From the WSJ Opinion Archives
'Bush's
Vietnam'
President Bush got some support from an unlikely source yesterday. CNN reports
that Sen. Ted Kennedy declared in a speech at the Brookings Institution: "Iraq
is George Bush's Vietnam." John Kerry, Bush's foe and Kennedy's junior
colleague, has made Vietnam, where by the way he served, the centerpiece of
his campaign. It's interesting to find Kennedy of all people arguing that Bush's
own record of service matches Kerry's.
Not that Kennedy's speech was entirely favorable to the president. Indeed, much of it was an anti-Bush rant. "In this administration," he said, "truth is the first casualty of policy," whatever that means. The Associated Press reports that Kennedy said, "This president has now created the largest credibility gap since Richard Nixon." And: "He has broken the basic bond of trust with the American people."
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
Osama
bin Who?
In the wake of the Richard Clarke kerfuffle, National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice testifies Thursday on pre-Sept. 11 terrorism policy. A report in today's
Washington Times gives more reason to doubt Clarke's new version of events,
according to which terrorism was the Clinton administration's top priority:
The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress--45,000 words long--makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times. . . .
The Clinton document, titled "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age," is dated December 2000 and is the final official assessment of national security policy and strategy by the Clinton team. The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book.
A hat tip to blogger Edward Morrissey, who has some interesting additional analysis, for tracking down the document online. Then there's this April 3, 2001, report from The Wall Street Journal (link for WSJ.com subscribers):
U.S. counterterrorism experts began warning during the latter years of the Clinton administration that invoking Mr. bin Laden's name too often could be counterproductive. But getting senior officials to restrain their rhetoric proved impossible.
"We totally failed in the last administration to get the cabinet-level people to stop saying 'bin Laden,' " says one U.S. official. "That greatly contributed to his image as the great white whale." In one of her last interviews before leaving office, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said of Mr. bin Laden: "He clearly is viewed as one of the major threats to the way the rest of the world operates."
That view was, and still is, what officials believe. But National Security Council counterterrorism chief Richard Clark[e], who held the same job during the Clinton administration, has been urging Mr. Bush's national security team not to talk about Mr. bin Laden in such alarmist terms, preferably not at all.
Last week, as we noted, the Washington Post reported on a speech Rice was to have given on Sept. 11, 2001, which "contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups." The implication was that Clarke was right, and the Bush administration was asleep at the switch.
But note this, from the April 2001 Journal report: "Neither Secretary of State Colin Powell nor National Security Council adviser Condoleezza Rice have [sic] mentioned Mr. bin Laden since taking office, according to a database search of their public statements. That may be due more to the press of other events than anything, aides say. But the shift in emphasis is sure to please Arab and European governments, which long have complained that the U.S. was fueling the bin Laden mystique."
What
Would We Do Without the AP?
"AP: Religious Edicts May Fuel Attacks"--headline, Associated Press,
April 5
Deadbeat
Dad
In 1972, when Kenneth Caldwell was just a baby, his father, Leon, walked out
on the family, leaving mom Elsie Caldwell to raise Kenneth and his brother on
her own. The elder Leon Caldwell saw Kenneth only two more times before Sept.
11, 2001, when Kenneth Caldwell, 30, died at the World Trade Center, where he
worked on the 102nd floor of the north tower.
Then Leon Caldwell reappeared on the scene. Mrs. Caldwell, as Kenneth's next of kin, had applied for a $50,000 workmen's compensation death benefit, and Mr. Caldwell wanted to cash in on his son's murder. Last week, New York's Daily News reports, a state appeals court in Albany ruled "that Leon Caldwell met the legal definition of a parent and could collect half the death benefit," though he won't get to keep most of the money: "The court ruled he must pay his ex-wife $20,000--the amount he owes her in delinquent support payments."
This might or might not have been the correct decision, legally speaking. But Mrs. Caldwell is surely right when she calls Mr. Caldwell's money-grubbing "despicable." Leon and Elsie Caldwell were married when Kenneth was born, but that doesn't mean the father isn't a bastard.
The
Shiite Hits the Fan
Tough battles are under way in Iraq--against Sunni savages in Fallujah and radical
Shiites in Baghdad. "Including casualties Monday and Tuesday, at least
18 American Marines and soldiers and 99 Iraqis have been killed since Sunday,"
the Associated Press reports. "In the same period, a Salvadoran soldier
and one from Ukraine also were killed." (El Salvador and Ukraine are part
of what John Kerry calls the "fraudulent coalition.")
Fugitive Shiite rabble-rouser Muqtada al-Sadr had been holed up in a Muslim shrine in Kufa, but the AP reports he's now moved to Najaf. Sadr at least has more class than Palestinian terrorists, who hole up in the shrines of other religions and in hospitals. CNN reports Sadrites "controlled government, religious and security buildings in the holy city of Najaf early Tuesday evening, according to a coalition source in southern Iraq":
The source said al-Sadr's followers controlled the governor's office, police stations and the Imam Ali mosque, one of Shia Muslim's holiest shrines.
Iraqi police were negotiating to regain their stations, the source said.
The source also said al-Sadr was busing followers into Najaf from Sadr City in Baghdad and that many members of his outlawed militia, Mehdi's Army, were from surrounding provinces.
There are advantages to having them all in one place.
So what does this all mean? "Take a deep breath," counsels Amir Taheri: "This is not the start of the much-predicted Iraqi civil war." He offers some background on Sadr:
Sadr hails from one of the seven clans who have led Iraq's Shiite community for two centuries. He was propelled to the top of the clan's pyramid when most of its senior members, including his father and uncle, were murdered by Saddam Hussein or driven into exile.
But Muqtada is too young to claim the coveted theological title of "Marjaa al-Taqlid" (Source of Emulation) for himself. Nor can he circumvent the two dozen or so senior ayatollahs who dominate the Shiite seminaries throughout Iraq. He is, therefore, trying to make up for his lack of theological gravitas by flexing his political muscles.
"Sadr lacks the strength to disrupt plans for the handover of power to an interim government," Taheri argues, "but he may produce headlines that neither President Bush nor Prime Minister Tony Blair wants to see":
As one Hassan Nasrallah, a Sadr relative and leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, succinctly put it: "We may be unable to drive the Americans out of Iraq. But we can drive George W. Bush out of the White House."
Hey, another foreign leader for Kerry!
Photographs
Don't Kill People, People Kill People
"U.S. troops armed with photographs have captured a number of people in
the restive city of Falluja in Iraq in a search for those responsible for an
ambush that killed four American security guards there last week, Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday."--Reuters, April 6
Exchange
of Vows
Reuters reports from Najaf, Iraq:
Militiamen loyal to radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr fought gun battles with foreign troops in southern Iraq Tuesday, with their leaders vowing to resist the U.S.-led occupation.
The United States has vowed to arrest Sadr, accused of leading a wave of bloody confrontations with U.S.-led forces.
But his supporters vowed Tuesday to fight until occupying troops left populated areas and prisoners were released.
Blah
Blah Blix
"The war in Iraq has posed a greater threat to the Iraqi people and the
world than Saddam Hussein, former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said
in remarks published here on Tuesday," Agence France-Presse reports from
Copenhagen:
"The positive thing is that Saddam and his bloody regime are no longer in place," he told Danish daily Jyllands-Posten.
"But when one does the math, there are more negative effects, when it comes to the many who were killed during the war and the many who continue to die because of terrorism, which the war has created fertile ground for.
"The credibility of Western governments and the UN's authority have also been damaged. The war has freed the Iraqis from Saddam, but the cost has been high," he added.
If the U.N. wants to re-establish its authority, it ought to pass a Security Council resolution instructing Blix to shut his pie hole once and for all.
But there's a serious point here, even if we have to acknowledge Blix's existence to make it: The idea of asking which is worse, Saddam or the war, is absurd. It's like asking which was worse, Hitler or World War II? The two are inextricably linked.
Blaming
the Bulldozer
The parents of Rachel Corrie, who died in a March 2003 bulldozer accident while
she was trying to obstruct an Israeli military operation to destroy terrorist
weapons-smuggling tunnels, "spoke Sunday at a rally to build support for
two protests against Caterpillar this month in Chicago and Peoria," the
Chicago Sun-Times reports:
Activists will protest the use of Caterpillar bulldozers to destroy Palestinian homes, at the company's annual stockholders meeting April 14 in Chicago. An "International Day of Action Against Caterpillar" demonstration will be staged April 23 at corporate headquarters in Peoria.
We guess blaming the bulldozer isn't as bad as blaming Israel, which after all is only trying to protect innocent people from mass-murdering terrorists. Maybe Caterpillar can respond by putting warning labels on its bulldozers: DO NOT STAND IN FRONT OF MOVING VEHICLES.
XXIII
Skidoo
Anyone who thinks America is irredeemably prejudiced should consider this: When
John F. Kennedy ran for president 44 years ago, he faced what Steven
Waldman in Slate calls "noxious anti-Catholic bias":
Many feared his religion would be a huge problem. Wouldn't a Catholic president end up taking orders from the Vatican?
How things have changed. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president this year, is nominally Roman Catholic, and no one says this is a reason he shouldn't be president. On the other hand, as Waldman notes, some do ask: "Will he end up taking orders from the Vatican too little?" At issue are Kerry's positions contrary to the church's teachings on such issues as abortion and (depending on which side he's on at any given time) same-sex marriage.
Today's New York Times quotes Kerry explaining how he sees the relationship between his religious faith and his politics:
"I'm not a church spokesman. I'm a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that."
Mr. Kerry apparently meant John XXIII, as there is no Pius XXIII.
One thing's for sure: Someone who can't get his popes straight definitely isn't too Catholic to be president.
You
Don't Say
"Bush Uses Resources to Push Re-Election"--headline, Associated Press,
April 5
Out
of Amo
Rep. Amo Houghton, an upstate New York Republican who was CEO of Corning Inc.
before entering politics, is retiring after nine terms, the Associated Press
reports. The AP dubs him a "moderate" Republican, but that's only
because Republicans never get called "liberal," a label Houghton arguably
deserves. He voted against all four articles
of impeachment against Bill Clinton, one of only four Republicans to do
so. And not only did he oppose the liberation
of Iraq--one of only six House Republicans to cast such a vote--but he responded
to the perfidy of erstwhile allies by trying to appease the French, of all people.
From a French
Embassy press release:
U.S. Representative Amory Houghton, Jr. (R-NY) today announced the creation of the Congressional French Caucus in the United States Congress. Rep. Houghton will serve as Chair of this informal caucus which consists of approximately 25 Congressmen and Senators.
Houghton formally announced the creation of the Caucus at a luncheon with former French Prime Minister Edouard Balladur and French Ambassador to the United States Jean-David Levitte.
"It's no secret that relations between the United States and France have been less than ideal lately. It's time to get on with life and start rebuilding our ties," said Rep. Houghton, a member of the House International Relations and Ways & Means Committees. "The purpose here is to bring people together. Both countries need to clear up misunderstandings between our two great nations and, in the process, build up personal and professional relationships between legislators. Both the United States and France have too much at stake to permit our relationship to deteriorate further."
No doubt the French aren't happy to lose their biggest champion in Congress, but c'est la vie. As for M. Houghton, let's all join in wishing him a hearty au revoir.
FDR
Legacy in Trouble
"Questions Arise Over New Deal at Bronx Market"--headline, New York
Sun, April 6
A
Film to Remember, but at What Cost?
"Director Shot for Accuracy With 'Alamo' "--headline, Arizona
Republic, April 4
So
Are the People It Was Pointed At
"Cannon Thankful to Escape Kitchen Fire"--headline, Associated Press,
April 6
What
Would We Do Without Surveys?
"Linux Unlikely to Unseat Windows Soon - Survey"--headline, Reuters,
April 5
What
Would Harvard Do Without Sadomasochism Experts?
"About 30 students gathered in Boylston Hall last night to kick off 'Gaypril,'
a month set to include gay pride celebrations, a day of silence to raise awareness
about the prevalance [sic] of homophobia, and a panel of sadomasochism experts."--Harvard
Crimson, April 6
Great
Moments in Canadian History
Nineteen-year-old Jason Stewart, a cadet at the Royal Military College in Kingston,
Ontario, achieved a national milestone last weekend: He became the first man
in the Canadian military to legally marry another man. After a small city hall
wedding, husband and husband celebrated with a Britney Spears concert.
Meanwhile, the Web site of the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society features a speech by Azam Kamguian in which he notes another Canadian milestone:
Islamists in Canada have recently set up an Islamic Institute of Civil Justice to oversee tribunals that would arbitrate family disputes and other civil matters between people from Muslim origin on the basis of the Islamic Sharia law. This is the first time in any western country that the medieval precepts of the Sharia have been given any validity.
What if Jason Stewart and his husband converted to Islam and then had a family dispute? Well, suffice it to say that sharia law does not look kindly on homosexuality. In an October 2001 article, Paul Varnell of the Independent Gay Forum recounts what happened when the Taliban faced the question of what to do with two men who turned out gay:
The Taliban's Islamic jurists knew that homosexuality was reprehensible and the sentence should be execution, but they were genuinely puzzled by conflicting Islamic opinion on exactly how the execution should be carried out.
"We have a dilemma on this," one Taliban leader explained. "One group of scholars believes you should take these people to the top of the highest building in the city, and hurl them to their deaths. (The other) believes in a different approach. They recommend you dig a pit near a wall somewhere, put these people in it, then topple the wall so that they are buried alive."
Isn't there a happy medium between being intolerant and declaring that anything goes? Canada seems to be erring on both sides at once.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Ethel Fenig, Ron Kimura, Michael Segal, Monty Krieger, David Gordon, William Schultz, Alisa Duncanson, Raghu Desikan, Steve Roberts, Heath Grayson, Ron Finch, Bill Farmer, Jim Downs, Edward Morrissey, Tom Linehan, Harri Singh, Damian Bennett, Peter Cummings, Michael Hopkovitz, Samuel Wakim, Henry Hanks, Allen O'Donnell, Harley Matters, Joshua Brook, David Smith, Richard Wiley, Erik Moy, Ed Lasky, Dan O'Shea, David Worley, David Schlosser, Nate Wagner, John Williamson, Doug Payton, Russell DePalma, Chris Ballance, Steve Ginnings, Jim O'Toole, Bill Deeks, John Archer, Max Leichtman, Tom Ryan, Jeff Rowe, George Mitchell, Charlie Gaylord, David Haberman, Steve Baus, Erik Andresen, Mike Williamson, Ian Colle, Sean Hayes, Rick Walsh, Harry Graves, Robert Kinsey, Carl Strubhar, Zev Safran, Erica Seiguer and James Lucier. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outook: Bush must prove he's determined to win in Iraq.
- Brendan Miniter: Two questions that Condoleezza Rice should ask the 9/11 commission.
- Michael Medved: Jack Valenti presided over the film industry's decline--financial as well as moral.
