Proud to Be Pilloried for Simply Seeking a Sane Policy on Iraq

Twice now in a career that began in 1975, extraordinary circumstances have forced me to momentarily cast humility aside and do a little gloating.

The first instance involved an honor that is among the highest achievements in the field of journalism. It happened in Philadelphia, where an Italian deli named its meatball sandwich after me.

(The restaurant went out of business soon afterward, but I didn’t take it personally).

The second honor came early this week, and I’m still in the clouds.

The Wall Street Journal called me an idiot for a column in which I questioned the rush to war with Iraq.

It’s too close to call, but I think this may top the meatball sandwich.

Don’t get me wrong. The Journal’s news report is among the finest in the nation. On its best days, it even comes close to that of the Los Angeles Times.

But the editorial page has always been in the middle of a three-way affair. On one side of the bed is big business, and on the other side is Attila the Hun.

To be precise, the swipe at me came in OpinionJournal, an online version of the newspaper’s editorial page. I’m having it framed for the headline alone:

“Stupidity Watch.”

The writer gave me a good spanking for my Sunday column, saying I don’t have a clue how to gauge public opinion. I had said the polls suggesting that 70% of the country supports a war must be wrong because 75% of my readers were against.

“Lopez apparently doesn’t know what a ‘representative sample’ is. It’s unlikely that readers of his column represent a cross-section of Americans.”

This guy apparently doesn’t know what a rhetorical argument is. This war could go wrong in 600 ways President Bush hasn’t discussed with the American public, so, yes, I threw my skewed readership at the idea.

“Based on the e-mail we receive,” the Journal scribe prattled, “we’d say 95% of readers of this column support a war in Iraq, and of those who don’t, perhaps half are either openly anti-Semitic or just plain nuts. But of course our readers are a self-selected group too.”

I don’t know if that number is an exaggeration. But if 95% of the readers of a Journal column support a war, it’s got to be a bad idea.

The writer also said my “stupid argument doesn’t even have the virtue of originality,” because the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman “made essentially the same argument two weeks ago.”

I didn’t see Friedman’s column, but the comparison is almost as flattering as being called a nitwit by one of the president’s water boys at the Journal.

But I digress from the far more substantive point, just as the Journal did. For those who missed the column at issue, my brief reference to reader response was little more than a set-up for an interview with USC professor Richard Dekmejian. He’s an authority on terrorism, Middle East politics and the psyche of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.

I’d heard too many people in Washington bark about taking out Hussein as if it would be as simple as removing a wart.

It seemed to me we ought to hear a scholar explain how quickly a war could go badly and unleash more acts of terrorism on American soil.

At this juncture, I’d like to share the response to that column with my new friends at the Journal, admitting upfront that it is not a “representative sample.”

A lot of readers are ready for war, and a good number of them--I’m guessing they must have Journal subscriptions--called me a coward or an ignoramus. Nothing new there. I often get as many jeers as cheers.

But more readers are worked up about this subject than anything I’ve written since the Catholic Church served up daily column fodder. And those who want the president to make a stronger case for war come in all flavors.

“Steve, I am a registered Republican who has voted my party at the national level in virtually every election since 1976 ... [and] I’ve supported both Bush presidencies,” wrote Dom Brunone. The Texan, who travels through Europe and the Middle East on business, keeps hearing dumbfounded foreigners question “the sanity and good intention” of the U.S.

“Truth is, I do too. ‘Bullies’ is the best word for how others perceive America. This administration may have its reasons for going into Iraq, but it sure hasn’t made its case with me or the vast majority of the free world, including the American people.”

Brunone said he’d like the administration to produce hard evidence of an arms buildup by Hussein before launching a preemptive strike. I’d just like to hear how Iraq represents a greater danger than, say, Iran, or the terrorists who are gunning for us as we speak.

“How can we stop this madness by our junior president before it’s too late?” Brunone asked.

USC’s Dekmejian, who counts Hussein as a menace, doesn’t argue against war under all circumstances. He argues against a sprint to war without a full consideration of the consequences, and although one professor called on the phone is not a “representative sample,” he doesn’t sound half nuts to me.

Keep up the demand for weapons inspections and press on with weapons-detection intelligence, he says.

Turn up the heat on economic sanctions.

Unite the international community in these causes rather than alienating it.

And understand that no matter how many lives are lost and how many billions of dollars spent in a war, “We may not be able to reengineer a new Middle East that is better than the present one.”

*

Steve Lopez had the sandwich named for him after eating several while staking out a parking enforcement scam from inside a delicatessen. He writes Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Reach him at steve.lopez@latimes.com.