Who can stand it? “Fungible,” the new “niggardly.” It is good to be king — and more
By Jay Nordlinger
It's an old whine, I know, but sometimes the hypocrisy of the Left is just too much. Now — now, in the Spring of 2004 — they want us to have been tough on terrorism. But, before 9/11, would they have been willing to do anything necessary to prevent such attacks? Are they willing now — after September 11 — to support the Patriot Act? Are they willing now to profile, to fingerprint, and so on?
It seems to me that, when the Patriot Act was passed, we heard cries of "A. Mitchell Palmer!" and "McCarthy!" So, before September 11 — before this murderous attack that took 3,000 lives — they would have done the necessary to find out and block al Qaeda?
Really, it's disgusting. And the placement of Ms. Gorelick on the 9/11 Commission is the bitter icing on the cake.
I had a memory: It was of Ronald Reagan and his dealing with the hostage situation in Lebanon. An AP reporter was held captive there — name of Terry Anderson. He had a sister named Peggy Say, and she became kind of a spokeswoman for the hostages' families. Every day, she'd be out in front of the White House, sockin' it to Reagan, saying how he was hard-hearted and callous and rigid and all the rest of it. And the media were in broad agreement with this. Reagan had a ridiculously inflexible position: No negotiations with terrorists.
But, lo, it was revealed that Reagan was a softie, that he was, indeed, flexible, that he was engaged in some maneuvering to free those hostages, so concerned was he about the individuals' fates.
And the media (along with the rest of the Left)? They turned on a dime. Now they were super-principled about terrorists. Now any dealing for the release of those hostages was a travesty and an outrage.
Peggy Say, to her credit, defended the president — and thanked him.
Anyway, positions and correct policies aside: Hypocrisy is the foulest quality of all.
Many (conservative) commentators have written about the recent hypocrisy, but I would like to draw your attention particularly to a column by Michelle Malkin, which begins, "The Bush-bashers who have relentlessly accused the president and his War on Terror team of acting like jackbooted bigots are now imperiously attacking them for acting like light-footed fumblers."
The New York Times, for example, thinks that George W. Bush was inexcusably derelict. But this "same editorial board" flayed the administration for "fingerprinting young male temporary visa holders traveling from terror-sponsoring and terror-friendly nations," for "temporarily detaining asylum-seekers from high-risk countries for background screening," for "sending undercover agents to investigate mosques suspected of supporting terrorism," for . . .
Well done, Double-M.
Speaking of well done, there are two superb items (among others) in the current National Review. One is Rob Long's parody, which has Mohamed Atta appearing on Nightline after September 11 — after a September 11 on which his plot was thwarted, thanks to the kind of action the Left now says it would have wanted, and allowed. And the other is Mark Steyn's column, which imagines, among other things, the delicious and so-realistic phrase "flying while Arab" (as in, "Is it illegal to fly while Arab, just as it is illegal in John Ashcroft's America to drive while black?").
If you have not heard Hillary Clinton's latest, please forgive me for presenting it to you. Talking to Katie Couric — who else (almost)? — she said, "It's been said, and I think it's accurate, that my husband was obsessed by terrorism in general and al Qaeda in particular." Yes, that's why President Clinton took such harsh and alacritous action after the first World Trade Center bombing, and Khobar Towers, and the embassy bombings, and the Cole. Of course.
If what the Clinton people showed was obsession . . .
Do you remember how, back in 1999, an official in the Washington, D.C., government was fired for saying "niggardly"? Ignoramuses took it as a racial slur. (The official, after an agonizing period, was reinstated.)
Well, I thought of this when reading of the latest attack on Donald Rumsfeld. Responding to questions about the allocation of troops in Iraq, Rumsfeld said, "People are fungible." Perfectly true (in the context of this exchange). But there are ignoramuses — or pretend ignoramuses — about "fungible," too. Senator Kerry described Rumsfeld's statement as "further indication of this administration's continuing disregard for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day in Iraq." Yes, because we know how Bush and Rumsfeld hate those people. "Secretary Rumsfeld has it wrong," continued Kerry. "Troops are not chess pieces to be moved on a board, they are real people with families and loved ones who depend on them."
Rep. Charles Rangel — one of the biggest horses' asses in the United States (and one of Fidel Castro's best friends, which is the same thing) — said, "Secretary Rumsfeld may see these troops as 'fungible' because they are not the people that he knows or the children of people in the administration."
And so on. Every time I think my regard for Democrats may be too low — I am sadly reinforced.
Sharon on Bush (from a William Safire column): "Something in his soul committed him to act with great courage against world terror. Though under constant pressure, the man has not changed his mind." He may lose the election — Bush, that is. But he was right. The danger we are facing is not eradicable except through worldwide and unusual war. The Bush Doctrine — that there is no difference between a terror-supporting state and terrorists themselves — is imperative.
Every four years, someone says, "The major parties are Tweedledum and Tweedledee." Would that it were so! I regard those parties as alarmingly far apart. In fact, the selection of the American people in November will make all too great a difference — to the entire world.
Ahmad Chalabi had a most interesting op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. It included some pointed criticisms of the American occupiers. Too bad he's just a puppet on Don Rumsfeld's hand.
I wanted to bring to your attention some remarks that José María Aznar, the outgoing prime minister of Spain, made to Chris Wallace of Fox News. Below are extended — but true and stirring — excerpts:
WALLACE: What will the message be that is sent to the terrorists if Spain drops out of the coalition, pulls its troops out of Iraq?
AZNAR (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): It will be a very bad message. It would be a message of having managed to achieve their objectives. The only message that terrorists need to get is that they're going to be beaten.
WALLACE: Some people are comparing it to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler before World War II.
AZNAR (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): There are countries that prefer to think that they're buying comfort at the cost of others, but I don't think that's the way you can act in this world. There are no neutral groups. Either you're with us, or you're with them. And those who try to be neutral, I think, are the ones who are going to be paying the highest price. The terrorists are not going to forgive them, and they will have no understanding from those who are fighting against terrorism. . . .
I told George Bush and Tony Blair and other political leaders to be extremely careful before elections, because terrorists will try to prevent them from reacting, and to be very vigilant, more than ever, on those two dates. That is, I think, one of the major readings you get out of what happened in March [in Spain, on 3/11].
WALLACE: So you believe that the terrorists will try to do something to affect the United States election?
AZNAR (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Yes, it is possible, very possible. They will be as harmful as they can possibly be, if they can do it. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind.
WALLACE: How do you explain the opposition in Spain and across Europe to President Bush and his policies?
AZNAR (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): President Bush is in favor of the Atlantic relationship. He is also in favor of Europe's shouldering more responsibilities. Now, certain countries say, "Well, why should we get involved if they're already doing this?" But you, the North Americans, you the Americans, you should not stand alone, because this is a fight which involves us all. It is an attack against all of us. And President Bush has understood this. Others have not understood this.
WALLACE: Why did you decide to join President Bush, to join the coalition and go into Iraq, despite overwhelming opposition in your country?
AZNAR (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Because the task of a political leader is to do what he believes is better for his country. Sometimes the public opinion is in favor; sometimes the public opinion needs a little bit more time to understand things. I mean, how many British supported Churchill when he said that Hitler was a threat? How many people in how many countries have understood the threats or their leaders at a particular moment in time? It is, of course, much better to get as much support as possible, but a political leader has a responsibility. A good political leader meets his responsibility.
It's sort of a miracle that we had Aznar in Europe. But what would really be a miracle is a Sakharov — a brave, path-showing, reforming dissident — in the Middle East. Let's remember the name of Aktham Naisse, if we can. He is the human-rights activist who has just been thrown in jail by his government, the dictatorship of Bashar Assad in Syria. (For an AP item on the Naisse case, go here).
One of the most interesting biographical lines under an op-ed piece I've ever seen? It comes from the Wall Street Journal, which printed a piece under the name of King Abdullah II. The bio: "Abdullah II is the king of Jordan." Somewhat cool, huh? I mean, how would you like your biographical line to read, "John Smith is the king of [X country]"?
Abdullah Two is apparently something of an art maven, as he — or someone — wrote, "Georges Seurat created sweeping 'Pointillist' landscapes by painting millions of tiny dots. But that effort is nothing compared to the painstaking detail involved in creating a landscape of economic, political and social reform."
Oh, puh-leeze! (But I kind of like it.)
I realize this Impromptus hasn't been all that much fun, but let me close with something from New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. How can that be fun, you ask? Just wait.
At his company's annual shareholders' meeting, Sulzberger was harassed about Jayson Blair (late of the Times), and charges he has made about certain practices at the paper. Sulzberger blasted Blair as a "known liar," adding, "If he said it was raining, I would not bring an umbrella."
Very nice.
Catch you soon.
nationalreview.com |
