Best of the Web Today
Obama Keeps a Promise What he said in 2007 about withdrawing from Iraq.
By
James Taranto
Two-and-a-half years after the last U.S. troops left Iraq, President Obama is considering a new military intervention there. "We will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq," the president said earlier today, "but I have asked my national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraq's security forces."
Those security forces have put up "little resistance," the Associated Press reports, as a terrorist group variously known as ISIS or ISIL--short for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or in Iraq and the Levant, respectively--"overran the country's second-largest city of Mosul, Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit and smaller communities, as well as military and police bases." The Washington Post reports there are rumors of mass atrocities:
Death was everywhere in the sacked the city of Mosul, a strategically vital oil hub and Iraq's largest northern city. One reporter said an Iraqi woman in Mosul claimed to have seen a "row of decapitated soldiers and policemen" on the street. Other reports spoke of "mass beheadings," though The Washington Post was not able to confirm the tales. But the United Nations Human Rights chief, Navi Pillay, said the summary executions "may run into the hundreds" and that she was "extremely alarmed." There is also a refugee crisis: The Post puts the number who've fled Mosul at half a million, more than a quarter of the city's population.
Refugees flee Mosul. Associated Press
The Associated Press reports that Secretary of State John Kerry also raised the possibility of U.S. military intervention. "Iraq is a country we've had a very direct relationship with, very direct investment and engagement with, not to mention the lives of our soldiers who were lost there, providing this opportunity to them," Kerry told reporters in London. "And I don't think anybody in the region, or in this administration, believes it is in the interest of the United States to turn our backs on that."
But as this columnist noted in a 2007 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, then-Sens. Obama and Kerry were so eager for America to pull out of Iraq that they dismissed the possibility of catastrophic results.
Obama was asked by an AP reporter if preventing genocide was a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. As he often does, he took refuge in a false dilemma: "Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now--where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife--which we haven't done. We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea."
True, it is impractical to intervene everywhere. It does not follow that it is wrong to intervene anywhere, much less that it is right to end heedlessly an intervention already undertaken.
Today the president acknowledged that the Islamic State's advance "poses a danger to Iraq and its people, and given the nature of these terrorists, it could pose a threat eventually to American interests as well." In 2007 he promised to withdraw regardless of the danger to Iraq and its people. He kept that promise.
As for Kerry, he invoked Vietnam, as he often does: "We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn't happen." In a letter to the editor, Kerry acknowledged that after the American withdrawal, "a brutal dictatorship consolidated power in Vietnam, the region's refugee crisis worsened and two years after we left Vietnam, Cambodia's Khmer Rouge launched a genocide." But he meant for the word "entire" to carry his argument: "What did not happen was the region-wide war or immediate chaos."
One can of course argue that the current crisis in Iraq vindicates Obama's opposition in 2002 to intervening in the first place. (Kerry did not oppose it until after he voted for it.) But even if one accepts Obama's position in hindsight, his administration has shown very little foresight. The Weekly Standard's Daniel Halper quotes a 2010 interview with Vice President Biden:
"I am very optimistic about--about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," said Biden. "I spent--I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months--three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences." If Biden was right in 2010, the consequence of withdrawal was to squander all that success. But we can't say we weren't warned--or rather promised just such an outcome by Obama himself. "We offer our condolences to the families of those killed," the White House said in a statement Wednesday. No doubt they appreciate the thought.
A Woman's Entitled to Change Her Mind
"Hillary Clinton Snaps at NPR Host," reads a National Review Online headline. "Clinton Blows Up at NPR Host Over Questions on Her Support for Gay Rights," according to the Washington Free Beacon. Politico says "Hillary Clinton Gets Testy Over Gay Marriage." (That prompts a useful language lesson from blogress Ann Althouse, who notes that the adjective testy is etymologically unrelated to testis, and thus is not, as she had assumed, "an interesting word to use to describe a woman.")
But having listened to this portion of the interview, we think Mrs. Clinton is getting a bum rap. She opposed same-sex marriage in the 2008 presidential campaign but announced last year that she now favors it. As BuzzFeed.com notes, hostess Terry Gross asked her a loaded question about her motives:
So what's it like when you're in office and you have to do all these political calculations to not be able to support something like gay marriage, that you actually believe in? Obviously you feel very committed to human rights and you obviously put gay rights as part of human rights, but in doing the calculus you decided you couldn't support it. Correct me if I'm reading it wrong. Her response:
"I think you're reading it very wrong. I think that, as I said--just as the president has said--just because you're a politician doesn't mean you're not a thinking human being. You gather information, you think through positions, you're not 100 percent set, thank goodness, you're constantly re-evaluating where you stand. That is true for me. We talked earlier about Iraq, for goodness' sakes. . . . Gross continued pressing Mrs. Clinton on the subject; BuzzFeed's headline is "10 Times NPR's Terry Gross Tries to Get Hillary Clinton to Explain When She First Supported Marriage Equality." Here are the last three:
Gross: I'm just trying to clarify so I can understand-- Mrs. Clinton: No, I don't think you are trying to clarify. I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that's just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like I think you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record. I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I've done and the progress were making. Gross: You know I'm just saying, I'm sorry--I just want to clarify what I was saying--no, I was saying that you maybe really believed this all along, but, you know believed in gay marriage all along, but felt for political reasons America wasn't ready yet and you couldn't say it. That's what I was thinking. Mrs. Clinton: No. That is not true. Gross: OK. Mrs. Clinton: I did not grow up even imagining gay marriage, and I don't think you did either. This was an incredible new and important idea that people on the front lines of the gay right movement began to talk about and slowly, but surely, convinced others about the rightness of that position. When I was ready to say what I said, I said it. Gross: OK, thank you for clarifying that. It seems to us Mrs. Clinton had every right to be annoyed with the line of questioning. It was a gotcha question, but there was nothing to get: Gross was accusing Mrs. Clinton of lying about her private thoughts, but the public record holds no evidence to support the accusation. (That is in contrast with President Obama, who filled out a 1996 campaign questionnaire saying he supported same-sex marriage, then opposed it in 2008 and announced his support in 2012.)
And probably the majority of supporters--certainly a majority of those Mrs. Clinton's age--were against the idea when they first heard about it. In response to the fifth iteration of Gross's question, Mrs. Clinton said: "I'm an American so of course we all evolved." It's not unreasonable to suspect a politician of political calculation, but that doesn't mean everything they do or say is insincere.
Fox Butterfield, Is That You?
"Tanks Roll Into Ukraine Despite Putin's Promise: Russia Accused of Stepping In While the West Is Distracted by Iraq"--headline, Daily Mail (London), June 12"[Virginia congressional nominee Dave Brat] questions the federal role in setting education policy--at a time when U.S. schools, by almost any measure, are falling behind."-- Eugene Robinson, Washington Post, June 13"President Obama Requests 10.5% Budget Increase for IRS, Despite IRS's Failure to Perform Basic Budget Planning"--headline, TaxProf.typepad.com, June 13"There is no talk of a revolt against Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, even though she has failed to wrest back the House, or of a coup against Majority Leader Harry Reid, even though Democrats may soon lose the Senate."-- Peter Beinart , TheAtlantic.com, June 12 Metaphor Alert
" 'Shame on all of us. Here's the conservative movement, and we were all asleep at the switch. We did not galvanize behind a guy, or a person, and we waited until the die was cast. If conservatives are going to do more than throwing mud in people's eyes, if we're going to actually win some battles, then we damn well better get on our game,' one conservative lawmaker said."--Breitbart.com, June 12
Out on a Limb
"Cramer Cautious, 'Something Unexpected May Be Imminent' "--headline, CNBC.com, June 12
We Blame George W. Bush
"China, Japan Blame Each Other for Jet Encounter"--headline, Associated Press, June 12"Extremist Lunatics Are Ruining Congress--and a New Report Says It's Our Fault"--headline, Salon.com, June 12 We Blame Global Warming
"Great Lakes Finally Ice-Free After Record Ice Longevity"--headline, AccuWeather.com, June 13" 'Cool' Kids Lose Their Cool After Leaving School"--video title, Palm Beach (Fla.) Post website, June 13 Problem and Solution
"Charlie Rangel Getting Hammered in Dem Primary for Wall Street Support"--headline, Puffington Host, June 12"NIH Spent $480,500 to Text Message Drunks"--headline, Washington Free Beacon, June 12 Generalissimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead
"Doctor: Obama Still Chewing Nicotine Gum, Vitamin D Deficient"--headline, Washington Examiner, June 12"British Columbia Teachers Still Striking After 12 Years"--headline, EducationNews.org. June 10 Longest Books Ever Written
"What George H.W. Bush, at 90, Can Teach Millennials"--headline, CNN.com, June 12
Longest Books Ever Written, and Shortest Books Ever Written
"Why America Doesn't Like Soccer, and How That Can Be Changed"--headline, Time.com, June 12
Arugula for Dessert
"First Lady Vows to Fight for School Lunch Nutrition 'Until the Bitter End' "--headline, TheHill.com, June 12
It's Duck Season!
"Smithsonian Seeks to Alter Terms of 1960s Bequest to Move Beyond Buying More Bugs"--headline, Associated Press, June 12
It's Wabbit Season!
"Gilbert's Daffy Decisions Stunting Cavs"--headline, Newark (Ohio) Advocate, June 13
Cause and Effect--I
"Car Detour Lets Toads Cross Road Without Croaking"--headline, Associated Press, June 12, 2014"Mr. Toad Looks Smug"--headline, Lewiston (Maine) Daily Sun, Oct. 2, 1958 Cause and Effect--II
"Ham Radio Operators to Gather in Jupiter"--headline, Palm Beach (Fla.) Post, Aug. 17, 2012"Radio Signals From Jupiter Could Aid Search for Life"--headline, SpaceDaily.com, June 13, 2014 Hey, Kids! What Time Is It?
"It's Time to Fight Fox News: The Right Wing Wants to Destroy Everything Great About This Country' "--headline, Salon.com, June 12"This Ain't Lionel--Time to Fix the Bridge"--headline, Hartford Courant, June 12 Question and Answer--I
"What if Hillary Clinton Doesn't Run?"--headline, Agence France-Presse, June 12, 2014"No, No, No--She Won't Do a 'Body Heat' Sequel"--headline, Spokane (Wash.) Chronicle, Dec. 30, 1988 Question and Answer--II
"What Did President Obama Order at FireFlies?"--headline, Patch.com (Alexandria, Va.), June 12, 2014"Serenity Now"--headline, New York Post, Aug. 1, 2013 Question and Answer--III
"What Happens When You Let the Internet Tell You What to Draw"--headline, Wired.com, June 4"Homely Dogs Draw Online Fans"--headline, Associated Press, June 12 Question and Answer--IV
"7 Things Dad Probably Doesn't Want for Father's Day"--headline, DailyCaller.com, June 12, 2014"Seven Idle Little Men"--headline, Sydney Mail, Dec. 23, 1882 Look Out Below!
"As Luck Would Have It, Full Moon Falls on Friday 13th"--headline, USA Today website, June 12
It's Always in the Last Place You Look
"Tennessee Democratic Congressman Is Looking Everywhere for Hillary Clinton"--headline, BuzzFeed.com, June 12
Breaking News From 1997
"Supreme Court OK's Juice Lawsuit"--headline, Boston Globe, June 13
Bottom Stories of the Day
"Vermont G.O.P. Finds Candidates in Short Supply"--headline, New York Times, June 13"Sweden Hosts World Cup Tournament for Unrecognized Nations"--headline, EurasiaNet.org, June 12 'Nonfiction Journalism'
Worry no more, Jill Abramson has found a job, reports Politico's Dylan Byers. "Abramson will teach a narrative nonfiction course at Harvard University this fall, the school announced Thursday":
In a statement, Abramson said she was "honored and excited to be teaching at Harvard in the coming academic year." "Narrative nonfiction journalism is more important than ever. Its traditions and how it is changing in the digital transition are fascinating areas of study," she said. Wait, isn't "nonfiction journalism" supposed to be a redundancy? Her former employer, the New York Times, also picked up the story:
Narrative nonfiction, she said, "is more important than ever. Its traditions and how it is changing in the digital transition are fascinating areas of study." Gotta love the way they cleaned up the quote.
Follow @jamestaranto on Twitter.
Join Fans of Best of the Web Today on Facebook.
Subscribe to the Best of the Web Today email with one click.
|
