September 25, 2002 9:45 a.m.
Like many others, I’m sort of sick of this line that only those who have known combat have a right to an opinion about Iraq — or rather, have a right to a hawkish, or “forward,” opinion. But I’m also somewhat amused by it.
My whole life long, the Left has been utterly contemptuous of the military. I was weaned on this prejudice, this hostility. How many times have you heard the following? “Give an example of an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms: ‘military intelligence.’” Ha, ha, ha. Seems like there was a long stretch — of years — when I heard this one maybe every other week. And people always said it with a huge sense of satisfaction.
Also, I remember well the Iran-contra hearings in the late-Reagan era. After Oliver North testified, stirringly, with all those medals, everyone — and I mean everyone — said, “You know, Ollie North’s the kind of guy you want in a foxhole. The kind of guy you want charging up a hill. But he’s a soldier, a Marine. You don’t want someone like that anywhere near policy. He should never have been in the White House.” Civilian control, civilian control, civilian control. It was theology.
I’m sorry to see that even Richard Armitage has entered the act — saying that those with a more cautious position are those who have participated in the hell of combat. First, it’s not true — take a poll, baby. You want only combat veterans to decide on Iraq policy? Be my guest. Second, Armitage is deputy secretary of state. He’s not some pol, or some pundit. He works for Bush, allegedly. I’d woodshed him a little. At the very least, I’d say something, or imply something, or administer a corrective. This BS has gotten out of hand.
Certain top Democrats just hate it, hate it, hate it when Republicans discuss the war. Then again, they may hate it when Republicans don’t.
Here is Tom Daschle, referring to Dick Cheney: “I must say, I was very chagrined that the vice president would go to a congressional district and make the assertion that they ought to vote for this particular Republican candidate because he was a war supporter, that he was bringing more support to the president than his opponent. If that doesn’t politicize this war, I don’t know what does.”
Yes, well, we’re all sorry for Mr. Daschle’s chagrin, but this is a democracy, and we discuss important things here, such as whether, and how, to go to war. In one breath, Daschle might insist on this; in another, he decries it. Depends on what suits him, politically.
Can you think of anything else more important to discuss on the campaign trail this year? Isn’t a matter of war more important than, say, a candidate’s nuance on prescription-drug benefits? It’s perfectly legitimate to stand up and say, “Vote for Smith, because he’s with the president on this war.” It’s perfectly legitimate to stand up and say, “Vote for Jones, because Bush is all wet on the war.” May the better man win — or rather, the people will decide, as they always do, rightly or wrongly.
If Tom Daschle rules the war out of bounds as a topic of political discussion, it’s because he thinks it doesn’t cut his way, at the moment. And that’s no principle. If he wants policymaking of the highest import without a little democratic rough-and-tumble, he can go to Russia.
Oh, no, wait: That’s a left-wing parody of the American Right, circa 1970.
On a related topic, I hear many on the left — the extreme-ish left — saying that any debate on the war has been suppressed. They pretend that anti-Bush views can’t get a hearing. What they mean is, they’re not winning the argument — that’s all. And when they can’t win, when the public really doesn’t respect them, they cry “Unfair!” “Suppression!” “McCarthy!” “A. Mitchell Palmer!” Etc.
Look, I don’t prevail in plenty of arguments: If I had my way, Social Security would be privatized tomorrow. But I don’t pretend that I’ve been suppressed. I acknowledge that the weight of opinion (or emotion) is against me.
When Susan Sarandon whines to the Euro-media that in an Age of Fear “progressive” views are stifled, what she means is: The dumb boobs won’t listen to me. Won’t agree with me.
Wanna see something cute from the New York Times? Katharine Q. Seelye, the political reporter, had an item on the gay-friendliness of Oregon’s Republican senator, Gordon H. Smith. Here’s how she began it: “George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism never embraced protection of gays from hate crimes.”
Now, I know what she meant: She meant that Bush never signed legislation declaring that particular crimes against particular people were special “hate crimes.” But it came out weird, and outrageous. Of course Bush is against hate crimes perpetrated against gays: as he is against hate crimes, or any crimes, perpetrated against anyone. It requires no special, PC legislation to enforce the law — or shouldn’t. But this is how the Left — yes, the Big Bad Left — has seeped into our culture, our language, our everything.
Let Susan Sarandon know, will you?
The New York Sun, my paper, ran the following headline: “America Acting for Zionists, Saddam Says.” Yes, and not only Saddam: Been listening to Pat Buchanan lately? For that matter, been listening to him since about 1990?
Pat is one of the great heartaches of our times, and of my life, as I have written about before. I keep waiting for him to come home. But even if he doesn’t, I will never forget his heroism, puckishness, and effectiveness during the Reagan era. Decades of bad deeds couldn’t negate that. And his memoir, Right from the Beginning, is one of the most beautiful books you’ll ever read.
“Come home, America,” Pat’s old nemesis George McGovern used to say. Now he himself says it, in a way. And I still say: “Come home, Pat.” As Motel 6 puts it, we’ll leave the light on for you.
Another New York Sun headline? “Schumer Said Maneuvering Against Hispanic Nominee.” Schumer is New York’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer; the “Hispanic Nominee” is Miguel Estrada, a Bush choice for the D.C. Court of Appeals. In the context of today’s politics, Estrada is indeed an “Hispanic nominee” (a Hispanic nominee? That’s an old debate, which I’m not going to get into now, so hold your fire). But won’t it be nice when such as Estrada aren’t “Hispanic nominees,” or “African-American nominees,” or “female Aleut nominees” — just nominees, conservative or liberal, smart or dumb, principled or venal, simply human? Will we ever live to see that day?
Well, we did live to see the fall of the Soviet Union. This may be harder. |
