From the WSJ Opinion Archives
Rudy
Belongs at Turtle Bay
The position of U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is coming vacant, now that President
Bush has appointed its current holder, John
Negroponte, to the newly created post of ambassador to Baghdad. If President
Bush wants to be bold, why doesn't he tap Rudolph Giuliani as Negroponte's replacement?
The New York Post floated the idea last week, and it deserves serious attention. Giuliani seems just the right man for the time--a time when America, the only country capable of doing the hard work of protecting Western civilization from Islamic terrorists, is constantly at risk of falling into the quagmire of U.N. diplomacy.
Not only would Giuliani be a bully-pulpiteer in the great tradition of Jeane Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but he would bring the penetrating eye of a former prosecutor to the continuing Oil-for-Food scandal--which may well turn out to be the corrupt reason why countries like France and Russia fought so fiercely to keep Saddam Hussein's murderous dictatorship in power in Iraq. To be sure, some of Giuliani's critics, including our colleagues at The Wall Street Journal, are of the view that he was overzealous and unfair in prosecuting white-collar crimes. But that's all the more reason why he's a perfect fit for the U.N., which certainly doesn't suffer from an excess of prosecutorial fervor.
Apart from the president himself, it's hard to think of any more powerful spokesman and symbol for America's war on terror than Rudy Giuliani, and not only because of his inspired mayoral leadership after Sept. 11. Giuliani took a stand against terror even when it was unpopular. In 1995 he ordered security to eject Yasser Arafat from Lincoln Center, in an era when the terror boss was being feted at the White House and lavished with Nobel Peace Prizes.
The politics of a Giuliani appointment seem perfect for Bush as well. At the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Jeane Kirkpatrick gave a rousing foreign-policy speech in which she, a lifelong Democrat, denounced her party for abandoning its erstwhile policies of strength:
When the San Francisco Democrats treat foreign affairs as an afterthought, as they did, they behaved less like a dove or a hawk than like an ostrich--convinced it would shut out the world by hiding its head in the sand. . . .
When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn't blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States. But then, they always blame America first.
When Marxist dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don't blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies, they blame United States policies of 100 years ago. But then, they always blame America first.
The American people know better.
Imagine U.N. Ambassador Rudy Giuliani traveling across town to the Republican National Convention to deliver a speech on the "Boston Democrats," and you begin to see why this is such a brilliant idea.
Can
Kerry Survive Medalgate?
ABC News seems to have caught John Kerry lying about his Vietnam record. At
issue is the 1971 protest at which Kerry threw two medals belonging to other
men, along with his own ribbons, over a fence around the U.S. Capitol. In a
1996 profile, the Boston Globe noted (the link is gone, but we quoted it here)
that contemporaneous newspaper accounts had Kerry throwing his own medals over
the fence; one quoted him as saying: "This administration forced us to return
our medals."
But now Kerry has added a new twist to the story. He claims he never said he was throwing his own medals. "I never ever implied that I did it," Kerry told the Los Angeles Times last week, though he then argued in the alternative: "You know what? Medals and ribbons, there's almost no difference in distinction, fundamentally. They're symbols of the same thing. They are what they are." Kerry's official blog calls it a "rightwing fiction" that "Kerry lied about throwing his medals during a Vietnam War protest."
But ABC unearthed a 1971 television interview that gives the lie to this claim:
"I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals," Kerry said in an interview on a Washington, D.C., news program on WRC-TV called Viewpoints on Nov. 6, 1971, according to a tape obtained by ABCNews. . . .
Asked about the anti-war veterans who threw their medals away, Kerry said "they decided to give them back to their country."
Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others," he said.
The statement directly contradicts Kerry's most recent claims on the disputed subject to the Los Angeles Times last Friday.
"Good Morning America" aired the footage today, then brought Kerry on for an interview with Charlie Gibson, in which Kerry evaded the question of his comments in the "Viewpoints" interview. Kerry's defense seems to be a Clintonian one: that he did not claim at the medal-tossing event that he was throwing his own medals.
His other defense is that Republicans are wicked: "This is a controversy that the Republicans are pushing. The Republicans have spent $60 million in the last few weeks trying to attack me, and this comes from a president and a Republican Party that can't even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. I'm not going to stand for it."
Whenever anyone brings up President Bush's National Guard service, we yawn. So, we suspect, does most of America. Bush, who has a term as president under his belt, is not running on his National Guard service the way Kerry is running on his Vietnam service. The latter is selling his flattering war record as the proof of his character, leadership and patriotism. That it may be--but if so, why can't he seem to tell the truth about it? This is a crucial question in evaluating Kerry's candidacy, and it is why Medalgate could end up sinking it.
Kerry
Runs, Dems Shrug
The American Spectator's Washington Prowler reports that campaign volunteers
aren't exactly flocking to Kerry:
For all the excitement about . . . Kerry, it isn't translating into volunteers for his campaign. In fact, according to a Kerry campaign staffer in Florida, the Kerry camp is surprised by the lack of paid staff and volunteer crossover from other dead Democratic primary campaigns to theirs. . . .
According to a DNC source, the party overall is not having trouble finding volunteers to help with the convention or at headquarters. "But I know that in some areas, down south in Florida, and in the Midwest, Kerry is having trouble getting large numbers. He's banking on the unions sending him some help. By now, he should be turning volunteers away, but he has time to get things straightened out."
A Fox News poll gives a clue as to why. Among Kerry supporters polled, 41% say they're backing him for essentially negative reasons ("Not Bush" 38%, "Electable/can beat Bush" 3%). Only 43% give positive reasons ("Positions on the issues" 22%, "Character/values" 7%, "Iraq" 7%, "Intelligent" 3%, "Strong leader" 3%, "Veteran/military service" 1%). Eleven percent give the neutral reason that they're backing him because he's a Democrat.
By contrast, among Bush supporters only 7% say they're backing him because he's "Not Kerry" and another 7% because he's a Republican. Fully 81% have positive reasons for supporting the president ("Doing good job as president" 28%, "Character/values" 19%, "Positions on the issues" 14%, "Strong leader" 11%, "Iraq/Saddam" 8%, "Tax cuts" 1%).
Hell
Yes, We'll Go Back
American servicemen serving in Iraq "are re-enlisting at rates that exceed
the retention goals set by the Pentagon," the Associated Press reports--this
despite the incessant media drumbeat about their suffering and low morale:
As of March 31--halfway through the Army's fiscal year--28,406 soldiers had signed on for another tour of duty, topping the six-month goal of 28,377. The Army's goal is to re-enlist 56,100 soldiers by the end of September. . . .
The Marines, which along with the Army have borne the brunt of combat in Iraq, said they have already fulfilled 90 percent of their retention goal for the fiscal year for getting Marines to re-up after their initial commitment. The Air Force and the Navy said they, too, are exceeding goals for getting airmen and sailors to re-enlist.
The
Face of Hate
The Portland, Ore., branch of the Independent Media Center--one of the most
virulent Angry Left Web sites around--has a page devoted to Pat Tillman, the pro football player turned Army Ranger who died
in combat in Afghanistan last week. This is offensive stuff, so you might want
to skip it, but we think it's worth shining a light on. The page begins with
a Washington Post story about Tillman's death under the headline (Indymedia's,
not the Post's) "Dumb Jock Killed in Afghanistan." This is followed
by reader comments. A sampling (quoted verbatim except for expletives):
- "Tillman chose to go to Afghanistan. He's partially reponsible for
the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands of Afghan civilians. No need to feel
sorry for him, other than feeling bad that he was brainwashed into serving
as a grunt."
- "it's amazing the kind of attention this insignificant incident is
going to cause. well, he was rich, white, and an american. 10,000 (brown)
iraqis get killed, and it barely merits a mention in the american news. how
utterly f---ing sad."
- "To be honest I wish I could feel sorry for the guy, but the truth
is I really feel nothing at all. To many have died and too much money has
flowed into the pockets of Dick Cheney to even worry about it."
- "if he 'sacrificed' anything it was his common sense. He had a good American thing going and blew it."
In fairness, not all posters agree. "I'd like to correct the ridiculous headline that preceeds this story," writes one: "Brave American sacrifices friends, family and fortune in defense of his country. Pigs on IndyMedia can now continue to exercise free speech, sacrifice nothing and spew hate."
Great Orators of the Democratic Party
- "One man with courage makes a majority."--Andrew
Jackson
- "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--Franklin
Roosevelt
- "The buck stops here."--Harry
Truman
- "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for
your country."--John
Kennedy
- "We have changed the laws that are in between the covers of the law books. But we've not yet changed what's in between our ears."--Jennifer Granholm, governor of Michigan
Where
Were They Expecting to Find Them?
"Indian Remains Turn Up in Grave"--headline, Los Angeles Daily News,
April 23
Nerds
for Choice
Check out the very end of the description of "qualifications" for
applicants to be interns at that March for Women's Lives, the group that organized
a large rally for legal abortion in Washington yesterday:
Undergraduate and graduate feminist women and men in all majors are encouraged to apply. Applicants must be passionate about a woman's right to choose and will have some experience in activism. The March for Women's Lives is committed to diversity and encourages applications from people of color, people from the GLBT community, people with disabilities, and math/science majors.
Keep your laws off my slide rule!
An
Odd Way to Reduce Class Size
Fox News reports that among the sponsors of yesterday's March for Women's Lives
was the National Education Association, the country's biggest teachers union.
Not surprisingly, pro-life teachers are unhappy. "I believe the NEA needs
to stick to education issues only . . ., and completely get out
of political issues, including this one here," says Connie Bancroft of
the antiabortion group Teachers Saving Children.
What's really strange is that the teachers union seems to be acting against its own institutional interests in taking this position. After all, it seems clear enough that more abortions today will mean fewer jobs for NEA members starting in five or six years.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Barak Moore, Seán Fitzpatrick, Paul Sisco, Ethel Fenig, John Gaylord, Gil Yoder, Steve Ginnings, Kevin Schmidt, Jeffrey Shapiro, Thomas Dillon, Bill Kicak, Erik Andresen, Benjamin Lynch, S.E. Brenner, Thomas Blumer, Mark Rose, Virge Randall, Mike Grobbel, Rick Wahler and Rich Zito. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: What's at stake in Fallujah.
- John Fund: Has Arlen snarled his last?
- Julia Gorin: Will same-sex marriage lead to incest and polygamy? Let's hope so!
