Best of the Web Today - August 30, 2006
By JAMES TARANTO
Does Reid Favor Appeasement?
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid yesterday lashed out at Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:
Secretary Rumsfeld's reckless comments show why America is not as safe as it can or should be five years after 9/11. The Bush White House is more interested in lashing out at its political enemies and distracting from its failures than it is in winning the War on Terror and in bringing an end to the war in Iraq.
If there's one person who has failed to learn the lessons of history it's Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld ignored military experts when he rushed to war without enough troops, without sufficient body armor, and without a plan to succeed. Under this Administration's watch, terror attacks have increased, Iraq has fallen into civil war, and our military has been stretched thin.
We have a choice to make today. Do we trust Secretary Rumsfeld to make the right decisions to keep us safe after he has been so consistently wrong since the start of the Iraq War? Or, do we change course in Iraq and put in place new leadership that will put the safety of the American people ahead of partisan games? For the sake of the safety of this country, it is time to make a change.
The obvious point to make is that Reid is being partisan too, but it turns out that isn't quite right. If you look at Rumsfeld's speech, it turns out that the secretary isn't being partisan at all:
In the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated--or that it was someone else's problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace--even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.
There was a strange innocence in views of the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. Senator's reaction in September 1939, upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed: "Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided."
Think of that!
I recount this history because once again we face the same kind of challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today, another enemy--a different kind of enemy--has also made clear its intentions--in places like New York, Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, and Moscow. But it is apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons.
We need to face the following questions:
o With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?
o Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
o Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply "law enforcement" problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?
o And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America--not the enemy--is the real source of the world's trouble?
These are central questions of our time. And we must face them. . . .
But this is still--even in 2006--not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there is more of a focus on dividing our country, than acting with unity against the gathering threats.
We find ourselves in a strange time:
o When a database search of America's leading newspapers turns up 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib who were punished for misconduct, than mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror;
o When a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave volunteers in our Armed Forces as a "mercenary army";
o When the former head of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists and the former CNN Baghdad bureau chief admits he concealed reports of Saddam Hussein's crimes when he was in power so CNN could stay in Iraq[*]; and
o It is a time when Amnesty International disgracefully refers to the military facility at Guantanamo Bay, which holds terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans and which is arguably the best run and most scrutinized detention facility in the history of warfare, as "the gulag of our times."
Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths, and distortions being told about our troops and about our country.
The struggle we are in is too important--the consequences too severe--to have the luxury of returning to the old mentality of "Blame America First."
Rumsfeld says nothing about the administration's "political enemies." He does not mention the Democrats, and the only American politician to whom he so much as alludes is a long-dead Republican, Sen. William Borah. He does criticize the media (specifically Newsweek and CNN) and Amnesty International for anti-American calumnies, and he takes vigorous issue with the mindset that, as he puts it, "somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."
Tellingly, Reid raises no objections to the substance of Rumsfeld's speech. It may be that he agrees with everything the secretary says and is merely playing politics with terrorism. That is the charitable interpretation of his comments. The uncharitable one is that the man who hopes to lead a legislative majority actually disagrees with what Rumsfeld says--in other words, that Harry Reid believes terrorists can be appeased.
* Note: Rumsfeld errs in attributing this admission to "the former CNN Baghdad bureau chief"; in fact, it was Eason Jordan, then CNN's chief news executive, as we noted in April 2003. Jane Arraf, CNN's former Baghdad bureau chief, has told us emphatically that she was not a party to Jordan's suppression of news.
Rational Fools
Richardson R. Lynn, dean of Atlanta's John Marshall Law School, had an op-ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution the other day in which he argued against any limitations on civil liberties in the name of preventing terrorism. This passage is especially revealing of the mindset of civil-liberties absolutists:
Even if a totally preventive legal system did work, should we adopt it? The horror of losing friends and loved ones in the inexplicable violence of terrorism is surely one of our deepest fears. But someone has to say: There are worse things.
It calls to mind the famous exchange between CNN's Bernard Shaw and Massachusetts' Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential debate:
Shaw: Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?
Dukakis: No, I don't, Bernard. And I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime . . .
Dukakis's answer was 363 words long and included a promise "to call a hemispheric summit" on drug smuggling! And of course, it utterly missed the point. The question wasn't if Dukakis favored or opposed the death penalty but whether he was capable of empathizing with the victims of crime. He came across as completely heartless.
It is equally unfeeling to say "there are worse things" than for one's husband or wife or son or daughter to be murdered by terrorists. Lynn doesn't say what he thinks would be "worse," but he does make clear that he is less concerned about harm to individuals than about an abstract notion of what is good for society:
It is entirely rational to accept some level of terrorism, crime or disorder rather than live in a police state that claims to guarantee perfect safety.
Like Dukakis's arguments against the death penalty, the truth of this assertion is debatable (and never mind that no one is seriously proposing a police state). But also like Dukakis's answer to Shaw's question, it misses the point in a profound way. Human beings are not "entirely rational." If we were, we wouldn't worry about losing loved ones in terrorist attacks, because we wouldn't love anyone.
Wisdom entails not only rationality but also due regard for human feeling. In this regard, civil-liberties absolutists seem totally oblivious. Fear is the enemy of civil liberties. If America suffers another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11, Americans will become more fearful--a reaction that is not entirely irrational--and civil liberties will become more vulnerable. Civil libertarians' lack of concern with preventing terrorism may be "entirely rational," but it sure is foolish.
Did Hezbollah Win?--IV
Saudi Arabia's English-language Arab News is joining the anti-Hezbollah pile-on:
With the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah expressing regret Sunday on Lebanese TV for the month-long war in Lebanon in which more than a thousand people died, many people in the Kingdom accused the Hezbollah militia of "adventurism" and being "irresponsible." . . .
Abu Muhammad, a Saudi private sector worker, said, "What I don't understand is that if he knew that Israel was going to react like this then why did he do it? In my opinion he is no different to (Osama) Bin Laden who brought destruction to the Arab and Islamic world because of his adventurism." . . .
Hasan Minawi is a Lebanese national in his early 30s living in Jeddah. He said, "Nasrallah's regret was expected -- he wasn't even ready for this war. He did not build any shelters or at least set up an siren system to warn people about pending attacks. He was ready with arms but not with backup. He should have apologized long ago."
Minawi added, "Nasrallah knows how the Israeli enemy behaves, he should have known it was going to go this far and even beyond."
Minawi's comment is quite revealing. He's not saying it was morally wrong to attack Israel but that it was strategically stupid to provoke "the Israeli enemy" with the knowledge that it would strike back. By this reasoning, there would be no reason not to attack Israel if it refrained from defending itself. It's a nice example of the folly of appeasement.
Witnesses for the Defense
"Lawyers for an Illinois man accused of funneling millions of dollars to a Palestinian Arab militant group, Hamas, are asking a federal judge in Chicago to hold a hearing examining the prosecution's connections with the Israeli government," the New York Sun reports:
In a motion filed yesterday, attorneys for Muhammad Salah asked to call witnesses and present other evidence to prove that the criminal case is the product of "the joint venture, cooperation, and partnership" between the American and Israeli governments. The defense lawyers said Israel should be compelled to turn over evidence favorable to Mr. Salah because the Israeli and American governments have acted in lockstep in the case.
Mr. Salah was deported to America in 1997 after spending nearly five years in jail in Israel on charges related to money he allegedly carried for Hamas. He is scheduled to go on trial in October on the new American charges.
A defense lawyer, Michael Deutsch, described a "longstanding and profound political military and law enforcement relationship" between Israel and America. One authority he cited is an academic paper published in March, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."
That, of course, is the infamous "study" by Stephen Walt und John Mearsheimer.
Dishonor Roll
Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii "has backed away from his support of Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman in his controversial run for re-election as an independent," reports the Honolulu Advertiser's David Shapiro:
Party rules require loyalty to the Democratic nominee, and several Hawai'i Democrats have faced disciplinary action in the past for backing third-party candidates over the party's choice. . . .
Hawai'i's senior senator said he was disappointed when Lieberman made a speech "very critical of the Democratic Party."
"I told some of my friends after he gave his speech saying the party isn't the party he knew that he doesn't get my support," Inouye said in an interview.
He said he hasn't communicated with either Lieberman or Lamont, "but if people ask I'll tell them I back Lamont."
Hey, how come Shapiro left the apostrophe out of Con'necticut?
Anyway, here's the honor roll with Inouye's name crossed off:
Senators:
o Tom Carper (Del.)
o Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)
o Mary Landrieu (La.)
o Ben Nelson (Neb.)
o Mark Pryor (Ark.)
o Ken Salazar (Colo.)
Representatives:
o Ed Case (Hawaii)
o Brad Sherman (Calif.)
On the Huffington Post, someone called Bob Geiger is elated: "When Joe Lieberman gave the middle finger to Democratic voters in Connecticut . . . my guess was that the whole thing would run its course and begin to unravel by the end of September. It looks like it's starting a month early."
But does Inouye's support really mean "the whole thing" has begun to "unravel"? If Lieberman could lose the primary despite Inouye's endorsement, why shouldn't Lamont be able to do the same in the general election?
Homelessness Rediscovery Watch
"If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition's arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation."--Mark Helprin, Oct. 31, 2000
"Hundreds of Pets Homeless in New Orleans a Year After Katrina"--headline, Agence France-Presse, Aug. 24
Metaphor Alert
New York's Sen. Chuck Schumer, quoted by the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, opines on the forthcoming election:
"This administration is shrugging its shoulders. . . . It's like 'The Wizard of Oz' -- it showed the man behind the screen. . . . You know which way the winds are blowing. . . . There have been very few bumps in the road. . . . The wind continues to stay at our backs. . . . The idea that there should be no check and balance, no congressional oversight, just isn't flying. They want to try to bring back the 2004 playbook. . . . They're trying to find a new rabbit to pull out of the hat, but so far they've gone back to the old chestnuts." . . .
"They're going to bring up the same old chestnuts in one form or other, and it's not going to work," Schumer continued. "Digging the hole deeper makes a difference. . . . The real way they can get well is a change in course. That's what America wants, a new direction. . . . We have an uphill road in the sense that the map is a tough map, but we're feeling very good. . . . The meat-and-potato issues are the Democratic base. . . . There's a big wind at Democrats' backs. . . . The national winds tend to blow better in Senate races, but we have a tougher map."
What, no dagger? Seems to us, though that Schumer is counting his chickens before they're hatched, and that could backfire, leaving him licking his wounds.
After all, as Ron Sirak has observed, "The problem with history is that it gets old in a hurry, falling from our forward vision into the peripheral, then tumbling to the rearview mirror with astonishing swiftness until it fades into a tiny speck fighting for space on the limited chip of memory."
Heaven Can Wait
"An 80-year-old woman killed by her husband in a murder-suicide in a Penticton [British Columbia] hospital on Tuesday was awaiting transfer to a long-term care facility."--Canadian Press, Aug. 29
World's Biggest Pin
"A 30-mile maze canyons in Antarctica was carved out of bedrock by the catastrophic draining of subglacial lakes during global warming between 12 million and 14 million years ago," the Associated Press reports. The headline: "Scientists Pinpoint Polar Cataclysm Date."
He Should Be Grounded Before He Hurts Someone
"Sen. Barack Obama Electrifies Kenyans"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 29
He Should Have Told the Truth
"Man Run Over While Lying on Freeway"--headline, KGTV Web site (San Diego), Aug. 29
News You Can Use
"Fog of Alcoholism Clears With Sobriety"--headline, WebMD Medical News, Aug. 28
Thanks for the Tip!--C
"Health Tip: Get Used to Your Hearing Aid"--headline, HealthDay.com, Aug. 30
Bottom Story of the Day
"Sheehan Not Coming to Utah"--headline, KSL-TV Web site (Salt Lake City), Aug. 29
Open Mic Night
The Media Research Center's NewsBusters.org has a cute item about CNN's Kyra Philliips, who had this to say during President Bush's speech from New Orleans yesterday:
Phillips: [major-league vulgarity deleted] Yeah, I'm very lucky in that regard with my husband. My husband is handsome and he is genuinely a loving, you know, no ego. [unintelligible] You know what I'm saying. Just a really passionate, compassionate, great, great human being. And they exist. They do exist. They're hard to find. Yup. But they are out there.
Unidentified woman: We'll see. He's going to come, you know, he's set for an extended visit [unintelligible].
Phillips: I mean, that's, that's how you figure it all out, those extended visits. [laughter]
Unidentified woman: Yeah, but my mom, I think she really likes him.
Phillips: Mom's got a good vibe? Good.
Unidentified woman: Yeah, my brother's the one that [unintelligible].
Phillips: Brother--of course, brothers have to be, you know, protective. Except for mine. I've got to be protective of him. . . . He's married, three kids, but his wife is just a control freak.
Unidentified woman No. 2: Kyra.
Phillips: Yeah, baby?
Unidentified woman No. 2: Your mic is on. Turn it off. It's been on the air.
The president, of course, is no stranger to the open mic; back in 2000 he was caught expressing his disdain for a New York Times reporter. Just as that probably enhanced Bush's public image, it's hard not to like someone who has such nice things to say about her husband--though Thanksgiving may bring some awkward moments with her sister-in-law. |
