Why not? Bush’s knees are weak, but he is off and running nevertheless–for re-election in 2004–on a political course that appears, at least for now, far more congenial than seemed possible a few weeks ago. Fitfully, the economy is improving, and most forecasters are predicting a healthier New Year. The Democrats are bitterly divided, between Beltway and Beyond, by the advent of Howard Dean. Nabbing Saddam Hussein allowed Bush to change the subject in the Iraq debate, from the vexing invisibility of Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction to the dictator’s genocidal history and the unarguable virtue of bringing him to justice.
As if on cue (though negotiations had been underway for months) the president ended the week by announcing that Libya’s own murderous dictator, Muammar Kaddafi, had agreed to “disclose and dismantle” his WMD program. This action, the president declared, would make “our country more safe and the world more peaceful.” Senior intelligence sources admit the Libyans probably don’t have much of a stash, but that didn’t prevent senior Bush aides from spinning the Kaddafi move their way. Here, his aides argued, was proof that Bush’s Texas tough-dude tactics in the war on terror were, as one said, “paying dividends.”
Politically, at least, they clearly seem to be. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, Bush’s job approval numbers rose to 54-38, their highest levels since August; he clobbers all Democrats in test matchups by at least 12 points. In Europe, France and Germany–deeply opposed to the war in Iraq–had no choice but to applaud Saddam’s capture and to accept the possibility that the president’s plan to foster Iraqi democracy may succeed. To put money where their mouths suddenly were, French and German leaders agreed–at the behest of presidential envoy James Baker–to consider ways to forgive massive loans their governments had extended over the years to the old Saddam regime. Even the Iranian mullahs, delighted and perhaps intimidated by the obliteration of the Baathists, seem to be coming around, agreeing to allow intrusive U.N. inspections of their weapons program.
For now, Bush’s successes help him in another way: by dividing the Democrats. Events in Iraq, Dean’s rivals said, meant that the former Vermont governor’s antiwar crusade would be a sure loser in a general election. If Dean had had his way, declared Sen. Joe Lieberman, “Saddam would still be in power, not in prison.” In press releases and attack ads, foes depicted Dean as dangerously ignorant on foreign policy and weak on defense. Dean was unrepentant, insisting that the capture of Saddam “did not make America safer.” (Americans agreed with him, by 51-41, in the latest NEWSWEEK Poll.) Under withering fire (especially in Iowa), the campaign was maintaining its standing. Dean leads the Democratic pack with 26 percent nationwide, up two points from the previous poll. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has risen to a clear second, with 15 percent.
The presidential race, of course, has only just begun and the president faces numerous obstacles, known or unforeseeable, along the way. Colossal budget and trade deficits could hamper the recovery–still a relatively jobless one. Another terrorist attack could undermine the validity of the president’s answer to Osama bin Laden’s own “strong horse” view of the world, depending on the timing, circumstances and perpetrators involved. In a preview of his campaign themes, Bush declared at the year-end that his stewardship has made America a “more secure, more prosperous and better nation.” But in the NEWSWEEK Poll, voters are evenly divided, 46-46, about whether they want to see him re-elected in 2004.
In the meantime, the capture of Saddam could be a mixed blessing. Iraqis want to try him on their own and quickly–“yesterday,” as one administration official put it. Shiites and Kurds, who suffered the most at Saddam’s hands (sometimes literally), hunger to see him put to death–and in the slowest and most vividly gruesome public way. But, for a variety of reasons, the White House prefers to slow-walk a trial. The CIA will need time to tease information out of Saddam. Bush has flatly ruled out a trial under the auspices of the International Criminal Court (whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognize) or the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The administration wants Iraqis to take the lead, in Iraq, with the assistance of Americans and other members of the Coalition of the Willing. But to try Saddam for war crimes and crimes against humanity will require, under international law, the existence of an Iraqi government. That won’t happen until at least next summer.
Politically, the White House has reasons to postpone the start of Saddam’s trial until after the American election. There’s no guarantee that the Iraqis will pass this first test of their devotion to the rule of law. And there is a risk that Saddam, given a global platform, could portray himself as an Arab hero and inflammatory martyr. Given such considerations, NEWSWEEK has learned, the administration is hoping to try lesser Baathists first, perhaps “Chemical Ali.”
But such matters are for the judges, not the sheriff–and Bush thinks of himself as the latter. In America, Democrats still regard him as a simple-minded, court-appointed usurper who gave the nation a bum’s rush to Iraq. In Europe, much of the populace still sees him as a blustering cowboy, a greater danger to world peace than the terrorists themselves. But Bush’s stubborn belief in the efficacy of “preventive war” seems more justified now than it was when December began. For a man who used to run marathons, that’s progress enough.
