Being an admitted conservative and unabashed news junkie, I derive great satisfaction from periodically perusing the Fox News Channel. Thus, I was surprised to hear debated on “Special Report with Brit Hume” the oft-repeated misconception that the Powell and Cheney/Rumsfeld camps (if such even exist) have cemented into diametrical positions on the resumption of weapons inspections in Iraq. Several news commentators have contrasted a Powell interview with the BBC where he called for inspections as a “first step” in action against Saddam Hussein with a speech by Cheney to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in which he criticized the ability of weapons inspectors to find all of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
While these statements are superficially contradictory, they don’t mean that a split exists within the Bush administration. The context in which Cheney and Powell made these comments must be acknowledged. Sadly, most news commentators fail to see the broader administration message of regime change in Iraq.
The different audiences of these two declarations must be considered in analyzing the statements for evidence of a split in the administration. As Secretary of State, Powell must act as America’s chief diplomat.
His statements regarding weapons inspectors on the BBC-a chief source for international news-targeted an international community hesitant to support a preemptive strike against Iraq. However, nothing in his comments contradicted the adminstration’s official, though mostly unarticulated, diplomatic and military policy towards Iraq.
Conversely, Cheney made his remarks in a domestic context where the Bush administration is making the case for war. He was speaking to a military organization specifically and a public generally that are far more accepting of the need to get rid of Saddam.
Both Powell and Rumsfeld deny any serious split between them. Powell has soundly rejected any implication of segmentation in the administration.
When commenting on Iraqi offers to resume talks on weapons inspections, Powell made this Rumsfeldesque assertion: “He knows it’s nonsense. We know it’s nonsense. It’s the con that the Iraqi regime…[has] been pulling on the international community for years.”
For his part, Rumsfeld said, “Colin [Powell] and I see eye to eye, but the president ultimately decides.”
If all the comments of administration officials (and not just those that fall into the “divided administration” hype) are to be considered, then these statements ought to carry some weight.
The policy context of all these statements seems to negate the theory of a split administration. Bush has stated his desire for regime change in Iraq.
When Powell advocates weapons inspections as a “first step,” what he means is a “first step” toward an Iraqi regime change. Cheney and Rumsfeld have not rejected inspections per se. Instead, they put the context of the weapons inspections within a larger strategy that inspections have a limited effectiveness on their own.
Indeed, the probable Iraqi denial of inspections will help make the United States’ case for war to the international community. Universal Press International chief international correspondent Martin Walker predicts that the United States will send weapons inspectors straight to Iraqi presidential palaces and, citing their probable rejection by Iraqi officials, call for a strike on Iraq.
Evidence of a fragmented Bush administration is scant at best. The assertion that Powell, Rumsfeld and Cheney all speak with one voice in the administration is wrong, but the suggestion of a severe ideological split simply fails to hold water.
Smith Lilley is a senior political science major. Send comments to [email protected].