Best of the Web Today
BY JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:39 p.m. EDT
Spinning the Sarin
Tests confirm that artillery shell that blew up in Iraq did indeed contain sarin--between three quarts' and a gallon's worth, Fox News reports. The New York Times buries the story on page 11 (something about weddings in Massachusetts led the front page, bizarrely enough), and it's shot through with pro-Saddam spin:
The discovery of the sarin-filled shell appears to offer some of the most substantial evidence to date that Mr. Hussein did not destroy all of the banned chemical agent, as he claimed before the war last year. It provides some solace, and possibly fresh leads, to the American teams that have been conducting an otherwise fruitless search for the weapons for more than a year.
The Bush administration's belief that Mr. Hussein continued to maintain stocks of such banned weapons was the primary justification put forward for invading Iraq in March 2003. American inspectors scouring the country since April 2003 have so far found little evidence that Mr. Hussein maintained such weapons <font size=4>or a program to produce them. <font size=3>
Even more brazen spin comes from the liberal Detroit Free Press, which editorializes:
This new and dangerous aspect of the war may be a consequence of the American failure to secure hundreds of Iraqi weapons caches and ammunition dumps during the race to Baghdad. There was simply too much stuff and not enough troops.
Now, this may all be true. But <font size=4>isn't it amazing how the argument switched from "no WMDs" to "too much stuff" in the blink of an eye?<font size=3>
Writing in The American Spectator Online, George Neumayr argues that the find confirms weapons inspector David Kay's case for war: "We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq," Kay told Congress "And now we know that there was little control over Iraq's weapons capabilities. <font size=4>I think it shows that Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country--and no central control."<font size=3>
.
What Would We Do Without Most Iraqis?
"Poll: Most Iraqis Believe Saddam Guilty of Torture, Murder"--headline, CNN.com, May 18
.
'He Needs to Be Really Bold'
John Kerry has barely mentioned Iraq recently, and the Associated Press reports on his explanation:
Kerry . . . said on Monday he wanted to give President Bush "some space to get things done."
"I'm trying not to talk about it in politics," he told reporters aboard his campaign plane en route from Topeka, Kansas, to Portland for a rally with Howard Dean, a former rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.
"I want to give the president some space to get things done and see what happens," Kerry said. "I wish the president would lead. He needs to lead, lives are at stake. He needs to be really bold."
It's hard to disagree. Lately the president has seemed a bit overwhelmed, as if the clarity and determination he showed after Sept. 11 has been wavering. On the murder of Nick Berg, for example, he gave this excellent radio address over the weekend:
This week, our nation was sickened by the murder of an American civilian, Nicholas Berg. The savage execution of this innocent man reminds us of the true nature of our terrorist enemy, and of the stakes in this struggle. The terrorists rejoice in the killing of the innocent, and have promised similar violence against Americans, against all free peoples, and against any Muslims who reject their ideology of murder. Their barbarism cannot be appeased, and their hatred cannot be satisfied. There's only one way to deal with terror: We must confront the enemy and stay on the offensive until these killers are defeated.
But he gave this speech Saturday, four days after Berg's murder became known. His initial response was far more tepid. Reuters quoted "a grim Bush" as saying on Wednesday: "There is no justification for the brutal execution of Nicholas Berg, no justification whatsoever." We'll forgive the misuse of the word "execution," which suggests a punitive killing by a legitimate authority, but saying there's "no justification" is awfully weak.
It's crucial for President Bush to make a more forceful case for American victory in the war against terrorists, including in Iraq. As the Belmont Club blog notes, the enemy is using the news media as a front in the war:
It was during the Vietnam War that the Left first discovered the potential war-winning ability of media coverage. The concept itself is merely an extension of the blitzkrieg notion that the enemy command structure, not his troop masses, are the true center of gravity on the battlefield. During the campaign of 1940, Heinz Guderian's panzers bypassed many French formations, leaving them unfought, knowing that if their command structure were severed, the whole musclebound mass would fall to the ground headless. What the Left gradually discovered during the course of the Vietnam war was that Guderian had not been bold enough. Guderian still felt it necessary to win on the battlefield. He had not realized that it was possible to ignore the battlefield altogether because it was the enemy political structure, not his military capability, that was the true center of gravity of an entire campaign.
Thus we get stories like this one, from the front page of today's Washington Post:
With stunning brazenness, pinpoint timing and devastating force, the suicide car bomber who killed the head of Iraq's Governing Council on Monday gave shape to a feeling among Iraqi and U.S. officials and common citizens that the country is almost unmanageable.
The piece is headlined "As Violence Deepens, So Does Pessimism." Such airy reporting--an event giving "shape to a feeling"--seems designed to bring down stateside morale. It's time President Bush and the administration spoke out forcefully in favor of the war effort.
.
Our Friends the Jordanians
Yesterday we reiterated a question we mockingly asked a year ago: Do the opponents of Iraq's liberation wish for Saddam Hussein's return to power? We were referring to American opponents, but the New York Times reports Jordan's King Abdullah II seems to want if not Saddam, at least somebody like him--in the Times' words, "a strongman--possibly drawn from the ranks of Saddam Hussein's army."
.
Better Late Than Never
"Abbas Condemns '90 Invasion of Kuwait"--headline, Jerusalem Post, May 18
Your Tuition Dollars at Work
In case anyone still doubts that academia leans to the left, the Boston Globe has a report on campaign contributions to President Bush and John Kerry by employees of four-year colleges:
On the campuses of 136 independent colleges or universities, Kerry outdid Bush in fund-raising by a 3-to-1 margin. At 117 public schools, his advantage was a little better than 2 to 1.
Kerry enjoyed big fund-raising advantages over Bush in the Ivy League ($269,385 to $28,851) and the Big 10 Conference ($134,861 to $31,500), which is dominated by large state universities in the Midwest. About half of Kerry's Ivy League money came from Harvard. From Yale University, which both candidates attended, Kerry collected $33,800 in contributions, Bush's $1,000.
Bush did have an edge in the Southeastern Conference ($59,350 to $28,400), which consists primarily of large state schools, and the Big 12 Conference ($77,135 to $37,613) in the West, one-third of whose members are in Bush's home state of Texas. In the entire University of Texas system, Bush also outdid Kerry, $42,700 to $17,650.
Bush did get more donations from university presidents and chancellors--14, vs. six for Kerry. And there's one dog-bites-man element to the story: in 2000, "Bush raised slightly more money from academia than Al Gore."
Homer Nods
Andrew Johnson opposed secession, not succession as we said in yesterday's item on a Kerry-McCain ticket (since corrected). Succession is the way in which Johnson became president. If at first you don't secede . . .
In the same item, we said Gov. Mitt Romney would appoint John Kerry's successor if the latter were elected president. That's true under current state law, but the Boston Globe reported in February that Democratic lawmakers were trying to change the law so that voters would choose a replacement senator in a special election. Presumably Romney would veto such a bill, but the Dems have overwhelming majorities in both legislative houses and thus could override a veto.
The Democratic candidate would be favored to win any special election, since there are no Republicans in Massachusetts except for governors.
Why It Won't Be Gephardt
The Washington Post reports that labor leaders are urging John Kerry to pick Rep. Dick Gephardt as his running mate. He sounds like an excellent choice. Not only does he have the support of industrial unions; he's from a bellwether state, is a respected national figure, and is reasonable on national defense.
Reader George Mitchell ("no relation"), however, points out a problem: Gephardt served in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam era, 1965-71 to be exact. There's no reason to doubt that he served honorably, but then so did President Bush, and Kerry and others in his party have been implying that Air National Guard service is tantamount to dodging the draft (or even desertion, in the case of a Wesley Clark supporter). Given this, they can't very well put an Air National Guard veteran on the ticket, can they?
But She'll Keep Her Day Job
"India's Gandhi Walks Away From PM Job"--headline, Reuters, May 18
What Would Pigeons Divide Without Experts?
"Experts Divided on Pigeons"--headline, Victoria (Australia) Herald Sun, May 18
What a Surprise
"Body Discovered in Plainfield Cemetery"--headline, Courier News (Bridgewater, N.J.), May 18
This Cat Has Seven Lives Left
"Sunday's Plane Crash Is Pilot's 2nd Fatal Accident"--headline, KOMO-TV Web site (Seattle), May 17
Great Moments in Online Polling
"A student who drank a chemical from his high school lab on a dare was recovering in a hospital," the Associated Press reports. "The student drank the unidentified chemical on a two-dollar bet at the school." The identity of the chemical is still unknown: "We need to find out what it was from the toxicologist," says Assistant Principal Ray Lascano.
OK, this is a trivial story, another unsuccessful attempt at the Darwin Award. But alongside the AP dispatch on the Web site of WFTV in Orlando, Fla., is one of the dumbest online polls we've ever seen. It asks, "How much would someone have to bet you to get you to drink an unknown chemical at a school lab?" The possible answers: $2, $100, $1,000, $5,000, $10,000, $50,000, $100,000, $1 million, "I'm crazy, I'd drink it for nothing," and "No amount, I'd never drink it."
The results so far, in case you're wondering: 73% say they'd never drink it. But 12% say they'd do it for a million bucks, 3% for two bucks, and 1% or 2% for each intermediate sum. Maybe school districts should look into this as a way of reducing class size.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Tom Linehan, Henry Hanks, Roy Costa, Barak Moore, Dan Calabrese, Rosanne Klass, David Shapero, Roger Connolly, Brian Tannahill, Lars Larson, Martin Dicker, Carl Sherer, Raghu Desikan, Joel Goldberg, Thoams Dillon, Peter Krarup, Martin Shoemaker, Jim Griffs, Irwin Chusid, Roger LeRoy, Ted Baldwin, Ted Baumgardner, Chip Webb, John Hoh, Jim Wright, Dennis Kennedy, Paul Gephart, John Townsend, Mark Cunningham, Catherine Brooks, Richard Dudley, George Persico, Patrick Coyne, Mark Hessey, Mark Brown, Martin Buchanan, William Twardy, Dorothy Livickm, Ken Flint, James Gallagher, Carolyn Larson, J. Otto Tennant, Scott Bitner, Bruce Goldman, Bill Roberts, Chris Kaeberlein, Oscar Chavez, Ted Rumme, Virginia Kerr, Chuck Kenyon, Cecil Caldwell, Brian Sullivan, Jerry Skurnik, John Joyce, Chris Mooney, Neal Sanders, Ron Tyler, Joe Dispenza and Dori Monson. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.) |
