Press Should Keep Open Mind on Campaign 2004

By: Tom Wicker Nearly 40% of Americans say they will certainly not vote for President Bush's re-election later this year, and almost as many believe he was illegitimately elected in 2000 -- or so they told a New York Times/CBS Poll taken in December. As we enter another election year, there's evidence in those results to bolster both Republicans (opposition to the president is still short of a majority) and Democrats (they have a solid base to build on).

Perhaps that's why campaign commentary in the press has shifted wildly in the past few months, from virtually declaring Bush unbeatable to finding him highly vulnerable. Now, after the capture of Saddam Hussein, some seem to think he is headed for a landslide.As a longtime campaign watcher, I would advise the press to keep an open mind, considering the volatility of the two major issues: a quavery economy, and the war on Iraq.

It's true that in the past quarter, the economy has shown signs of recovery. On the other hand, Bush's vast tax cuts have recreated mountainous federal deficits. Huge deficits helped Bill Clinton defeat the first President Bush in 1992.

The economic recovery, if that's what it is, appears to have failed to create enough jobs to eat into the high unemployment rate. Unemployment is one of the issues that gave John F. Kennedy his razor-thin edge over Richard Nixon in 1960. So even an economy stirring from the ashes still leaves the Democrats some ground for optimism.

That brings them to the other issue -- a war that won't go away. Many (and certainly Howard Dean) have believed Bush could be defeated on that issue. That political optimism, at first glance, may have been undermined by the dramatic seizure of Saddam Hussein. After Hussein was dragged from his "spider hole," Bush's favorable ratings climbed significantly. Many even argued that the capture of the world's most vilified dictator justified the entire U.S. enterprise in Iraq.

It's the job of the American press, however, to question that conclusion -- to point out that President Bush did not cajole the nation or persuade Congress to authorize the invasion of Iraq merely to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Instead, Bush insisted -- though much of the press failed in its obligation to probe his evidence and debate his reasoning -- that the Hussein regime posed two threats to American security that the U.S. had a duty to thwart by going to war: Iraq had a supply of weapons of mass destruction (and programs for developing more); and had secret links to al-Qaeda and might use them to aid its activities, or even supply it with those weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam Hussein's capture -- while a positive event -- sustained neither of these supposed threats. Neither did it demonstrate that either was false. But assiduous search has disclosed no evidence in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction or facilities to manufacture them. Neither have secret links between Iraq and al-Qaeda been proven or demonstrated.

Generally, the American public, like Congress, accepted the validity of these threats. A major reason, as E&P has long observed, was that a supposedly "watchdog" press did not devote enough time to raise difficult but necessary questions about the supposed threats. It's always easier, even for an independent press, to go along with the "highest authorities" than to scrutinize them boldly.

That should not be repeated following the capture of Hussein. The press needs to point out that the spectacular arrest did not prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or that his regime has been linked to the terrorist network. Has the dictator's capture made us demonstrably safer? As I write this, in late December, the nation is on high-level alert and more U.S. soldiers have been killed this week than in the week before he was found.

Hussein being dragged from his hole proves, if anything, that the mighty do fall, and perhaps even that your sins sometimes will find you out. But the probable boost to Bush's campaign suggests that in the eyes of many Americans, this splendid event may be taken to signal the success of a costly war. A skeptical and inquisitive press -- a press that pats itself on the back for its skepticism and inquisitiveness -- can now atone for its failure to question those proclaimed threats before the war began.

It can point out that neither of the supposed causes for war has been found to have existed, save in Pentagon, CIA and White House imaginations. The threats so successfully pushed by the Bush Admin- istration and so easily, in some cases eagerly, accepted by American newspapers and television, have not yet been found to have been real -- certainly not by the welcome capture of Saddam Hussein.