BY JAMES TARANTO
Monday, October 11, 2004 4:09 p.m.
Three Cheers for Australia
On behalf of America, we'd like to thank our friends Down Under for handing the pro-American Liberal government of John Howard a resounding re-election victory. The Liberals beat the Labor Party, whose candidate for prime minister, Mark Latham, had pledged to cut and run from Iraq. Howard's victory is a defeat for al Qaeda, which recently bombed the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, presumably in hope of influencing the election à la Spain.
Australia is arguably America's greatest ally. It's the fourth biggest coalition partner in Iraq (after the U.S., Britain and Missouri), and Aussie troops--unlike even the British--fought alongside Americans in Vietnam. To those of us who care about American alliances, the Australian election results are heartening news indeed.
Three Cheers for Afghanistan
Congratulations to the people of Afghanistan, who have just held the first free election in their history. As in Australia, the Afghan election was a defeat for al Qaeda--in this case simply by virtue of taking place.
Metaphor Alert
"Afghan Vote Masks Hurdles That Block Fairy-Tale Ending"--headline, USA Today editorial, Oct. 11
Sept. 10 Man
The New York Times magazine carries a potentially devastating profile of John Kerry:
When I asked Kerry how Sept. 11 had changed him, either personally or politically, he seemed to freeze for a moment.
"It accelerated--" He paused. "I mean, it didn't change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing. I mean, to me, it wasn't as transformational as it was a kind of anger, a frustration and an urgency that we weren't doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to deal with it."
And what would those things be? This takes us back to the concept of terrorism as law-enforcement operation:
When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview [than President Bush]. "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Kerry said. "As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."
Eugene Volokh calmly dismantles Kerry's argument:
What remarkable analogies Kerry started with: prostitution and illegal gambling. The way law enforcement has dealt with prostitution and illegal gambling is by occasionally trying to shut down the most visible and obvious instances, tolerating what is likely millions of violations of the law per year, de jure legalizing many sorts of gambling, and de jure legalizing one sort of prostitution in Nevada, and de facto legalizing many sorts of prostitution almost everywhere; as best I can tell, "escort services" are very rarely prosecuted, to the point that they are listed in the Yellow Pages.
These are examples of practical surrender, or at least a cease-fire punctuated by occasional but largely half-hearted and ineffectual sorties. It's true that illegal gambling and prostitution aren't "threatening the fabric of [American] life," but that's because they never threatened it that much in the first place.
And James Lileks is outraged:
A nuisance? . . . Mosquito bites are a nuisance. Cable outages are a nuisance. Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn't a nuisance. It's war.
But that's not the key phrase. This matters: We have to get back to the place we were.
But when we were there we were blind. When we were there we [were] losing. When we were there we died. We have to get back to the place we were. We have to get back to 9/10? We have to get back to the place we were. So we can go through it all again? We have to get back to the place we were. And forget all we've learned and done? We have to get back to the place we were. No. I don't want to go back there. Planes into towers. That changed the terms. I am remarkably disinterested in returning to a place where such things are unimaginable. Where our nightmares are their dreams.
We have to get back to the place we were.
No. We have to go the place where they are.
There's not much we can add to that, so we'll just quote an anecdote from the Times piece that gives a window into Kerry's character:
On an evening in August, just after a campaign swing through the Southwest, Kerry and I met, for the second of three conversations about terrorism and national security, in a hotel room overlooking the Ferris wheel on the Santa Monica pier. A row of Evian water bottles had been thoughtfully placed on a nearby table. Kerry frowned.
"Can we get any of my water?" he asked Stephanie Cutter, his communications director, who dutifully scurried from the room. I asked Kerry, out of sheer curiosity, what he didn't like about Evian.
"I hate that stuff," Kerry explained to me. "They pack it full of minerals."
"What kind of water do you drink?" I asked, trying to make conversation.
"Plain old American water," he said.
"You mean tap water?"
"No," Kerry replied deliberately. He seemed now to sense some kind of trap. I was left to imagine what was going through his head. If I admit that I drink bottled water, then he might say I'm out of touch with ordinary voters. But doesn't demanding my own brand of water seem even more aristocratic? Then again, Evian is French--important to stay away from anything even remotely French.
"There are all kinds of waters," he said finally. Pause. "Saratoga Spring." This seemed to have exhausted his list. "Sometimes I drink tap water," he added.
By campaigning against America's war effort, Kerry has abandoned the old idea that politics stops at the water's edge. For him, it apparently doesn't even stop at the water glass.
Namn-Tapp-Gröt
The Swedes have an amusing expression: When someone keeps dropping things, they will ask, "Have you eaten drop porridge?" If there's such a thing as name-drop porridge, John Kerry (who also kept dropping his G's) had a heapin' helpin' of it before Friday's debate during which he said:
King Abdullah of Jordan said just yesterday or the day before you can't hold elections in Iraq with the chaos that's going on today. Sen. Richard Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that the handling of the reconstruction aid in Iraq by this administration has been incompetent. . . . Sen. Hagel of Nebraska said that the handling of Iraq is beyond pitiful, beyond embarrassing; it's in the zone of dangerous. . . .
Gen. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told him he was going to need several hundred thousand. . . . For two years, the president didn't even engage with North Korea, did nothing at all, while it was growing more dangerous, despite the warnings of former Secretary of Defense William Perry. . . .
This is one of the reasons why I am very proud in this race to have the support of Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Adm. William Crowe, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. Tony McPeak, who ran the air war for the president's father and did a brilliant job, supporting me; Gen. Wes Clark, who won the war in Kosovo, supporting me; because they all--and Gen. Baca, who was the head of the National Guard, supporting me. . . .
John McCain and I have a proposal, jointly, for a commission that closes corporate giveaway loopholes. . . . Former governor Racicot, as chairman of the Republican Party, said he thought that the Patriot Act has to be changed and fixed. Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, he is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said over his dead body before it gets renewed without being thoroughly rechecked. . . . I met a man who spent eight months in prison, wasn't even allowed to call his lawyer, wasn't allowed to get--finally, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois intervened and was able to get him out. . . .
Like Nancy Reagan, and so many other people--you know, I was at a forum with Michael J. Fox the other day in New Hampshire, who's suffering from Parkinson's, and he wants us to do stem cell, embryonic stem cell. . . . Chris Reeve is a friend of mine. Chris Reeve exercises every single day to keep those muscles alive for the day when he believes he can walk again, and I want him to walk again.
That's 17 names Kerry dropped during the course of a 90-minute debate, and only four of them--Michael J. Fox, John McCain, Nancy Reagan and "Chris" Reeve--are anything like household names. (Christopher Reeve, sad to report, died yesterday.) But Shinseki? Shalikashvili? A lot of Americans must've thought Kerry had finally gotten around to identifying the "foreign leaders" whose support he claims.
Former governor Racicot? Gen. Baca? Tony McPeak? Is Kerry living in the world of Commander McBragg?
Kerry Backs Unilateral Disarmament
A woman named Randee asked Kerry what he would do if international sanctions fail to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He didn't answer, but in the course of his nonanswer he offered this complaint: "The president is moving to the creation of our own bunker- busting nuclear weapon. It's very hard to get other countries to give up their weapons when you're busy developing a new one."
Does Kerry really think that if America abjured new nukes, it would appease Iran's mullahs into giving up their nuclear ambitions? This is reminiscent of the far left's view of the Cold War, which is that America was fundamentally the problem, and if it disarmed, the Soviets could be counted on to be nice. Had such an approach prevailed, the Cold War might still be going on today.
He Was Against Labels Before He Was for Them
During the domestic-policy portion of the debate, President Bush tagged John Kerry as a liberal, and Kerry responded in a Dukakasian competence-not-ideology vein: "The president is just trying to scare everybody here with throwing labels around. . . . I mean, seriously--labels don't mean anything. What means something is: Do you have a plan? And I want to talk about my plan some more--I hope we can."
But then the candidates had an exchange on the question of Supreme Court appointees. Bush said he would subject prospective nominees to "no litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution." Kerry replied with what must have seemed to him like a gotcha:
A few years ago when he came to office, the president said--these are his words--"What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts." And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. So you get a pretty good sense of where he's heading if he were to appoint somebody.
Kerry's rejoinder is entirely fair--but does he really think it helps him? The Associated Press reported last month that an AP-Ipsos poll found "56 percent of those surveyed said they wanted the president to nominate a Supreme Court justice with conservative political views if a vacancy occurs; 37 percent said they preferred a justice with liberal views." Kerry would seem to be on the losing side of this issue--nor did he help himself by singling out for derision the court's only Italian-American and only black justice.
Ex-Friends
"Bush-Kerry Battle Can't Strain Friendship"--headline, Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 5
"News Analysis: Key Question After Bush-Kerry Debates: Why the Mutual Dislike?"--headline, New York Times Paris edition, Oct. 10
What Liberal Media?
Matt Drudge reports on a damning internal memo from ABC News political director Mark Halperin (not to be confused with our Mark Helprin):
[The memo] admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable."
The controversial internal memo obtained by DRUDGE, captures Halperin stating how "Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win."
But Halperin claims that Bush is hoping to "win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions."
"The current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done," Halperin writes.
Josh Marshall defends Halperin: "This is simply a news organization trying to grapple with the same reality that every respectable news outlet is now dealing with--how to report on the fusillade of lies the Bush campaign has decided to use against John Kerry in the final weeks of the campaign."
Marshall, who makes no bones about being a partisan Democrat, is entitled to his opinion. But what does it say about ABC News, supposedly a purveyor of straight news, that its political director seems to hold the same opinion?
Meanwhile, how's this for political bias? Saturday's New York Times carried the following "report":
What was that bulge in the back of President Bush's suit jacket at the presidential debate in Miami last week?
According to rumors racing across the Internet this week, the rectangular bulge visible between Mr. Bush's shoulder blades was a radio receiver, getting answers from an offstage counselor into a hidden presidential earpiece. The prime suspect was Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's powerful political adviser.
Earlier, "rumors racing across the Internet" had it that John Kerry brought cheat sheets to the first debate, but the Times, quite properly, did not see fit to report this. (Apparently Kerry was actually removing a pen from his jacket pocket--technically a violation of the debate rules, but a pretty picayune one.) It seems "rumors racing across the Internet" are sufficient basis for a "news" story in the Times--just so long as the rumors are anti-Bush.
They're Thinking of Dumping Kerry Already?
"Democrats: 'Time for New Leadershp' "--headline, CNN.com, Oct. 9
Being Osama bin Laden--II
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof travels all the way to Afghanistan to write up an imaginary conversation between himself and Osama bin Laden:
I sat Osama down for an interview:
ME: Tell me, which candidate are you endorsing in the U.S. presidential election?
OSAMA: I try to be nonpartisan. But Al Qaeda will benefit if Bush is re-elected, inshallah. . . .
Why is Bush good for Al Qaeda?
Recruitment, recruitment, recruitment. Look, the biggest challenge we face isn't getting chemical precursors. It's getting recruits--and Bush has become our v.p. for recruitment.
Ayman made a PowerPoint chart showing our intake. You see an uptick each time Bush embraces Ariel Sharon or talks about a "crusade"--and Iraq, that was a real gift. That new book by my nemesis at the C.I.A. got it just right.
This silly gimmick isn't even original; Jim Pinkerton did it way back in February 2003. Besides, where is the evidence that liberating Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruitment? And why do people who make that argument never acknowledge that bin Laden actually did cite the sanctions against Iraq--the preferred policy of most liberation opponents--as part of his casus belli when he declared war on America in 1998?
The Latest Nuance From Reuterville
A Reuters dispatch on the murder of British hostage Kenneth Bigley refers to the terrorists who perpetrated the act as "militants suspected of fostering ties to al Qaeda." Gosh, shouldn't that be "militants suspected of fostering ties to al Qaeda, which President Bush blames for the 'attacks' of Sept. 11"?
Conspiracy Nut Wins Nobel Peace Prize
The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced last week that the recipient of this year's Peace Prize will be a Kenyan woman who runs a tree-planting program to prevent deforestation in Africa. That's nice, we thought; for a change the Nobel folks have decided to stay away from politics. But it turns out the laureate-to-be has some rather crazy political views, as Reuters reports from Nairobi:
Wangari Maathai made a typically combative start to her first full day as a Nobel laureate yesterday, defending a recent suggestion that the HIV virus might have been made in a laboratory as a plot against Africans. . . .
"Would you solve the problem if you believed it was a curse from God?" she said at a news conference, adding that one theory was that AIDS was created by a scientist in a laboratory as an agent of war. "I was encouraging people to ask questions, which is what I always do."
Maathai caused a furor in Kenya when she was quoted in Kenya's East African Standard newspaper as calling AIDS a biological weapon devised to destroy black people. "Do not be naive. AIDS is not a curse from God to Africans or the black people. It is a tool to control them designed by some evil-minded scientists, but we may not know who particularly did [it]," the Aug. 31 article quoted her as saying at a seminar in her home town of Nyeri.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that "some prominent voices here wondered whether giving the prize for environmental activism, while a laudable activity, in a time of global concerns about war in the Middle East, terrorism and nuclear proliferation was underplaying the potential of the prestigious award":
"I thought the intention of Alfred Nobel's will was to focus on a person or organization who had worked actively for peace," said Carl I. Hagen, leader of the Progress Party, whose senior political adviser, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, is a member of the Nobel Committee. "It is odd that the committee has completely overlooked the unrest that the world is living with daily, and given the prize to an environmental activist," he told Norwegian state television on Friday.
Well, Yasser Arafat already won a Nobel Peace Prize, in 1994. So who does Hagen think should have received it this year, Saddam Hussein?
Be Thankful for Small Blessings
"Moore Likely Won't Face Charges in Underwear"--headline, Detroit Free Press, Oct. 8
Then Again, It May Not or May
"Stretching May or May Not Be Beneficial"--headline, Alameda (Calif.) Times-Star, Oct. 10
Godzilla's Back!
"Monster Says It Could Enter Japan by Mid-2005"--headline, Reuters, Oct. 11
You Don't Say
"Pumpkin Sales Soar During October"--headline, News 14 Charlotte (N.C.), Oct. 11
Blame It on Jeanne
The Palm Beach Post carries a series of short essays on "how we behaved with our vices in a crisis." The authors blame the recent hurricanes in Florida for obesity, domestic violence, divorce and excessive drinking. This strikes us as awfully shortsighted. Just three weeks before a presidential election, shouldn't they be blaming President Bush instead? |
