I am beginning to think Krugman's hatred is taking him "round the bend." The ADL got all over him for this column. Now the Taranto deconstructs it.
__________________________________________________
BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
BY JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, October 21, 2003 3:23 p.m.
An Unraveling Mind
Can former Enron adviser Paul Krugman get any nuttier? We'd have said no, but then we read today's column. Krugman weighs in on last week's anti-Jewish tirade by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, and the results boggle the mind.
Krugman begins by characterizing Mahathir's comments as "inexcusable," but then goes on to make excuses for them. "Mr. Mahathir is a cagey politician, who is neither ignorant nor foolish," Krugman explains. The anti-Semitism is "rhetorical red meat" for the rabble, "part of a delicate balancing act aimed at domestic politics." And anyway, it wasn't even the central theme of Mahathir's speech:
Most of it is criticism directed at other Muslims, clerics in particular. Mr. Mahathir castigates "interpreters of Islam who taught that acquisition of knowledge by Muslims meant only the study of Islamic theology." Thanks to these interpreters, "the study of science, medicine, etc. was discouraged. Intellectually the Muslims began to regress." A lot of the speech sounds as if it had been written by Bernard Lewis, author of "What Went Wrong," the best-selling book about the Islamic decline.
If Krugman is right, this is terrific news. The leader of a Muslim country is confronting his fellow Muslim rulers with hard truths, in the manner of Bernard Lewis, no less. But in the twisted mind of Paul Krugman, this is evidence of "how badly things are going for U.S. foreign policy." And of course it's all President Bush's fault:
Not long ago Washington was talking about Malaysia as an important partner in the war on terror. Now Mr. Mahathir thinks that to cover his domestic flank, he must insert hateful words into a speech mainly about Muslim reform. That tells you, more accurately than any poll, just how strong the rising tide of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism among Muslims in Southeast Asia has become. Thanks to its war in Iraq and its unconditional support for Ariel Sharon, Washington has squandered post-9/11 sympathy and brought relations with the Muslim world to a new low.
So, to summarize Krugman's argument: Normally, when a "cagey" Muslim ruler "castigates" theocratic elements of his society, he feels no need to "protect his domestic flank." If only Saddam Hussein still ruled Iraq and America opposed Israel's efforts to protect its citizens from terrorism, there would be no anti-Semitism in the Islamic world.
"Somewhere in Pakistan," Krugman concludes, "Osama bin Laden must be enjoying this." Bin Laden is a sadistic man indeed if he takes pleasure in watching Krugman's unraveling.
That Cagey Mahathir
In an interview with the Bangkok Post, Mahathir himself echoes Krugman's defense:
"In my speech I condemned all violence, even the suicide bombings, and I told the Muslims it's about time we stopped all these things and paused to think and do something that is much more productive. That was the whole tone of my speech, but they picked up one sentence where I said that the Jews control the world," he told Bangkok Post in an exclusive interview yesterday. . . .
Dr Mahathir added, however, that "the reaction of the world shows that they [Jews] do control the world."
Mahathir adds: "Israel is a small country. There are not many Jews in the world. But they are so arrogant that they defy the whole world. Even if the United Nations say no, they go ahead. Why? Because they have the backing of all these people." This sounds a lot like the familiar criticism of American "unilateralism," and it's further evidence that anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism are slightly different expressions of the same impulse.
Off With Their Tongues!
Is this President Bush's fault too? "A group of clerics and theology students from Iran's clerical centre of Qom have hit out at the Nobel Peace Prize win of women's rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi saying it was part of a Western conspiracy against Islam," reports Middle East Online from Tehran:
In a statement carried by the hardline Jomhuri Eslami newspaper, the group from Qom's main seminary said: "The decision by the Western oppressive societies to award the prize to Ebadi was done in order to ridicule Islam."
The paper did not say how many people signed the statement, which also lamented that a "serious revolutionary confrontation with the tribe of infidels" had not yet taken place.
As for the "infidels," it voiced hope for their "tongues to be cut from their mouths and the poisonous pens broken in their hearts."
Tongue-cutting, meanwhile, turns out to be popular in South Korea, according to Reuters: "Chop about half an inch or so off your tongue and become a fluent English speaker. That is the hope that recently drove one mother to take her six-year-old son for surgery aimed at ridding him of his Korean accent when speaking the language of choice in global business."
A Liberal Fesses Up
After Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Tom Brazaitis repeated the claim that President Bush had called Iraq an "imminent threat," reader Bruce Batista challenged him. To his credit, Brazaitis backs down. In his Sunday column, he acknowledges that Bush never said anything of the sort. Indeed, in the 2003 State of the Union address, the president said exactly the opposite:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, all recriminations would come too late."
Not that Brazaitis isn't as fatuous as ever. Having disavowed the "imminent" canard, he now insists that Saddam "posed no threat at all."
They Were So Moderate Before We Fought Back
"U.N. Report: U.S. War on Terror Radicalizes Arabs"--headline, Reuters, Oct. 20
The Stockholm Syndrome
Bruce Laingen, who was among several dozen Americans held hostage by Muslim moonbats in Iran a generation ago, seems to have developed a sympathy for his erstwhile captors. Here's his letter to the editor of the New York Times:
Your Oct. 16 editorial "The American Prison Camp" cites a comment by officials of the International Committee of the Red Cross who recently visited the roughly 660 detainees at Guantánamo that there is a "worrying deterioration" in their mental condition because of their not knowing what will happen to them, or when.
As someone who was a hostage in Tehran during the hostage crisis there, I can attest to the intensely demoralizing effect of not knowing what was to become of us.
After some 18 months, America's standards of justice are being disgraced by what we are displaying at Guantánamo. It is time for the President to act to see that justice is done.
Apparently Laingen does not understand the difference between a diplomat and an unlawful combatant.
'That Dirty Dog'
"He still doesn't take my advice, that dirty dog," says a critic of the president. This critic, however, doesn't hate the president; she loves him. The comment comes from none other than Barbara Bush, the president's mother. The former first lady also describes the Democratic presidential field as a "sorry group."
He Opposes Both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis
"Entry of Film Stars, Eunuchs in Politics Unhealthy: Sharad"--headline, Hindustan Times, Oct. 21.............
opinionjournal.com |
