From the WSJ Opinion Archives
Somewhat
Likely
Here's a Washington Post poll
question guaranteed to drive the Angry Left mad:
How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks?
Very likely Somewhat likely Not very likely Not likely at all
The Post reports that 80% of Republicans, 67% of independents and 62% of Democrats answered "somewhat" or "very" likely. And the paper doesn't think much of this view, calling it an "apparently groundless belief" and interviewing an assortment of "experts" who, while acknowledging that President Bush has never actually asserted such a link, he has used devious mind-control techniques to fool Americans into believing it exists.
In truth, however, "somewhat likely" is the correct answer to the Post's question. The evidence pointing toward a link is far from conclusive, so "very likely" goes too far. But there is ample reason to treat Saddam as guilty until proven innocent. For one thing, he simply fits the profile: America-hating Muslim Arab male with a history of mass murder. And he's known to have had various connections with al Qaeda over the years.
Furthermore, as a February editorial in The Wall Street Journal noted, Saddam's state-controlled press used the first anniversary of the attacks as an opportunity to praise them. "September 11: Allah's Punishment," read the cover blurb on Baghdad al-Iqtisadi magazine. This doesn't prove that Saddam was involved, of course--but if O.J. Simpson had gone around in 1994 talking about how happy he was that his ex-wife was dead, his guilt would have been a reasonable conjecture.
The
President vs. the Lemmocrats
Before President Bush's speech last night, we tuned in to C-Span, which was
rebroadcasting Thursday's debate between eight of the nine Democratic presidential
candidates (Al Sharpton was snowed in). It was a remarkable contrast. The president
was serious and resolute:
Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there--and there they must be defeated. This will take time and require sacrifice. Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom and to make our own nation more secure.
America has done this kind of work before. Following World War II, we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany, and stood with them as they built representative governments. We committed years and resources to this cause. And that effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace. America today accepts the challenge of helping Iraq in the same spirit--for their sake, and our own.
The Democratic debate, by contrast, was one of those "reality television" shows that put real people in utterly unreal situations. In part this is the nature of these preprimary debates, which treat nonentities and crackpots like Carol Moseley Braun, Dennis Kucinich and Bob Graham as equals of the serious candidates. When Kucinich actually began a sentence "When I'm president . . .," the sheer ludicrousness of the moment diminished everyone on the stage, even the statesmanlike Howard Dean.
The candidates who actually have a chance to win the nomination--with the partial exception of Joe Lieberman--were only slightly less silly. Dick Gephardt was worst of all; here are the highlights of his remarks:
This president is a miserable failure! He is a miserable failure! . . . He's a miserable failure on this issue! . . . This president is a miserable failure on foreign policy and on the economy! . . . Why would we want to keep anything of the Bush tax plan? It's a miserable failure!
Beating an incumbent president isn't easy; since FDR only three men have managed to do it. As far as we remember, Jimmy Carter did not rant and rave in 1976 about what a "miserable failure!" Gerald Ford was. Nor did Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton criticize the incumbents they were challenging in such unsubtle terms. If President Bush really were a miserable failure!, Gephardt wouldn't need to harangue us about it. True failure speaks for itself.
Particularly objectionable is the way the Democratic candidates--again, partly excepting Lieberman--are trying to make political hay of the recent rough patch in Iraq. They are doing so in an effort to appeal to the most malevolent elements in their party: those who would rather see America fail than the president succeed. Notwithstanding President Bush's current swoon in some polls, it strikes us as a politically risky strategy for Democrats to campaign on the hope of a quagmire in Iraq. It's as if they're all jumping off a cliff and hoping the voters will follow them. Maybe we should call them the Lemmocrats.
Don't
Mention It
From today's New York Times:
In his 18-minute speech, Mr. Bush did not mention Osama bin Laden, who has so far eluded American capture in Afghanistan. He also did not mention the failure so far to find any unconventional weapons in Iraq, the major stated reason that the United States went to war. Nor did Mr. Bush dwell on the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, which he once predicted would abate if Saddam Hussein was ousted from power in Iraq. That conflict has worsened.
In addition, Bush did not mention that he has reduced Americans' taxes. He also did not mention his plans to reform Social Security or add prescription-drug coverage to Medicare. Nor did Bush dwell on the Democrats' filibuster of Miguel Estrada's appointment to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Why did the Times omit these items, along with many more, from its list of things the president didn't mention?
Early
Retirement
It's official: 50-year-old Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has joined two
other Southern Democrats, 71-year-old Zell Miller of Georgia and 81-year-old
Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, in announcing he won't seek re-election next
year. Edwards is reportedly running for president; all three of the open seats
are good opportunities for the Republicans.
Further south, the GOP is eyeing the Florida seat held since 1987 by 66-year-old Bob Graham. Graham, who also styles himself a presidential candidate, hasn't announced whether he intends to seek re-election, but, as we noted last month, his increasingly bizarre positions are not helping him in his home state. (He had one of the weirdest lines in last week's debate: "We got a wake-up call a couple of weeks ago when our electric system went down. The same thing could have happened with bridges falling into the Mississippi River, with schools tumbling in on children.")
Making matters worse for Graham, the Los Angeles Times reports that Florida--the state that was so close in the 2000 presidential race that Al Gore almost was able to steal the election--"all the key indicators show Republicans gaining strength and Democrats struggling to keep pace." Sunshine State Democrats "are concerned that none of their party's potential nominees are up to the job of defeating the president in a state where his younger brother, Jeb Bush, won a landslide reelection as governor just 10 months ago."
Whoops,
Wrong Year
From Saturday's New York Times:
[Friday's] unexpectedly bad employment report dashed the White House's hopes of going into the heat of the presidential campaign with clear evidence of an economic turnaround and forced President Bush to defend his reliance on tax cuts as a remedy.
"The heat of the presidential campaign"? Uh, perhaps it's escaped the Times' notice, but the presidential election is in 2004. This is 2003.
Y2K3
or Flypaper?
Back in February, we
mocked what we termed the "Y2K3" myth--the notion, propounded
by various folks who wished to keep Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq, that liberating
that country would make Muslims really mad and prompt more terrorism. Now that
Iraq is beset by terrorism, the Y2K3-mongers are claiming vindication. But a
detailed Washington Post article suggests they're wrong to do so. Post-Saddam
Iraq is attracting terrorists, not producing them:
Two years after the attacks on the United States, Osama bin Laden's leadership cadre has been isolated and weakened and is increasingly reliant on the violent actions of local radicals around the world to maintain its profile. But the al Qaeda network is determined to open a new front in Iraq to sustain itself as the vanguard of radical Islamic groups fighting holy war, according to European, American and Arab intelligence sources.
The Post reports that Abu Musab Zarqawi, the al Qaeda terrorist who was based in Iraq for a time during Saddam's rule but fled to Iran, is believed back in Baghdad directing al Qaeda operations there. "A U.S. military official said in a recent interview that there were already 220 foreign fighters in U.S. custody in Iraq."
The Washington Times quotes Y2K3-nik Howard Dean: "The truth is, there are more likely to be more people from al Qaeda bombing Iraqis and Americans today than there were before Saddam Hussein was kicked out." Maybe so, but would Dean rather have al Qaeda attacking in Iraq, where there are 130,000 American troops, or back in New York, where there are eight million civilians?
Secular
Slumber
Today's New York Times reports on a poll the paper conducted on how the Sept.
11 attacks affected New Yorkers' attitudes. Here's a curious observation:
There continues to be a minority of people who avoid the subway, stay away from skyscrapers, sleep fitfully, find new solace in religion.
Then there are the dyslexic insomniac agnostics, who lie awake nights wondering if there's a dog. Seriously, though, does the Times really think that finding "solace in religion" belongs in the same category with being unable to sleep or afraid to do ordinary things?
Oh,
the Humanity!
The Baltimore Sun reports on America's harsh treatment of al Qaeda prisoners
at Guantanamo Bay:
American interrogators here have come up with a few new weapons as they try to pry loose the secrets of prisoners captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan.
"It could be cupcakes, it could be Twinkies, it could even be a McDonald's hamburger," says Warrant Officer James Kluck, who, as the ranking food service officer, helps supply some of the unlikely ammunition.
"Sometimes, they go up on the base and get [the prisoner] a Happy Meal."
A McDonald's Happy Meal?
"Oh, yes, from what I'm told. It's got a toy and everything."
Amnesty International complains that Guantanamo detainees are subjected to "conditions which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." This seems overstated, though we'd have to agree with Amnesty that Burger King has better sandwiches than McDonald's.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports on the latest attack against free speech:
When Mr. Ashcroft appeared in North Carolina on Saturday, Barbara Nettesheim, 69, of Chapel Hill wanted to let him know that she thought the government's antiterrorism campaign was chilling free speech. There were more than 75 empty seats at Mr. Ashcroft's speech, so many that hotel workers cleared away a few rows beforehand.
But because the speech was not open to the public, Ms. Nettesheim had to settle for waving a placard in a raucous protest that spanned two blocks outside the event.
Only in America can someone complain at a "raucous protest" about the suppression of free speech.
EU
Gets a Clue
"European Union foreign ministers meeting in Italy on Saturday declared
that the political wing of Hamas was a terrorist organization following the
group's claim of responsibility for the bus bombing attack in Jerusalem in mid
August which killed 22 Israelis," the Jerusalem Post reports. The Boston
Globe, however, isn't sure if a group that murders civilians on buses deserves
to be called "terrorist." The paper's ombudsman, Christine Chinlund,
explains its position:
To tag Hamas, for example, as a terrorist organization is to ignore its far more complex role in the Middle East drama. The word reflects not only a simplification, but a bias that runs counter to good journalism. To label any group in the Middle East as terrorist is to take sides, or at least appear to, and that is not acceptable. The same holds true in covering other far-flung conflicts. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter; it's not for journalists to judge.
The only "freedom" Hamas is pursuing, however, is freedom from Jews, whom it seeks to exterminate. By the Globe's lights, we suppose this would make Hitler a "freedom fighter" too. Hey, who's to judge?
Speaking of Nazis, here's an Associated Press dispatch from Paris in which reporter John Leicester tries to out-Reuter Reuters:
France will compensate thousands of people whose parents were victims of "Nazi barbarity" in World War II, including those killed in massacres or for resisting the German occupation, the government said Saturday.
So we need scare quotes around "Nazi barbarity"? One man's barbarity is another's Happy Meal?
Eat
Your Heart Out, Michael Moore
The North Korean "news" agency KCNA reports on a Pyongyang film festival:
The 8-day film show started to celebrate the 55th anniversary of the DPRK [North Korea]. To be shown this time will be films dealing with immortal feats President Kim Il Sung performed by founding the DPRK and setting a brilliant example in state building and the extraordinary leadership ability and personality of Kim Jong Il as a great man, who has steadfastly carried forward the cause of building a socialist state of Juche with his unique Songun revolutionary leadership.
Among them are documentary films on the great life of the President including "The Leader Is the Great Father of Our People" and "The Fatherly Leader with the Working Class" and other documentary films dealing with the Songun revolutionary exploits of Kim Jong Il including "Having the Great Brilliant Commander," "Care Shown to Make Their Lives Shine" and "Legend of Love Created on the Road of On-site Guidance."
Cinema-goers will see such feature films dealing with the historic days when the DPRK was founded and the heroic struggle of the army and the people for the prosperity of the country as "My Country," "The Birth of a New Government" parts 1 and 2, "The Nation and Destiny" (serials) and "People of Jagang Province" parts 1 and 2.
Where's
Beavis on the Issue?
"US, EU Butt Heads on Airline Info"--headline, CBSNews.com, Sept. 6
What
Kind of Bears Are Those?
"Hurricane Bears Down on Bermuda Islands"--headline, New York Times,
Sept. 5
Burrito
Republicans
One of the sillier complaints of the Angry Left of late has been that Republicans
are endangering democracy by making end runs around constitutional procedures.
They usually offer four examples, all of which are silly:
- Bill Clinton's impeachment. They sometimes call this "unconstitutional,"
even though the impeachment procedure is spelled out in the Constitution.
- The Florida election dispute. Somehow George W. Bush is supposed
to have thwarted democracy there, even though he had more votes than Al Gore
did and it was Gore who demanded changes in procedures to manufacture votes
for him.
- Texas redistricting. The Dems have half a point here: Gerrymandering
is an affront to democracy. But in opposing a prospective GOP gerrymander,
they aren't calling for a neutral redistricting plan. They just want to preserve
the current, Democratic gerrymander.
- The California recall. Again, this is a procedure spelled out in the (California) Constitution, not an end run around it.
Here's the latest GOP outrage: "California Democratic Party leaders . . . blasted the Taco Bell restaurant chain for a sales promotion that counts sales of different menu items as votes in a mock California recall election," reports the San Mateo Daily Journal:
Taco Bell announced the first installment of its Taco Poll results yesterday, in which 54 percent of the votes went to Schwarzenegger and his crunchy beef taco, and just three percent of the votes went to Davis and his chicken soft taco. All other candidates received 43 percent of votes through purchases of the chain's Grilled Stuft Burrito.
Unhappy with the mock poll results, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, former state Sen. Art Torres said . . . that "Taco Bell should stick to making tacos, not rigging elections."
Where's Amnesty International when you need it?
(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Edward Himmelfarb, Barak Moore, Paul Zieke, Jeffrey Shapiro, Raghu Desikan, Linda Cooke, Michael Segal, David Schlosser, Mario Fante, Robey Newsom, Paul Music, Robert LeChevalier, Natalie Cohen, C.E. Dobkin, Erik Moy, Lawrence Peck, Dave Anderson, Bruce Campbell and Fred Hay. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: What do John McCain and Wile E. Coyote have in common
- Robert Bartley: Iraq and September 11 are inseparable.
- John Fund: Things are bad in California. Some legislators want to make them worse.
