"Liar" is a word rarely used in Washington. This is not because the town lacks liars but because the word is so unambiguous -- so lacking in customary fudge -- that its use was long ago forbidden by, of course, consensus. So it was particularly shocking, not to mention refreshing, to hear Richard Perle on Sunday call Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) a liar to his face. I paused to see if the Washington Monument would crack down the middle.
It did not. Moreover, Kucinich himself seemed only momentarily fazed by Perle's sharp right to his integrity and went on, indomitable demagogue that he seems to be, to maintain that the coming war with Iraq will be fought to control that nation's oil. Kucinich, a presidential candidate, has made this charge before, and when Tim Russert asked him on "Meet the Press" to back it up, here is what he said:
"I base that on the fact that there is $5 trillion worth of oil above and in the ground in Iraq, that individuals involved in the administration have been involved in the oil industry, that the oil industry would certainly benefit from having the administration control Iraq, and that the fact is that, since no other case has been made to go to war against Iraq, . . . oil represents the strongest incentive."
But it is not true that no other case has been made for war with Iraq. In fact, many cases have been made -- some persuasive, some not. Some were made by George Bush, some by Tony Blair, some by Republicans and some by Democrats. If you don't impose a deadline for the war, then the case for it was even made by the U.N. Security Council's Resolution 1441, endorsed, as it happens, by France. I don't think France, not to mention Syria, would have voted to secure Iraq's oil for America's energy companies.
Kucinich's accusation was too much for Perle, a Pentagon adviser and Washington's uber-hawk. He called Kucinich's argument "a lie."
"It is an out-and-out lie," he said. "And I'm sorry to see you give credence to it." But Kucinich, who must have studied logic in France, came roaring back. "Well, if America is not at threat, then what is this about? And many people are wondering: 'How did our oil get under their sand?' "
A better question is: How did this fool get on "Meet the Press"? The answer is disheartening. Not only is Kucinich running for president, but he has emerged -- along with former Vermont governor Howard Dean -- as the darling of antiwar Democrats who will have much influence in the Iowa caucuses. George Bush's war -- whether for a better world or more SUVs -- may well be fought hand to hand in the Iowa snows.
As for Dean, he too had something to say about Iraq over the weekend. Along with most of the other presidential candidates, he appeared before the Democratic National Committee and started right off with Iraq: "What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the president's unilateral attack in Iraq?"
If Dean was referring to the original congressional resolution, then maybe he's technically correct. But if the verb "is" means what it usually does, then he is just plain wrong. Britain supports the United States. That makes it bilateral. And Spain would make it trilateral, and Italy and Poland and the Netherlands and the Czech Republic make it multilateral. Whatever may have been Bush's initial preference, he did wind up going to the United Nations -- and, it seems, going and going and going. Why is Dean saying something so unilaterally wrong?
Because something truly awful has happened. The looming war has already become deeply and biliously ideological. By that I mean that the extremes on both sides -- but particularly the war's opponents -- no longer feel compelled to prove a case or stick to the facts. As with Vietnam, this is becoming an emotional battle between ideologues who, as usual, don't give a damn about the truth.
Kucinich seems to be one of those. He may be largely an unknown, but in liberal circles he's something of a hero. Despite a long antiabortion record, which he recently (conveniently?) renounced, he has been featured in the Nation, a venerable and respected liberal magazine. It's impossible to know whether Kucinich believes what he said or was merely repeating a lie because others believe it. Either way, if he and his fellow antiwar candidates are going to turn a complex debate into an ideological brawl, then one outcome of the potential war will not be in doubt: The Democratic Party will lose.