SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30037)2/17/2004 3:31:42 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793851
 
Brooks doesn't pull his punches in this column

February 17, 2004 - NYT
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Party of Kennedy, or Carter?
By DAVID BROOKS

Between 1940 and 1968, the American people trusted the Democratic Party in times of war. But Vietnam shattered that trust. So if we're going to talk about Vietnam during this campaign, as I guess we are, let's not talk about how many days George Bush served in the National Guard, or how many rows John Kerry sat from Jane Fonda at a protest rally. Let's talk about the meaning of the Vietnam War, and what lessons each party has drawn from that disaster.

The Democrats Americans trusted, from Harry Truman to John Kennedy, lived in the shadow of World War II. They'd learned the lessons of Munich and appeasement. They saw America engaged in a titanic struggle against tyranny and believed in using military means for idealistic ends. They also had immense confidence in themselves and in their ability to use power to spread freedom.

Their confidence took them into Vietnam and into the quagmire. There were two conflicting lessons that could be drawn from that experience. Scoop Jackson Democrats saw Vietnam as a bungled battle in what was nonetheless a noble anti-Communist war. Most of these people ended up as Republicans.

But most Democrats — and John Kerry was very much a part of this group — saw Vietnam as a refutation of the cold war mentality. These liberals saw the bungling and the lies as symptoms of a deep sickness in the military-industrial complex. So we got movies like "Dr. Strangelove" and "M*A*S*H," which treated military life as insane.

These Democrats saw Vietnam as an indictment of a Manichaean good vs. evil worldview, of an overweening arrogance that led hawks into parts of the world they didn't understand. Most of all, they saw it as an indictment of American nationalism, the belief that America was culturally superior and should venture around the globe defeating tyranny.

Hence Democratic foreign policy in the 1970's was isolationist at worst, modest at best. Democrats eschewed flag-waving and moralistic language about the Soviets. Jimmy Carter talked about root causes like hunger and poverty. For many liberals, as Charles Krauthammer recently said, "cold warrior" was an epithet.

These liberals were horrified when a group of former Democrats, led by Ronald Reagan and Jeane Kirkpatrick, led a hawk resurgence. The Reaganites believed in American exceptionalism, saw themselves as the heirs to Truman and Kennedy, and sought to confront and defeat the evil empire. The Democratic establishment — again, with Kerry playing a crucial role — recoiled from such language, and opposed the Reagan arms buildup.

Most Americans decided that Reagan was right about the world, and that the Democrats were naïve.

But the end of the cold war put an end to that debate. And as the Balkans crisis deepened, the Democrats shifted. Suddenly Democrats were boldly committing troops around the globe, without even bothering to ask the U.N. The Vietnam syndrome seemed to be over. Democrats seemed set to re-emerge as a confident, tough-minded and hawkish party, ready to use force and reassert America's exceptional world role.

Now, in the midst of the war against Islamic totalitarianism, the crucial question is this: Is the Democratic Party truly set to reclaim the legacy of Truman and Kennedy, or is it still living in the shadow of Vietnam?

If you talk to Democratic foreign policy elites in Washington and New York, you come away convinced that the party has recovered from Vietnam, and is ready to assert power, albeit in multilateral guises. If, on the other hand, you attend Democratic primary rallies, you come away convinced that the party is still, at its base, the Jimmy Carter party when it comes to global affairs.

And if you listen to John Kerry, you come away not knowing what to think. He seems like a man betwixt and between, unable to issue a clear statement about America's role in the world, and hence floating toward whatever is expedient at the moment.

If Kerry can speak the language of Truman and Kennedy, and stick with it, he will cross a basic threshold, and Americans will consider trusting him with their security. If he does not cross that threshold, all the personal heroism in the world will not be enough to get him elected.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30037)2/17/2004 7:08:05 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793851
 
The Vietnam Syndrome, Again
The mistake Democrats make when they compare Iraq to Vietnam.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Feb. 16, 2004, at 2:23 PM PT

One of the stupidest of the many pseudointellectual observations made by Henry Kissinger was his attempted coinage of "the Vietnam syndrome." This supposedly lamentable condition did not do what it was supposed to do: create flashbacks and panic attacks at the very thought of a land war in Asia as the successor power to French colonialism (Kissinger's great cause and the launch of his ugly, unelected career). Instead, it was allegedly responsible for critical "failures of will" when it came to destabilizing Angola or Chile. Speaking prematurely and off the cuff in 1991, President George Bush Sr. declared the Vietnam syndrome to have been cured by the apparent success of the "first" Gulf War, which was actually only the beginning of a long war of maneuver with Saddam Hussein that took more than a decade to conclude.

And now the syndrome is back, having mutated almost beyond recognition. More than a quarter of a century after the collapse of the doomed American intervention in Indochina, we can't get over it. This is, in my opinion, as it should be. There ought to be no forgetting or forgiving of what happened there, nor will there be while any of us are around who remember it. Only this year, Robert McNamara has been groping self-pityingly toward an explanation of what he did and even toward some atonement for it. That's more than can be said for Kissinger, who continues to profit from "memoirs" that are replete with falsification and omission.

A war fought with weapons of indiscriminate slaughter, and accompanied by racist rhetoric, with a conscript Army deployed against a highly evolved revolutionary movement is as different as could possibly be from a campaign of precision-guided munitions, with an all-volunteer Army, directed at the overthrow of a hideous and dangerous tyranny, and then taking the form of a drive for free elections and a constitution. If people say that it's "reminiscent" of Vietnam, it means they don't remember Vietnam.

A huge chance was missed in the election of 1992, when Bill Clinton's record as a draft-dodger (not a draft-resister) became an issue. He lied about the matter from every angle and helped perpetuate the lie that those young Americans opposed to the war had been principally interested in the wholeness of their own skins. Having done this, he was in a weak position to say that, unlike Ronald Reagan, he did not think the Vietnam War had been "a noble cause." The noble cause, rather, had been the movement of resistance to it: almost the only case in history when an unjust war had been stopped largely by civilian dissent. Had he said this, there's every chance that people who disagreed strongly would still have respected him.

But now, those like Terence McAuliffe who defended every piece of Clintonian mendacity have decided to pin the label of "deserter" on George Bush Jr. This is sordid from at least three points of view. First, in respect of the facts it was self-evidently untrue even before the release of the president's records (and before some of his original accusers began to change their minds, or, in one case, to admit that he was losing same because of early onset Alzheimer's disease). Bush evidently did the gentlemanly minimum, which was itself a good deal more than the average for his college generation. The term "AWOL" is a studied insult and a conscious lie. Second, it's been admitted by the president well before now that the pattern of his youth was not entirely creditable. We've already covered all that, from the boozing to the driving. We don't have to take his word for it that he was "saved," but it's plain enough that he has reformed, thanks largely to his wife, and so it's mean and despicable to revisit that period in such a Pharisaic manner. Third, some Democrats really seem to want to act hawkier than thou. Are they so sure that this is a bright idea?

Sooner or later, Sen. John Kerry is going to have to say which he thought was the noble cause: the war or the antiwar movement. In the later movement, he clearly was not numbered among the "moderates." I remember those "Winter Soldier" hearings very well, and as far as I'm aware the charges made against the U.S. Army in Vietnam were substantially true, even if some of them were laid by shady and suspect characters. However, if the average in the field was tolerance for rape, torture, mass killing, and a depraved indifference to human life, what becomes of the "band of brothers"?

It would be easier for Kerry to find his voice on this, perhaps, if he could remove the cluster of frogs that lurk in his throat whenever he is questioned about his position on Iraq. On Sunday night in Milwaukee, asked whether his vote on the war resolution made him feel responsible for American casualties, he didn't even rise to the level of waffle. Sen. John Edwards, I thought, distinguished himself again by saying that Kerry's was "the longest answer I have ever heard to a yes-or-no question." Edwards went on to volunteer that he did accept responsibility. That's a bit more like it. Did Kerry think that he wasn't ever going to be asked? Does he think he isn't going to be challenged about Vietnam as well? He's had plenty of time to think about it, so the evasiveness and butt-covering is double-trouble, and multiplying.

There's something creepy about the Democratic decision to hail the heroes of Vietnam, from Kerry to Clark, and to denigrate the extraordinary effort being made to salvage Iraq and to pursue and kill people who really are, unlike the Viet Cong, the common enemies of humanity. It's trying too hard, and it's inauthentic and hypocritical as well as point-missing. It would be as if the Republicans suddenly started talking, as that great veteran Robert Dole once did, about all the conflicts in American history as "Democrat wars." That didn't fly, if you recall, though it would have been a fair description of Vietnam.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and a regular contributor to Slate. His most recent book is A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq.

Article URL: slate.msn.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30037)2/17/2004 9:54:30 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793851
 
I agree with Jay. Rumsfeld is just outstanding.

We're supposed to be against nukes, right? Why don't we go after Israel?

Replied the secretary of defense: "You know the answer by yourself, and the whole world knows the answer. Israel is a small country with a small population. It is a democracy, but exists among neighbors who want to see her in the sea. Israel has made it clear that she does not want to be in the sea, and as a result, over several decades, has organized in such a manner as not to be thrown into the sea."


Jay Nordlinger's Impromptues
In defense of caring, in praise of Rumsfeld, in awe of John Daly, &c.

We don't know whether The Story is true — you know: The Story, about John Kerry — but we do know this: We're not supposed to care. Because only prudes, morons, and sickos would care.

You know full well that the Democratic party, en masse, doesn't care: Their only concern is electability, and what will the rubes and squares think?

I say, every voter gets to act on the criteria he cares about. Every voter — every person — gets to choose what he values: what he admires, what he disdains. And he doesn't have to tell anyone, doesn't have to explain: He can just enter that booth, close that curtain behind him, and do his thang, all nice 'n' American.

If The Story is true, and it grows, all eyes will be on Teresa Heinz (Kerry, I guess) — for in her hands will Senator Kerry's candidacy be. Bill Clinton's presidency was in the hands of Hillary Rodham (Clinton, now, I guess). But — as I used to assert, ad nauseam — she decided to exhibit Battered Wife Syndrome, saying, "My husband, officer? He would never touch me. I got this black eye from falling down the stairs again. And those nosy neighbors who call you: They're just envious of us, because we're so bright and beautiful and successful."

Anyway, I should return to my original point: If you care, my friend, you don't have to feel guilty about it. So too, you don't have to discuss it with anyone. Just sift, and consider, as you will.

Just when I think I like Donald Rumsfeld a little too much — that I've gone a little bit overboard — something occurs that makes me think, "No, actually — I may have undervalued him."

One of the beautiful things about him is that he refers to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as "the so-called occupied territories." (For all I know, he uses "Judea" and "Samaria" when doors are closed!) But I'm thinking now about something else. At the recent conference in Munich, Rumsfeld was asked why the United States doesn't make a fuss about Israeli nuclear weapons. We're supposed to be against nukes, right? Why don't we go after Israel?

Replied the secretary of defense: "You know the answer by yourself, and the whole world knows the answer. Israel is a small country with a small population. It is a democracy, but exists among neighbors who want to see her in the sea. Israel has made it clear that she does not want to be in the sea, and as a result, over several decades, has organized in such a manner as not to be thrown into the sea."

Savor it now, ladies and gents, for we will probably never — ever — see the likes of this fellow, in an office this key, again.

If you supported the war in Iraq, but have forgotten why, may I suggest to you Bob Kagan and Bill Kristol's piece in The Weekly Standard? It is "The Right War for the Right Reasons" — lucid, magisterial, irrefutable. Give it to yourself, or to someone (else) you love.

I have reason to believe that NRO readers will be interested in John Derb at the opera — the Metropolitan Opera, that is. The show in question was L'Italiana in Algeri, or The Italian Girl in Algiers, one of Rossini's greatest romps. Derb is a bel canto man, as you probably know. Before leaving the office, I said to Rich and others, "Derb's going to the Met tonight, so he can greet his constituents." Met patrons are especially fond of his views on social policy.

Anyway, we were sitting in a restaurant beforehand, next to a perfect Manhattan table, at which a gentleman was holding forth — on Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft, in particular. The gentleman said that Cheney was only "lining his pockets" — that was his reason for being in government. One of the gentleman's table mates, bless him, hazarded that Cheney was so rich already, perhaps he didn't need to line his pockets. "No," said our guy, "the very rich, like that, want only to get richer." The conversation then moved to Ashcroft, who was interested in nothing except stripping us of all of our rights (if the words "stripping" and "Ashcroft" can be employed in the same sentence).

In the meantime, Derb and I were talking about how best to kill our Qaeda-ite enemies.

On a previous occasion, I quoted Derb in the review that followed the opera we'd seen. That too was Rossini — his Barber of Seville — and about tenor Antonino Siragusa's rendering of a difficult aria, Derb had said, "He kicked a**." It was a pleasure to quote that. Derb did not give me such material for my Italiana review, but no such contribution is required.

Sir Rudolf Bing, for years general manager at the Met, titled his memoirs A Knight at the Opera (a play on the title of the Marx Brothers movie). Well, Sir Derb is, himself, a knight at the opera.

The New York Times did something surprising: It reported on the results of a study that surely assaulted some of its cherished assumptions. Researchers writing in The Journal of Empirical Legal Studies found that "blacks are actually underrepresented on the nation's death row." (These are the Times's words.) "Blacks commit 51.5 percent of all murders nationally but constitute about 42 percent of death row inmates . . ."

There are other such rude nuggets. What's next? "Hiss Guilty"?

I give you, now, George Stephanopoulos, not to be confused with Mel Allen. He said on Nightline — February 10 — "If you want to put this in sports terms, the Kerry team right now is pitching a no-hitter. They've gone through eight and two-thirds innings and they've got a 12 to 2 lead. It's almost impossible at this point that John Kerry will not get this nomination."

A no-hitter and a 12-2 lead? Well, that's a lot of passed balls, wild pitches, and errors!

Every golf fan — and student of the human spirit — knows how thrilling it is that John Daly has won another golf tournament. Last week, he won the San Diego tournament, proving, among other things, that talent will out, despite tremendous personal travails, demons, and deficiencies. Daly is too great a talent — and too great a spirit, I would argue — to be kept out of it altogether.

And I will share with you something wonderfully sportsmanlike and friendly. During the Saturday round, Daly was playing with Stewart Cink, and he — Daly — on the 18th hole (a par 5), pumped a 2-iron to eagle range (he would make the putt, by the way). Said Cink after, to the press, "To see him hit the fairway and hit an iron to the green — it was kind of spine-tingling, even for me."

Good for Cink. And so, so good for John D, our own Ruth. (Babe, that is — not the daughter-in-law of Naomi.) And no matter how woebegone he gets, he will always have won the British Open at St. Andrews. And the PGA. And other nice events as well.

Um, may I spank my readers a little bit? I shouldn't do this, but I can't quite help it. In a previous Impromptus, I cited a headline over a Wall Street Journal editorial, "Bush Spanks Fannie" (about administration policy concerning Fannie Mae). I wrote, "Naughty, Paul, naughty. [Paul is Editor Gigot]. But I like it. And very British!"

Okay, I got about a thousand e-mails saying, "'Fanny' isn't a British word for rear-end. In fact, it means something much different!"

I know, you #@$!*&%s: I was referring to the spanking.

Next time your fingers itch, will you think a moment before scratching that itch?

End of scolding. Thank you!

A letter from a Pittsburgh journalist: "Jay, as a member of the stinking liberal media, I'm not inclined to agree with everything you say in NR . . . but I read your mag faithfully because, to paraphrase someone, 'One must keep one's opponents close to one's chest.'

"But I love your occasional digressions into Pittsburgh-area speech. One story frequently told by a colleague involves a conversation between two elderly ladies sometime in the late '70s. The scene, a Pittsburgh restroom. They were discussing national politics, to wit: 'You votin' to re-elect Carter?' 'Nah. He got dem policies an' 'at.'"

Okay, yunz, that's enough politics, sports, language, an' 'at. See you soon.

P.S. Rossini was born on February 29, so we get to celebrate a relatively infrequent birthday of his this year.

P.P.S. In that Pittsburgh-ladies'-room story, one might just as well have written, "He got Dem policies an' 'at!" Although Ted Kennedy and his supporters would have begged to differ.

nationalreview.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (30037)2/17/2004 10:16:32 AM
From: michael97123  Respond to of 793851
 
It's actually a horror flick--Wes Craven's "The Incredible Shrinking Palesinian State" soon at your neighborhood theater.

OR the theme song from Mash "Suicide is Painless"

In both the supreme leader Yasafat will live forever.