Best of the Web Today - February 6, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO
Indecision 2008--II
Yesterday we noted Sen. Hillary Clinton's maddeningly noncommittal comments about Iran at last week's American Israel Public Affairs Committee dinner. On Sunday her fellow Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards gave an interview to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," in which he engaged in similar circumlocution:
Russert: Would President Edwards allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?
Edwards: I--there's no answer to that question at this moment. I think that it's a--it's a--it's a very bad thing for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I think we have--we have many steps in front of us that have not been used. We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not, not been done. The things that I just talked about, I think, are the right approach in dealing with Iran. And then we'll, we'll see what the result is.
Russert: But they may get one.
Edwards: Yeah. I think--I think the--we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along, and that's what I would do as president.
Compare this with what Edwards said on the subject Jan. 22--just 13 days earlier--when he delivered an address by satellite to Israel's annual Herzliya Conference:
Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. . . . Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's neighborhood much more volatile.
Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent U.N. resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate--ALL options must remain on the table.
Last week Ezra Klein of The American Prospect, a liberal-left magazine, asked Edwards about the Herzliya speech, and he sounded quite a different note:
Klein: So, I just want to get it very clear, you think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea?
Edwards: I think would have very bad consequences.
Klein: So when you said that all options are on the table?
Edwards: It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.
Klein: Can we live with a nuclear Iran?
Edwards: I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we've . . . We're not negotiating with them directly, what I just proposed has not been done. We're not being smart about how we engage with them. But I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet. And I think the reason people react the way they do--I understand it, because, when George Bush uses this kind of language, it means something very different for most people. I mean when he uses this kind of language "options are on the table," he does it in a very threatening kind of way--with a country that he's not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he's just dead wrong about that.
The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, an Edwards admirer, is critical, but not critical enough:
Technically, there was no contradiction between what he said in these two venues. At the Israeli conference he did mention direct engagement with Iran, even if it was only in response to a question at the end. And with the Prospect, he did say that all options had to be left on the table--including, presumably, military action. Still, you'd barely know it was the same person talking if you read both conversations with no names attached.
No contradiction? In Herzliya, Edwards said unequivocally, "Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." In the Klein interview, he said, "I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet." Granted, we're not dealing in the realm of pure binary logic, but it seems to us that Edwards's coy "I'm not ready" makes nonsense of his resolute "under no circumstances." And that "yet" suggests that it is only a matter of time before he crosses the bridge.
At a time of international peril, the president must have the capacity to be steadfast. Edwards lacks the capacity even to seem steadfast. If he backs down so easily under the pressure of domestic intraparty politics, how can we trust him to protect America's interests when negotiating with a vicious adversary?
The Tiddlywinks Defense
Our item yesterday on Hillary Clinton prompts this defense of Mrs. Clinton from reader Ted Clayton:
[The resolution for which Mrs. Clinton voted] doesn't authorize the war, it authorizes the president to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." So there's no inconsistency here at all: she wasn't voting for the war, as you put it; she voted to authorize the president to make the decision about use of the armed forces, and the decision he made was not the one she would have made. I suppose you could argue that everyone knew that voting in favor of the resolution meant voting for war, but since Bush was denying at the time that the invasion was inevitable, you'd then have to admit he was lying.
So what did Mrs. Clinton think she was authorizing the president to use the armed forces for, to play tiddlywinks?
It Ain't Just a River in Egypt
In an article about President Bush and Iran, Salon's Gary Kamiya (link requires subscription or sitting through tedious ad) displays a staggering capacity for denial:
For Bush neocons, whose mantra is "Anyone can go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran," Iran has always been the perfect boogeyman. It is run by an intolerant fundamentalist Islamist regime. Its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is an ignorant and bigoted blowhard who questions the Holocaust. Along with the much smaller and weaker Syria, it is the only remaining state that carries the banner of Arab/Muslim nationalism and refuses to kowtow to America. It takes a hard line against Israel and supports Hezbollah and Hamas. Best of all, from the rolling-out-a-product point of view always so vital to the Bush administration, Iran is still widely hated by Americans because of memories of Ayatollah Khomeini and the 1979 hostage crisis.
So in Kamiya's view, Iran is a mere "boogeyman." The dictionary definition of boogeyman (more commonly spelled bogeyman) is "a monstrous imaginary figure used in threatening children." Read over Kamiya's list of particulars about Iran. They are monstrous and threatening, but does he think they're imaginary?
You also have to love the subheadline of the article:
By demonizing Iran and stirring up sectarian hatred against it in the region, Bush is pouring gas on the fire he started in Iraq--and empowering al-Qaida.
The president of America is "demonizing" Iran? Uh, Gary, which country is it whose leaders refer to the other country as "the great Satan"?
Called for Blocking--II
Homer nods: "Cloture" in the Senate means to end debate and allow a vote; that means we erred in an item yesterday by saying the New York Times headline " Republicans Plan to Block Iraq Debate" was "technically accurate." A technically accurate headline would have been "Republicans Plan to Prolong Iraq Debate" or "Republicans Plan to Block Iraq Vote."
Today's Times repeats the error in reporting on the vote against cloture: "G.O.P. Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy," reads the headline. The text of the actual article, though, makes clear that the Republicans were seeking a broader debate than the Democrats wanted:
The deadlock came after Democrats refused a proposal by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, that would have cleared the way for a floor fight on the Warner resolution in return for votes on two competing Republican alternatives that were more supportive of the president.
One of those alternatives, by Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, would declare that Congress should not cut off any funds for forces in the field. That vote was seen as problematic for Democrats because many of them opposed any move to curtail spending, raising the prospect that it could have attracted the broadest support in the Senate.
So the Times headline portrays the Republicans as wanting to stifle debate, whereas in fact the Democrats are trying to weasel out of taking a stand that is both popular and right, simply because the president agrees with it.
Who Wants Another Vietnam?
o "Last year, some believed that cutting back our military assistance to the South Vietnamese Government would induce negotiations for a political settlement. Instead, the opposite has happened. North Vietnam is refusing negotiations and is increasing its military pressure."--Gerald Ford, "Special Message to the Congress Requesting Supplemental Assistance for the Republic of Vietnam and Cambodia," Jan. 28, 1975
o "I want to make it very clear that we need to threaten the Iraqi government, that we're going to take money away from their troops, not our troops who still lack body armor and armored vehicles; that we're going to send a clear message--that we are finished with their empty promises and with this president's blank check."--Hillary Clinton, speech to the Democratic National Committee, Feb. 2, 2007
Answers to Silly Questions That Probably No One Asked
"In a remarkable feat, three amateur explorers have stumbled upon more than 100 fossilised eggs of dinosaurs in Madhya Pradesh," reports the Hindustan Times. Stories like this are always fun because they remind us of our boyhood enthusiasm for dinosaurs.
We also got a kick out of this quote from one of the explorers, Vishal Verma: "The eggs are from upper cretaceous era when the dinosaurs were yet to be extinct."
We wonder what question the reporter asked Verma to elicit this answer. So, were the dinosaurs already extinct when they laid these eggs?
Iowans, Keep Out
"MN Guardmembers Protect Southern Border"--headline, KSTP-TV Web site (St. Paul, Minn.), Feb. 5
They Ate the Forbidden Grass
"Sheep Moved From Paradise to Wyoming"--headline, Daily Inter Lake (Kalispell, Mont.), Feb. 4
Aircraft Carrier Built of Tostitos Gets Great Mileage
"Power-Efficient Chip Ships"--headline, PC World, Feb. 5
Nice Suit! It Doesn't Look a Day Over 40!
"Nonprofit Files Suit Over 41"--headline, Denver Post, Feb. 5
Burning Pounds as Well as Crosses
"New Report Says Hate Groups More Active"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 5
Yikes, He Must Really Have Started Young
"Vow to Quit Acid Use by '15"--headline, Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 6
Hollywood Actors Should Listen to Climate Experts
o "Hollywood Actors No Experts on Iraq War"--headline, Telegraph (Nashua, N.H.), Feb. 4
o "Climate Experts Say It's Time to Act"--headline, Discovery Channel Web site, Feb. 2
Bottom Stories of the Day
o "Streisand Looks Forward to '08 Elections"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 5
o "Former Miss Brazil Tells Police She's OK"--headline, Associated Press, Feb. 5
o "No Major Changes in Regulations for Gray Trout"--headline, Sun Journal (New Bern, N.C.), Feb. 6
Illegal Procedure
We watched the Super Bowl in a small stag gathering at a friend's house, and everyone there was struck at the oddity that one of the game's main sponsors was Revlon, a maker of women's cosmetics. No doubt the Super Bowl draws many millions of female viewers, but it still seemed jarringly counterstereotypical.
Not as jarring, though, as a fund-raising email a reader received yesterday from NARAL Pro-Choice America, which was the clumsiest collection of football metaphors we've ever seen. The subject line read "Bush's budget: a fumble for family planning," and here's the text:
President Bush may have faced his biggest career turnover in November, but his 2008 budget proves that he is still trying to score another touchdown for his anti-choice base.
For the sixth year in a row, low-income families lost yardage due to Bush's refusal to adequately fund our nation's family-planning program. More than 4,600 federally funded clinics nationwide provide approximately five million young and low-income women and men with basic health care. For many women, these clinics represent their only chance to see a doctor--but apparently the president doesn't think birth control is a worthwhile investment.
Instead, Bush went on the offensive for "abstinence-only" programs, asking for a $28 million increase even though his programs censor teachers from giving teens accurate information on topics like birth control, are not as effective as regular sex education, and may result in riskier behavior by teenagers.
Now it's time for members of Congress to play defense: we need them to hold funding levels for Bush's abstinence-only programs while putting more points on the board for family planning.
We wanted to link to this, but couldn't find it on the NARAL Web site. We did, however, find one item that's hysterical in more ways than one: a little graphic we've reproduced nearby.
"The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States," it says. "Nation's grade remains a dismal D-, click here to see how your state rates."
D-minus! And if it weren't for Roe v. Wade, America would be flunking for sure.
URL for this article: opinionjournal.com |
