BRING YOUR bloody flag out of the closet, everyone, and prepare to wave vigorously. Just in time for the first anniversary of September 11, the Bush administration has announced it is once again en vogue to patriotically rally against an enemy who purports to wreak imminent destruction on democracy, freedom and our American right to a second helping of apple pie. The Soviet Union, Vietnam, Afghanistan -- who is it this time? Our familiar mustachioed totalitarian has found his way back into the State Department's bull's-eye.
However despicable the regime, a recent report indicates no evidence -- none, zero, nada -- that indicates a credible nuclear threat from Iraq. So, why are we getting ready for war again?
The warmongering tendencies of the current administration reached a new crescendo this week, with statements from both Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice indicating a disposition favoring armed conflict with our Middle Eastern irritant of nearly a decade. Cheney spoke of military force justified by perceived threats of attack from another nation. Who are we talking about again? Iraq is halfway around the world in a region that has plenty of conflict to concern itself with before even looking past the next continent.
If the Veep is so concerned, he must be referring to a credible threat of nuclear or biological attack. The United States has little to fear from the Al-Hussein missiles whose range falls on the conservative side of 400 miles. Or do we fear a domestic attack from terrorists? Surely a strategic offensive is overkill if all we fear is one man carrying a suitcase full of something nasty onto an airplane. So, that leaves biological and nuclear weapons.
However, this past Tuesday The Washington Post reported that Iraq currently lacks the material necessary to produce a nuclear armament, according to a London-based independent military and security research group. Additionally, the Post reported, "Analysts said the report's findings largely echo those of previous studies." What is Cheney talking about? Certainly, Iraq is a cantankerous nation with the history and motives that would indicate a potential threat to the Middle East region. The administration has an interesting habit of morphing the one into the other. Iraq's intimidation of Kuwait does not equal a shadow of nuclear destruction for Albemarle County. The former hardly validates initiating an aggressive campaign against Saddam Hussein.
If the Bush administration has evidence of a credible threat against the United States, it remains silent. Also conspicuously absent are any direct links between Hussein and al Qaeda or the attacks of exactly one year ago. What does the administration have to gain by withholding such evidence from the public? It would only galvanize further support for a military campaign. This lack of persuasion only underlines a likely deficit of irrefutable proof.
Why would the Bush administration go so far out on a limb to herd the American people, and thus Congress, into supporting a campaign against Saddam and his evil schemes? One must recall that this is the United States, where nothing happens by accident, not even foreign policy timetables. Simply put, this November will see the midterm elections of both the House and Senate.
The House of Representatives is currently comprised of a slight Republican majority, but some political analysts predict that the House is up for grabs because there are so few highly contested races. Should Bush pick up any additional Republican seats in the midterm election, he would be only the third president to do so after Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934 and Bill Clinton in 1998. The Senate sits even more precariously on the butter knife, with Democrats enjoying a one-seat lead. Bush needs seats in both houses if he hopes to enjoy any sort of domestic policy influence in the last two years of his term. If he loses both houses, he will certainly be relegated to being solely a foreign policy executive.
The tie between motions to engage Iraq and the midterm elections is not as great a stretch as one might imagine. Consider the headlines for the past few months before the Iraq situation arose. Accusations of corporate scandal and irresponsibility seemed to come almost weekly for the entire summer. These are issues that severely hamstring the message of the Republicans, who are traditionally more closely associated with capitalism and big business interests. By pushing the media's attention away from these issues of ill consequence for the GOP, Bush has spun the media into fueling a frenzy of nationalism and patriotism beginning this September that he no doubt hopes to carry through November.
While Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq is decidedly a despicable belligerent and enemy of the United States, the Bush administration's current tactics are politically transparent and will only race the nation into a premature conflict that will cost millions of dollars. A pacifist I am not, but until adequately convinced of a threat on my way of life, don't bother asking me to fight.
(Preston Lloyd's column appears
Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at plloyd@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
JEFFERSON COUNCIL: The hypocritical politicization of U.Va.’s presidential search
By Jefferson Council | October 12, 2025The current presidential search committee includes 28 members — Board members, students, administrators, alumni and faculty — with at least as many faculty as the previous two. Given its composition, concerns about representation are unfounded.
RASHID: U.Va.’s new privacy policy should be welcomed — and expanded
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | October 12, 2025Privacy is not merely a technical shield against data leaks or hacks — it is a baseline human right that shapes how students learn, organize and speak.
KING: The College Republicans’ letter to the Board dishonors the University
By Michael King | October 11, 2025With their calls for administrative consequences, the CRs thumb their noses at the Jeffersonian principles of free speech that this University was founded to defend.
