From the WSJ Opinion Archives
All the Noose That's Fit to Print
" 'The Noose Is Tightening' "--headline, Sky News, July 26
"U.S.: 'Noose Is Tightening' Around Saddam"--headline, Associated Press, July 28
"U.S. Forces Tightening the Noose"--headline, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, July 28
" 'Noose' Tightens Around Saddam"--headline, USA Today, July 30
"Tight Neckties Increase Risk for Blindness, Experts Warn"--headline, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 29
Great
Moments in Photojournalism
An audiotape purportedly from Saddam Hussein aired the other day. You wouldn't
think there would be much for a photojournalist to do with this; after all,
photographing an audiotape is like watching the radio. And you'd be right. But
that didn't stop Agence France-Presse, which has issued a photo of Iraqis watching
a television screen that displays a photo of the fugitive tyrant.
AFP had similar photos, of earlier audiotape "viewings" on July 18 and July 5. The July 5 one is particularly artistic. As the caption reads: "A journalist playing with prayer beads and wearing a watch depicting an image of toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, watches the al-Jazeera satellite television station as he listens to a taped message from the leader, at his offices in Baghdad."
But wait. If Saddam was at his office in Baghdad, why didn't the coalition pick him up back then? We guess the noose was loose.
A Saddam Supporter
Repents
We get angry e-mails every time we use the adjective pro-Saddam to describe
someone who favored keeping Iraq's Baathist dictator in power. Not everyone
who differed with the U.S. government's Iraq policy was pro-Saddam, of course,
but some "antiwar" activists clearly were guilty of collaboration.
In the Middle East Quarterly, a former "activist," Charles M. Brown
fesses up:
On May 22, 2003, the United Nations (U.N.) lifted the sanctions regime it had imposed on Iraq twelve years earlier. The end of the economic embargo invites a review of the "peace" activism that was aimed at bringing down the Iraq sanctions while Saddam Hussein ruled. Anti-sanctions groups sought to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people. In fact, they became--whether wittingly or unwittingly--mouthpieces for Saddam in the United States. I should know: I have the dubious distinction of having been one of them. . . .
[After visiting Iraq in 1998] I realized that in order to return to Iraq with the group I represented--the Chicago-based "Voices in the Wilderness"--I and other group members could not speak publicly about issues that would embarrass the Iraqi regime. These included its horrendous human rights record, its involvement with weapons of mass destruction, and the dictatorial nature of the regime. We were allowed to speak only of one thing: the deprivations suffered by ordinary Iraqis under the sanctions regime.
This one-dimensional depiction of life in Saddam's Iraq was pure Baath propaganda, and I (as well as other group members) knew it. As I came to see this as a complicity and collaboration with one of the most abusive dictatorships in the world, I tried to get the rest of my group to acknowledge that our close relationship with the regime damaged our credibility. I failed to persuade them, so I quit. Unfortunately, it seems that my former colleagues have regarded this decision as a kind of political "defection," and it has cost me several friendships, which were apparently contingent on my continued willingness to toe the (Baathist) line.
Brown notes that he once asked a co-founder of Voices in the Wilderness what would happen if sanctions ended. "She replied that the group would likely disband," he writes. "Most of the members of Voices migrated to the issue of Iraq from other issues, and I suppose they will most likely migrate somewhere else. No doubt they will detect creeping U.S. militarism elsewhere and doggedly protest it with symbolic gestures that have little or no meaning, except for themselves."
No doubt. But those in the press who report credulously on the activities of these "peace" advocates should keep this in mind the next time around.
What
Would We Do Without Officials?
"Officials: Suicide Airliner Hijackings Possible"--headline, CNN.com,
July 30
Saudi
Seems to Be the Hardest Word
On Friday, we
noted that Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Riyadh's ambassador to Washington,
was unhappy with the congressional report on Sept. 11, in which 28 pages of
classified material on a "foreign government"--obviously Saudi Arabia--were
withheld. "If Saudi Arabia is really innocent, why aren't Bandar and the
rulers in Riyadh demanding that the administration declassify the 28 redacted
pages?" we asked.
Yesterday, the Associated Press reports, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, did just that in a visit to the White House. But President Bush refused his request on the ground that, in the president's words, "declassification of that part of a 900-page document would reveal sources and methods that would make it harder for us to win the war on terror. . . . It would help the enemy if they knew our sources and methods."
So Bush is now rebuffing a Saudi request for more openness on the ground that it would aid the enemy. We're not sure what this means, but it's awfully curious. The AP also notes the Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and Bob Graham, the former of whom by the way served in Vietnam, also called for declassification. They must've read our Friday column.
Saudi
Justice
Say what you will about Saudi Arabia, at least its strict system of criminal
justice means it's largely crime free. Well, almost. The Arab News reports on
the killing of an 18-year-old maid:
The woman of the house poured scalding water on the maid because she could not understand Arabic, the paper said, while the husband tied her up. Both husband and wife are teachers. When the maid's condition worsened following the assault, the woman took the maid to her mother's house with the intention of having her deported for failure to fulfill her contractual obligations.
The mother attempted to treat the maid with aspirin, but the girl, of Asian nationality, succumbed to her injuries soon after.
The killers' punishment? The wife will go to jail for two years. The husband will go to jail for four years. And the wife's mother "will receive 80 lashes." With a wet noodle?
Dean Imitates the Onion
"Democratic candidate John Kerry seems to truly believe he has a chance at winning the presidency in 2004, the adorable Massachusetts senator revealed Monday. . . . 'Our country cannot afford to stand behind a president who cuts taxes in the face of huge military spending,' Kerry said on NBC's Meet The Press Sunday. . . . 'Yes, sir, "Mr. President," ' bemused interviewer Tim Russert said. 'Whatever you say.' "--the Onion, July 30
"I don't care what label you put on me, as long as you call me Mr. President!"--Howard Dean, quoted in the New York Times, July 30
The
Recall Gets Results
The California Legislature has agreed on a new budget that closes a $38 billion
gap with "a mixture of heavy borrowing and deep spending cuts," the
Washington Post reports. There will be no new taxes, except for a tripling of
the car-registration tax, which Gov. Gray Davis already instituted by administrative
order. The passage of a budget without tax increases has to be reckoned a first
accomplishment of the movement to recall Davis.
Davis will face the voters Oct. 7, and if more than 50% of Californians choose to give him the boot, a plurality will elect his successor. The San Francisco Chronicle reports a federal judge has changed the voting rules slightly: California voters will be able to cast a ballot for Davis's replacement even if they refuse to vote on the recall itself. If our John Fund is right, this will help Democratic replacement candidates--assuming there are any--since voters who abstain on the recall question are "usually supporters of the incumbent, who think the recall is illegitimate."
The filing deadline for the replacement ballot is a week from Saturday, and it's possible that the Democrats will remain unified behind Davis, so that only Republicans and minor-party candidates will appear on the replacement ballot. This is probably Davis's best shot at holding onto his office; since Democrats hold a decided edge in California, the lack of options, combined with get-out-the-vote efforts aimed at interest groups loyal to the Dems, could push Davis over 50%.
We wouldn't bet the farm on it, though. Back in March, we noted that a poll had found "an unnamed Democrat would edge out President Bush." The problem, of course, is that in "an unnamed Democrat" can't actually run in a presidential race. Instead of their ideal or preferred choices, voters next November will have to choose between the incumbent and one of the actual guys now running--all of whom were losing to Bush in that same poll.
But the California recall actually does pit Davis against an unnamed candidate. And Davis is a lot more unpopular than Bush. Party loyalty may be enough to persuade most registered Democrats to vote for the governor--but that'll still leave him well below the 50% threshold. For this reason, we'd be very surprised to see Davis survive.
All
Sexed Up and No Place to Go--III
"A BBC team says it has shown there is no such thing as the Loch Ness monster,"
the Beeb reported on Sunday. Oh really? Then what's with this
BBC story from Sept. 9, 2002--on Newsround, a section of the network's Web
site intended for children: "New photographs have surfaced which could
prove the Loch Ness monster really does exist."
Looks as if the BBC has been peddling "sexed up" news again--and to children no less. For shame.
Thanks
for the Memories, but Isn't This a Little Late?
"Meetings to Focus on Health of HOPE"--headline, Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
July 30
You
Don't Say
"Falling Babies Risk Brain Injury"--headline, BBC, July 29
The
Jury Did It?
"Hung Jury in Case of Former Police Officer Charged With Assaulting California
Teen"--headline, Associated Press, July 30
They
Must've Run Out of Hot Dogs
"Fans Feast on Football"--headline, News & Observer (Raleigh,
N.C.), July 30
What
Was Their First Clue?
"A police investigation is under way after a body was found in a suitcase
in Edinburgh," Sky News reports. Detectives describe the death as "suspicious."
Not
Guilty by Reason of Intoxication
An Oslo man picked up for drunk driving had a blood-alcohol level of 2.59 per thousand. (The
legal limit in most U.S. states is 0.8 or 1.0, but in Norway it's a shockingly
low 0.2.) "A level of 2.0," note the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten,
"is reckoned to be when signs of alcohol poisoning arise, and the subject
exhibits a total loss of control."
It should have been an open-and-shut case, especially since the guy confessed to driving drunk. But he told a newspaper: "I was both drunk and hung over when I was questioned. I signed a confession to get out of an uncomfortable situation. Later I withdrew the confession." A court threw out the charges, agreeing with the man that his confession to drunk driving was invalid because he was too drunk to make it. A defense like this would never fly in Saudi Arabia.
(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michael Segal, Karen Giles, John Forsberg, Steven Myers, Janice Lyons, Reuven Weiser, Thomas Mayer, Barak Moore, C.E. Dobkin, Edward Hildebrand, Natalie Cohen, Jim Orheim, Darren Gold, Bill Williams, Christian Durrett, Bob Sauerteig, Douglas Welsh, Rod Pennington, Brian Nicholson, Catherine Baum and S.E. Brenner. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: Senators urge "internationalizing" the Iraq force. It's already happening.
- Claudia Rosett: Iraq's liberation is the perfect opportunity to smash OPEC.
- Brendan Miniter: Ted Kennedy wants to give a subsidy to people who've already had a tax cut. Seriously.
- Allen Barra: Has Seabiscuit been overtouted as a '30s hero?
