The Nuisance Value of the Willfully Ignorant

If Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations Wednesday had a less dramatic effect than Adlai Stevenson’s slide show in 1962, it had more to do with a willfully ignorant audience that stubbornly refuses to grasp the obvious. Powell’s evidence was much better than Stevenson’s. Whereas Stevenson’s presentation was a silent movie, Powell’s was a talkie, with the dialogue provided by Saddam’s own henchmen.
In 1962, photos taken from high flying American U2 spy planes showed conclusively that the Soviet Union was building nuclear missile bases in Cuba. Soviet guilt was undeniable. Democratic Party leaders demanded equally convincing evidence from President Bush. Powell satisfied that demand by showing even higher resolution photos taken from spy satellites. And he supplemented those pictures with narratives from intercepted communications between Saddam’s military hierarchy.
And yet, there are those who remain unconvinced. There are those who find Saddam more believable than Colin Powell. Democratic congressmen can be heard on evening political debate shows claiming that the case for war has not been made. CNN talking head and former Clinton political strategist Paul Begala essentially accused President Bush of fabricating evidence to make the case for war.
And even among those who admit that Saddam possesses an industry dedicated to building an arsenal of weapons of indiscriminate slaughter, there exists a line of thought that believes such weapons threaten only his immediate neighbors, and that we are safe. Such thinking was recently articulated by prominent Democrats and the Hollywood Left.
These critics are often the very same people who accused the intelligence community of failing to “connect the dots” before September 11, 2001. In this case, the dots from terrorism to Saddam are obvious. Powell showed the links between Iraq’s dictator and terrorist networks. The dots connected themselves. And yet, the Saddamites refused to be moved.
Saddam is not going to launch a nuclear tipped missile at the United States, or fly a bomber with an Iraqi flag painted on its tail to nuke New York. He’s going to hand the bomb off to a terrorist organization that will strap it onto the back of a “martyr,” to whom they have promised paradise and an inexhaustible supply of fresh virgins. This suicide bomber will carry his bomb across our porous borders and detonate it in a big city. He will then send uncountable thousands of infidels into hell and meet a grateful Allah.
The domestic Saddamite line was recently articulated to columnist Deborah Orin. She quoted a top Democratic strategist who opened his trench coat for her and exposed party thinking: "If you support Bush on Iraq and he wins, you gain zip. If you support him and he loses, you lose along with him. But if you oppose him and things go bad, you stand to be a big winner."
Liberals should favor this war because it is the last chance their favorite institution has to preserve itself. The United Nations is the last path remaining to the one world government liberalism favors. And yet, the United Nations chooses irrelevance.
Resolution 1441 demands full cooperation from Iraq and threatens “serious consequences” for the sort of deception exposed by Powell. To the masculine, chest pounding French, who have a long resume of cowardice and retreat to validate their stance, this means that the United Nations should, "Let us double, let us triple the number of inspectors," according to France's Foreign Minister Dominique de Vellepin after hearing Colin Powell's presentation. "Let us open more regional offices!” he blustered. Is that what “serious consequences” means? I’m sure Saddam is quaking in his boots.
But, what would one expect from an organization that has Libya chairing its committee on human rights, or will soon hand over leadership of its disarmament committee to - you guessed it - Iraq. It’s as if the United Nations were making fun of itself. The UN was a joke even before Powell showed glaring evidence that Iraq was getting advance warnings of inspections from the UN.
The world has left Saddamites such as France, Germany, Ted Kennedy and the New York Times behind. They have much in common with untalented teenagers whose only opportunity to seem consequential is to spray vulgar, inarticulate graffiti over the works of their betters. They no longer drive history and possess only nuisance value to those who do.