From the WSJ Opinion Archives
Time to Bomb
Iran?
"U.S. intelligence has detected a suspected al-Qaida training camp in a
remote area of eastern Iran along the border with Afghanistan," NBC News
reports. "Overhead imagery shows what appears to be a training camp complete
with a terrorist obstacle course and a rifle range, much like those al-Qaida
used in Afghanistan to train for assassinations. . . . Sources told
NBC News that while Iran's civilian government may not know the training camp
is there, Iran's military and intelligence certainly would."
If this report pans out, President Bush already has the authority he needs to strike and destroy the camp. The Sept. 14, 2001, resolution authorizing war stipulates that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Who's
Politicizing Iraq?
Tom Daschle took to the Senate floor twice yesterday to accuse President Bush
of "politicizing" the war with Iraq, the Washington Post reports:
Daschle . . . blasted President Bush yesterday for "politicizing" the debate over national security and demanded he apologize for contending that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people."
Saying Bush is trying to exploit talk of war and anti-terrorism for political gain, Daschle said the president's "outrageous" comments undermine efforts to win broad, bipartisan support for the congressional resolution Bush seeks to give him leeway to attack Iraq unilaterally.
Bush's comment about the Senate's lack of interest in national security, however, was actually in reference to the "homeland security" debate, in which Democrats have resisted the president's efforts to ensure that he would have flexibility in hiring and firing workers in a prospective new department. Anyway, as the Post notes, "Democrats are pushing for a quick vote on the war resolution for political reasons, too":
They want to shift the debate to sinking stock prices, deflated 401(k) retirement portfolios and corporate scandals. In a closed meeting of Senate Democrats Tuesday, some members raised concerns of a "regime change" in the Senate, where they hold a narrow majority, if the debate over Iraq drags out, participants said.
More than a dozen Democrats, who requested anonymity, have told The Post that many members who oppose the president's strategy to confront Iraq are going to nonetheless support it because they fear a backlash from voters.
A top party strategist said every House Democrat who faces a tough reelection this fall plans to vote for the Bush resolution. Senate Democrats are so concerned that Sen. Paul D. Wellstone (Minn.) could lose his seat because he will likely vote against the Bush resolution that they are drafting an alternative resolution "because he has to have something to give him cover," a Democratic Senate aide said.
Andrew Sullivan offers a plausible theory about what actually prompted Daschle's outburst:
The deeper issue that Daschle is responding to, methinks, is [Al] Gore's speech. What Gore has done is galvanize the peacenik wing of the Democrats, undermining Daschle's leadership, and pushing Daschle into a corner. If Daschle now goes along with the president, he'll be called a poodle by the left. If he balks, he risks the Democrats becoming associated once again in the public mind with vacillation in matters of national defense. He's trapped, and when pushed by Bush and Gore at the same time, he exploded.
I think he also realizes that his entire strategy to keep the Senate and win back the House is in trouble. He decided early on me-too-ism, so as to return the debate to less troublesome matters like free pills for seniors. But this didn't work, as the war debate kept going and going despite his best efforts. What the Republicans are dreaming of is a November election between peacenik Dems and warrior Republicans. In the run-up, Bush talks about national security, while the Democrats whine about politicizing the war. Bush talks about international substance; the Dems talk about domestic process. On those grounds, the GOP wins in November. Daschle, it seems to me, has just increased the odds of that happening.
Gore's speech was too much even for The New Republic, which has fervently supported him in the past, but which now editorializes:
His speech . . . consisted of neither honest criticism nor honest opposition. Rather, it sounded like a political broadside against a president who Gore no doubt feels occupies a post that he himself deserves. But bitterness is not a policy position. In past moments of foreign policy decision--first the Gulf war, then Bosnia--Al Gore has championed the moral and strategic necessity of American power and thus offered a model for his party. We wish we could say that at this moment of decision he was doing the same.
Meanwhile, the Aberdeen News reports that Daschle's fellow South Dakotan Sen. Tim Johnson "said he'd almost certainly vote in favor of military action against Saddam Hussein." Johnson faces a tough challenge in November from Rep. John Thune.
You
Don't Say--I
"Saddam Resists a Push Into Exile"--headline, USA Today, Sept. 26
First
Germany, Now This
If America topples Saddam, it will do so without the support of the Santa Cruz,
Calif., City Council. That august body passed a resolution
yesterday "opposing military action by the United States against Iraq and
authoriz[ing] the Mayor to send letters to President Bush and to our federal,
state, and local representatives communicating [the] Council's actions."
We hope the president doesn't act too hastily upon receiving the letters. Before
abandoning the goal of regime change, he should at least wait until Berkeley
weighs in.
The
World's Smallest Violin
Morgan
Strong is in a sulky mood. It seems no one in the Bush administration will return
poor Yasser Arafat's phone calls. And they won't return Strong's calls either:
One of his aides called me from his headquarters, or what is left of his headquarters, desperately seeking my help to persuade Secretary of State Collin [sic] Powell, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, or maybe even the president himself, to pick up the phone when Arafat calls them.
Arafat is trying to get Bush or Powell, the aide said, but he would settle for Rice, even though he knows that she has no influence in the administration, to talk to him. . . .
I tried several times to raise somebody, anybody, of consequence at the Department of State or the White House who would be willing to talk to Arafat. . . . There was nobody at the White House or the State Department, or rather not anyone of sufficient rank, who would speak to me. . . .
Now this is silly, silly. I remember sitcoms with this plot. Somebody was mad at somebody and they had to speak through somebody else, even though they were in the same room, or sitting next to one and other [sic].
C'mon, I know there is a lot of sophomoric garbage in the Bush administration, but are we reduced to pre-pubescent pouting. Please get an adult to answer the phone when somebody calls the White House or the Department of State on the weekends. The president can act like a big boy and speak with Arafat before more children are killed in Israel and Palestine.
Oh, the humanity! Strong, by the way, is a "consultant on the Middle East for '60 Minutes,' " which perhaps tells you something about that show.
What
a Gas--II
Is the New York Times a serious newspaper? Let us phrase that question more
specifically: Does the New York Times take serious matters seriously? Last week
we
noted Maureen Dowd's embarrassingly tasteless gibe about Saddam Hussein's
use of poison gas to exterminate Iraqi Kurds. Here are a couple of more examples.
From a news story yesterday, dateline West Hollywood, Calif.:
Nine days ago, two Jewish men were accosted by a group of Muslims outside a West Hollywood nightclub. The mob beat the two with feet and fists while chanting, "Kill the Jews," the police said. The authorities say they believe that it was a rivalry between two groups of Persians, many of whom live in the area. Two men were charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
But the buzz around town today focused on the gay-bashings.
The "buzz"? And a Home & Garden section piece today likens a traffic jam to a war zone:
This month, as many of Stephanie Odegard's Upper East Side neighbors were straggling home from a summer of traffic and crowds in the Hamptons, she was returning to her one-bedroom apartment on East 90th Street from Kashmir, a war zone of an entirely different magnitude.
"Our points will be fair and judicious."--Scott McConnell, an editor of The American Conservative magazine, which made its debut yesterday, quoted in the Washington Times
"Resendiz liked to fracture his women victims' skulls and rape them as they died. Their terrible deaths are on James Taranto's head--and on the heads of every single immigration enthusiast who has minimized this mortal threat to America."--British immigrant Peter Brimelow in The American Conservative's debut issue (not available online)
Interestingly, the item of ours to which Brimelow is responding concerned a piece that appeared on the nativist Web site VDare.com--which is registered in Brimelow's name--in which one James Fulford argued that "Arabs," by which he meant Arab-Americans, should not be permitted to serve on President Bush's Secret Service detail. Brimelow poses as an advocate of sensible immigration reform, and who could be against that? He does not help his case by publishing articles baldly advocating employment discrimination against Americans on the basis of ethnicity.
See
No Evil
Here's a truly disturbing case of political correctness run amok. The Columbus
Dispatch reports that a serial rapist has struck at least six times after breaking
into women's houses near Ohio State University. The suspect is described as
a "black male, late 20s or 30s, medium height and build." Here's the
chilling part: "Police learned that at least twice this past summer, women
delayed reporting possible break-ins because they didn't want to appear prejudiced--the
suspects were black men, and the white women felt bad about assuming they were
doing something criminal."
Zero-Tolerance
Watch
Bryson Donaldson has won a reprieve. He's the student at Muskogee, Okla.'s Creek
Elementary School who, as we noted
last week, was sentenced to five days of "in-school suspension"
for pointing his finger in a "threatening" manner. The Rev. Aundrea
Jones, president of the local NAACP chapter, intervened on Donaldson's behalf.
"We went over all the (school's) policies and procedures, and there was no policy
or procedure" that justified the suspension.
Black
Enterprise
Here's an intriguing statistic: "African-Americans are 50 percent more
likely to try to start their own business than whites, a new report found,"
reports the Associated Press. "In particular, it shows African-American
men between the ages of 25 and 35 with graduate-school experience are the most
likely to start a company in the United States today." Unsurprisingly,
contributing author Larry Cox suggests the glass may be half empty:
Researchers have "lots of good theories" about why African-Americans may be among the most inclined to launch a business, Cox said. For example, African-American men and other minorities may be more likely to start their own business because they may face a tough time finding jobs compared with their white counterparts.
In the age of affirmative action, is this explanation even remotely plausible?
You Don't
Say--II
"Teens Most Often Have Sex at Home: Study suggests need for increased parental
supervision"--headline and subheadline, MSNBC.com, Sept. 26
Twilight
Zone--II
"Forced Migration Is Key to N. Korean Trade Zone" reads a headline
in today's Los Angeles Times. (We noted
the story yesterday.) As reader S.E. Brenner points out, a good definition
of a communist is someone who can't build a strip mall without committing crimes
against humanity.
(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Todd Warnick, Rosanne Klass, Natalie Cohen, Damian Bennett, Mara Gold, Marie Bourgeois, Lew Prince, Ray Wilde, Gary Rosen, Michael Sternasty, Andrea Miles and Matthew Tarpy. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: Will a "Hispanic Clarence Thomas" face a Senate star chamber?
- Pete du Pont: President Bush buries liberal multilateralism.
- John Fund: Schroeder did what it took to win--but at what cost to Germany?
