Best of the Web Today - May 3, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
Zionism Craze Sweeps Saudi Youth
Terrorists hit Saudi Arabia over the weekend, killing six foreigners, including two Americans, at an oil refinery partly owned by Exxon Mobil. Some Saudi authorities blamed al Qaeda, but Crown Prince Abdullah, the kingdom's de facto ruler, offered a theory of his own, as the Saudi Press Agency, a regime mouthpiece, reports:
''It became clear to us now that Zionism is behind terrorist actions in the Kingdom. I can say that I am 95 percent sure of that'', he said.
He regretted that Zionism has misled some of our sons. . . .
Crown Prince Abdullah added that the misled persons also killed people at Public security. He described those deceived persons as stooges of Satan and colonialism, affirming that the Kingdom will be victorious in confronting any deviating group.
It's an age-old story isn't it? Young people lose their way and develop disrespect for their parents and traditional values. They stay out late, they let their hair grow, they listen to heavy metal, or maybe Hebrew pop tunes--and next thing you know, they're stooges of Satan, or, worse yet, Zionists. Oh sure, it's easy for us Americans to feel superior, but isn't this the same thing, more or less, that happened at Columbine?
Why Abu Ghraib Matters
Since word surfaced last week that U.S. soldiers are under investigation for allegedly beating and sexually abusing Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib detention facility, a lot of people have analyzed the incident in public relations terms. "As news of the disgraceful mistreatment of prisoners by American soldiers sweeps the world, our enemies celebrate a major propaganda gift," writes Ralph Peters in the New York Post. "Even our friends cannot defend the indefensible."
This complaint is somewhat beside the point. If indeed the allegations turn out to be true--and these photos certainly suggest that's likely--then America's enemies will be able to say one bad thing about us that's true. But from the standpoint of their propaganda, what difference does that make? They will say bad things about us whether true or not, and indeed they're already making preposterous statements about Abu Ghraib.
The Associated Press manages to produce an ex-prisoner, Dhia al-Shweiri, a supporter of renegade Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who claims the abuse he suffered at the hands of his American captors was worse than what Saddam's henchmen meted out in the same prison. Here are the horrors to which America subjected him:
During his stay at Abu Ghraib, he said [he] was asked to take off his clothes only once and for about 15 minutes.
"I thought they wanted me to change into the red prison uniform, so I took off my clothes, down to my underwear. Then he asked me to take off my underwear. I started arguing with him, but in the end he made me take off my underwear," al-Shweiri said.
He said he and six other prisoners--all hooded--had to face the wall and bend over a little as they put their hands on the wall.
"They made us stand in a way that I am ashamed to describe. They came to look at us as we stood there. They knew this would humiliate us," he said, adding that he was not sodomized.
During Saddam's regime, in contrast, "he said he was given electric shocks, beaten and hung from the ceiling with his hands tied behind his back." According to him, "that's better than the humiliation of being stripped naked."
The Washington Post, meanwhile, quotes a former prisoner who says the exercise routine was too demanding and the music was unpleasant:
The black sack the troops placed over his head was removed only briefly during the next nine days of interrogation, conducted by U.S. officials in civilian and military clothes, he said. He was forced to do knee bends until he collapsed, he recalled, and black marks still ring his wrists from the pinch of plastic handcuffs. Rest was made impossible by loudspeakers blaring, over and over, the Beastie Boys' rap anthem, "No Sleep Till Brooklyn."
That some ex-prisoners are bellyaching about trivia does not, of course, mean that all was well in Abu Ghraib. If real abuses are proved, then it's entirely appropriate, as Dan Senor, a spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority, puts it, that "careers will be ended and criminal charges are going to be leveled."
Enemy propaganda notwithstanding, this underscores the fundamental difference between America and totalitarian regimes like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Evil is part of human nature, and Americans are as susceptible to it as anyone else. But in a civilized country like ours, the state uses its power to prevent and punish brutality. In a regime like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the state uses its power to inflict brutality. Those who seek to blur this distinction are acting in the defense of institutionalized evil.
Kerry to Vets: You Must Be Sick!
An Associated Press photo caption:
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., center, chats with St. Louis, Mo., area veterans during breakfast in a diner in St. Louis, Saturday, May 1, 2004. Some of the veterans raised their hands when asked by Kerry how many of them had received counseling.
Doesn't this strike you as awfully creepy? Not only is Kerry perpetuating the stereotype that veterans are psychologically damaged; he is invading their privacy by questioning them publicly about their mental-health history. Does Kerry really think it's legitimate to ask someone if he's sought professional help simply because he's a veteran?
The New York Times, meanwhile, reports on a high-level disagreement among Kerry's campaign staff:
At a recent meeting of senior staff members, Democrats said, Mr. Kerry's aides became entangled in a lengthy debate over what might seem to be a less than urgent issue: whether they should send a Democratic operative to Bush rallies dressed as Pinocchio, a chicken or a mule, to illustrate various lines of attacks Democrats want to use against Mr. Bush. (They say they want to portray him as a liar, a draft avoider and stubborn.)
If Bush wanted to respond in kind, he could direct his campaign to send guys to Kerry rallies dressed as counselors.
Please Allow Me to Introduce Myself
The recent spate of Democrats-fear-Kerry-can't-win articles had us ready to predict a Kerry comeback in the next month. After all, sooner or later the press has to tire of the story line, and the message has to get through to the campaign, right? Well, maybe not, at least on the latter point. The Boston Globe reports:
A Democrat close to one of the prospective vice presidential choices argued against an early pick, saying Kerry had yet to finish introducing himself to the American people. The campaign apparently concedes that, planning next week to begin airing a TV ad focused on the senator's biography. One Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said a group supporting Kerry's candidacy recently convened a focus group in Ohio and the participants literally sat on the edge of their seats as the group ran test ads explaining the senator's background.
"Outside Iowa and New Hampshire, some people don't even know he was a veteran," the Democrat said of Kerry, a decorated combat veteran in the Vietnam War.
The question is: Is it too late? As far as we know, Kerry first introduced himself to the American people, and confided in us that he had served in Vietnam, in December 2002, or 17 months ago. Now here we are just six months until the election, and Kerry's Vietnam service is still the best-kept secret in American politics, at least outside Iowa and New Hampshire.
Perhaps the Dems had best start printing bumper stickers for 2005: "Don't blame me, I didn't know Kerry served in Vietnam."
Exposed: Conservative Opinionists' Conservative Opinions
Disgraced former journalist David Brock "is starting a new endeavor built to combat the very sector of journalism that spawned him, with support from the same sorts of people (Democrats) about whom he once wrote so critically," the New York Times reports:
With more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals, Mr. Brock will start a new Internet site this week that he says will monitor the conservative media and correct erroneous assertions in real time.
The site, called Media Matters, was devised as part of a larger media apparatus being built by liberals to combat what they say is the overwhelming influence of conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. . . .
Mr. Brock said he hoped his new project could be as influential as the Media Research Center, a conservative media monitoring group run by L. Brent Bozell III that frequently calls attention to what it calls examples of liberal bias in the news media.
We checked out the Media Matters Web site, and here are some of its shocking revelations:
Linda Chavez, a conservative columnist, has written a column reflecting her harshly critical opinion of John Kerry.
In the commentary panel segment of "Fox News Sunday," Chris Wallace expressed an opinion critical of last week's "Nightline" show rehearsing the names of soldiers who've died in Iraq.
Some conservative pundits don't agree with the opinion of Thomas Oliphant, a Boston Globe reporter, vis-à-vis Kerry's Medalgate scandal.
See the problem here? Brock's new shop is devoted to faulting conservative opinion journalists for expressing conservative opinions. What the Media Research Center does is entirely different; it analyzes liberal bias in the news media, which are supposed to be objective.
If liberals are willing to spend $2 million funding a Web site that does nothing more than expose conservative commentators for engaging in conservative commentary, can we really afford to trust them with our tax dollars?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero-Tolerance Watch
Amanda Conroy, the high school senior who faces expulsion for unintentionally bringing a stun gun into the campus parking lot in her mother's car, was to be allowed to go to her prom after all, the Naples (Fla.) Daily News reported Saturday. (We noted the story Friday.) The prom was Saturday and officials at Barron Collier High School now say the expulsion starts today. They're also allowing Conroy to take an advanced-placement test, though she must spend the final three weeks of the school year in "the district's Phoenix Alternative Program."
Well, two cheers for the school officials for rendering their punishment toothless. But their willingness to do so makes their stand on "principle" in favor of the expulsion look all the sillier.
How They Have Fun in Kerry Country
The Web site for the Massachusetts Department of Public Safety has a useful page of advice on "What you should know to prevent your hot water heater or boiler from exploding." It's vital information, no doubt, but the title of the page (which appears in the bar atop the browser window) has us scratching our head: "Amusement Guidelines for Parents." Do Bay State parents find exploding boilers amusing? Or is it the DPS's prophylactic measures that are thought to be a divertissement?
In either case, John Kerry comes from a weird state. |
