islamism.

Uh, Bill, the US already had forces positioned in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to act as a tripwire; this is one of the reasons cited by Paul Wolfowitz for invading Iraq. Also, I’m wondering at precisely what level OPEC could have set oil prices such that they would trigger a world recession. Perhaps Bill missed the memo that said it was no longer a good idea for proponents to talk about how much invading Iraq was going to reduce oil prices. As for the political merger between Libya and Egypt, and their subsequent conversion to Islamism, I would have to say that this makes fine fodder for a alt-history novel; Harry Turtledove should start work immediately.

In early 2004, a Wilsonian Democrat bursts upon the political scene. He wins the Iowa caucuses on the slogan “Send Our Boys Abroad,” conducts a campaign inspiring us to extend freedom throughout the world, and routs the G.O.P.’s equivocating wimp in the White House. As president-elect, he emulates F.D.R. in wartime by appointing Republicans Rumsfeld to State and Wolfowitz to Defense, overthrows Saddam, wins the terror war – and the Plot Against America, Part II, is foiled.

Hmm. Someone wins the Democratic nomination by threatening the invade countries around the world? That would be quite a trick, wouldn’t it? It’s an interesting thought experiment to wonder who the nominee would have been sans the Iraq War. I’m guessing that Edwards’ stock would have improved slightly, Dean and Clark would have disappeared entirely, but the Kerry still probably would have won.

But, then, I don’t have the ghost of Richard Nixon whispering in my ear, so I can’t really say.