DEWAYNE'S WORLD

Four years ago, DeWayne Wickham, whose column on the USA Today editorial page occupies some of the choicest real estate in opinion journalism, made a convincing case that the dog days of dealing diplomatically with Saddam Hussein were done. "In refusing to permit U.N. inspectors unfettered access to sites thought to be hiding places for his weapons of mass destruction," Wickham maintained, "Saddam trivializes the role of the world body." He wasn't done. "There's no proof that diplomacy works with Saddam. Diplomatic efforts didn't stop him from invading Kuwait. And months of jawboning failed to convince him to withdraw. Only the humiliating military defeat his army suffered accomplished that."

Since that column of Feb. 13, 1998, several things have taken place: Weapons inspectors were kicked out, the inspection team was neutered, and Saddam has doggedly continued his defiance of international law. And one thing hasn't happened: inspections. If ever there was a textbook example of failed diplomacy, it would be the U.N.'s capitulation on Iraq since 1998.

It was surprising, then, to see Wickham argue in his Oct. 10 column, headlined "Congress Must Collar the Dogs of War," that Congress should grant the U.N. "a reasonable timetable to ensure that Iraq has disarmed--and urge Bush to work with that international body to get this done." Huh?

Intrigued, THE SCRAPBOOK checked out other Wickham arguments on Iraq, and sure enough, faster than you can say Republican-in-the-White-House, Wickham--like Tom Daschle, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and many other prominent Democrats--seems to be chasing his own tail.

Some highlights:

When Bush said recently, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," and "Alliances with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints," Wickham dismissed those arguments, writing simply, "That's not good enough."

But in 1998, after mocking those who favored diplomacy with Saddam, Wickham praised the Clinton administration's bellicosity with a warning that sounds remarkably similar to the one issued by President Bush: "Left unchecked, Saddam will stockpile--and eventually use again--his biological weapons. The target may be a neighboring state, or some segment of his own citizens. Even more troubling, he may parcel out some of those deadly toxins to terrorists who will try to unleash them on American soil."

And these days, Wickham argues that "Bush has yet to produce any real proof that the Iraqi leader poses a threat to this nation or our allies." Back in 1998, however, Wickham lamented the release of the film "Wag the Dog" just as President Clinton was preparing to send troops to Iraq. Wrote Wickham: "Clinton cannot wait for the sex scandal to play out before ordering U.S. forces into action." Because "if Clinton doesn't act soon to wipe out his biological weapons, Saddam--not Hollywood--will wag the dog."

We can understand politicians' reversing themselves so shamelessly, hypocrisy being the lifeblood of politics and all. But when a columnist does the same thing, it leaves us howling.

KOREA ADVICE

While Washington's attention is focused on whether the Bush administration will get a U.N. resolution it can live with on Iraq, the crisis with North Korea isn't going away. The Bush team, frankly, appears divided--some pushing the old (failed) approach of "engagement" and others (preoccupied by Iraq, the U.N., and the war on terror) just wishing the problem would vanish. But of course decisions about planned deliveries of fuel oil and the ongoing construction of the new nuclear reactors for North Korea need to be faced.