From the WSJ Opinion Archives
Ex-CIA
Man Uncovers Jewish Conspiracy!
Remember Michael Scheuer? He's the former CIA analyst who penned an anonymous
book called "Imperial Hubris" attacking the Bush administration's
approach to terrorism. When we last
saw him, in November, he was explaining to Tim Russert that American support
for Israel is to blame for anti-American terrorism, and that Osama bin Laden
is "in many ways . . . an admirable man."
Last week Scheuer turned up as a speaker at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, with Nick Lemann, dean of the Columbia University journalism school, acting as master of ceremonies. Scheuer elaborated on his theory about Israel's role on fomenting terror:
Questioner: I am Richard Whalen. I'm a writer, and I'm working on a book that's looking at the preliminaries to World War II, when we last had a debate about whether we should go to war before we were thrust into war. I want to congratulate you on reintroducing some of the fundamental issues and questions that have to be addressed before you go to war in a democratic society.
And you have particularly focused on the forbidden subject of whether the United States has any limits with the spoiled child of Western civilization, the state of Israel, which insists upon having its own way, to the extent we must read the Israeli press on the Internet and read [the Israeli newspaper] Haaretz so that we see real criticism of a policy that has gone too far. Now, you have taken some criticism for your approach. I'd like to hear what you feel about this subject.
Scheuer: I always have thought that there's nothing too dangerous to talk about in America, that there shouldn't be anything. And it happens that Israel is the one thing that seems to be too dangerous to talk about. And I wrote in my book that I congratulate them. It's probably the most successful covert action program in the history of man to control--the important political debate in a country of 270 million people is an extraordinary accomplishment. I wish our clandestine service could do as well.
The point I would make--the point I try to make basically in the book is we just cannot--we can no longer afford to be seen as the dog that's led by the tail. I've tried to be very clear in saying we have an alliance with the Israelis. We have a moral obligation to try to work through this issue, if we can. But I don't think we can afford to be led around, or at least appear to be led around by them. And I certainly, as an American, find it unbearable to think there's something in this country you can't talk about. That's really my spiel I guess on that, sir.
Lemann: Gary?
Scheuer: It was interesting to see the sheet suggested ways to review "Imperial Hubris" that came out from AIPAC [the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee]. [Laughter]
Questioner: I'm curious--Gary Rosen from Commentary magazine. If you could just elaborate a little bit on the clandestine ways in which Israel and presumably Jews have managed to so control debate over this fundamental foreign policy question.
Unknown: All you have to do is look at this landscape of American politics and see how many people who have raised this issue of the Israeli relationship.
Scheuer: Well, the clandestine aspect is that, clearly, the ability to influence the Congress--that's a clandestine activity, a covert activity. You know to some extent, the idea that the Holocaust Museum here in our country is another great ability to somehow make people feel guilty about being the people who did the most to try to end the Holocaust. I find--I just find the whole debate in the United States unbearably restricted with the inability to factually discuss what goes on between our two countries.
So let's see if we have this straight: The Council on Foreign Relations gives a public forum, hosted by a dean from an Ivy League university, to a guy who expounds crackpot theories about "clandestine" Jewish efforts to control America--including the Holocaust Museum!--and the "debate" is "unbearably restricted"?
And let's remember that Scheuer isn't just any old nutcase. He is, as Lemann said in his introduction, "the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit." The quality of intelligence over at Langley would appear to have been even lower than anyone suspected.
'Outside
the Boundaries of Tolerance'
On Sept. 20, 2001, the chancellor's office at the University of Colorado
issued the following statement (phone number omitted):
Some of you may have heard, or read in the newspapers, about an incident of hate on campus Tuesday evening, and the appearance of hateful racist messages in Norlin Library graffiti. These incidents were clearly a reaction to the September 11 terrorist attacks. Though cleaned off immediately, the graffiti leaves a hateful message behind and the impact is widespread, affecting all of us. The CU campus police department is investigating the incident, along with a report of harassment of a CU student of color.
I urge you: If you hear of anyone or observe anyone stepping outside the boundaries of tolerance and sensitivity toward members of our community, including Muslims, international students or visitors, please contact the CUPD [campus police] at 303-492-XXXX immediately. Anyone witnessing the Norlin Quad incident Tuesday night is also asked to contact the police. Students are reminded that probation, suspension or expulsion could result from engaging in hate acts. I hope you will heed the reminders that anger focused on any individual or group is misguided, unfair and unfounded. We must pull together to protect and support each other.
Hey, we hear there's a guy called Ward Churchill in the ethnic studies department who's been stepping outside the boundaries of tolerance and sensitivity.
Nobody
Beats the Whiz
A Washington Post article about allegations of "torture" at Guantanamo
Bay contains this curious paragraph:
Detainee lawyers likened the tactics to Nazis shaving the beards of orthodox Jews or artists dunking a crucifix in urine to shock Christians. "They're exploiting religious beliefs to break them down, to destroy them," said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents several dozen detainees. "What they're doing, it reminds me of a pornographic Web site--it's like the fantasy of all these S&M clubs."
The crucifix in urine is a reference to Andres Serrano's infamous photograph "Piss Christ." Which raises the question: Why isn't the Center for Constitutional Rights demanding that the Gitmo interrogators get the National Endowment for the Arts grants to which they are clearly entitled under the First Amendment?
A
Visit From the Feds
A pastor in Mount Vernon, Ill., has gone public with the story of a visit he
received in November from a pair of FBI agents. The (Carbondale) Southern Illinoisan
reports the G-men questioned the 32-year-old Rev. Randy Steele about comments
he'd made on abortion and homosexuality. Specifically:
"I shared the number of people who have died in wars versus the number who had died through legal abortion since 1973. There have been 1 million die in all the wars and more than 43 million abortions--that's quite a gripping contrast," Steele said. "I also tied it together by stating that we are in a different type of war that is being fought under the presupposition of freedom." . . .
During a sermon on homosexuality, Steele said he was willing to go to jail for his beliefs. . . . "I talked during that particular sermon about a pastor in Canada that was arrested for speaking about homosexuality in his church," Steele said. "I related how that pastor told his congregation that if speaking the truth means going to jail, 'then by golly, that's where I'm going to be and I'm going to save you a seat next to me.' "
Satisfied that Steele was not a threat, the FBI agents left. Now, we can't fault the FBI, which was acting on a tip from an "informant"--either a malicious prankster or someone who misunderstood Steele's meaning. But it's worth noting that if this sort of thing happened to, say, a left-wing activist or an imam in a mosque, the grievance industry would be all over it.
Spot
the Idiot--I
On Monday
we quoted reader Jay Lesseig, who observed, "Freedom of speech makes it much
easier to spot the idiots." Today we inaugurate "Spot the Idiot,"
which highlights people who use their freedom of speech to announce their idiocy
to the world.
In Sacramento, Calif., a couple named Steve and Virginia Pearcy undertook what KCRA-TV calls "a very loud political statement that is testing the very foundation of the right to free speech":
Hanging from a house in Land Park, a soldier's uniform in a noose dangles from a rooftop. The words "your tax dollars at work" are scrolled across the chest.
Unfortunately, the effigy is now gone, reports the Sacramento Bee:
An unknown person tore down part of the camouflage soldier fatigues Wednesday morning, and later someone on a motorcycle took the rest of the political protest, according to neighbors. Throughout the day, people from outside the neighborhood drove by to see it or take it down themselves.
Now how is anyone going to know the Pearcys are idiots?
Spot
the Idiot--II
"Jeffrey Eden devised his award-winning project less than 30 minutes after
his high school art teacher asked him to express a thought or two in a three-dimensional
way," reports the Providence Journal:
So, in the wake of last year's polarizing election and the war in Iraq, the 17-year-old built an abstract scene comparing President Bush's war policies with Adolf Hitler's pillage of Europe.
The student's diorama-like assemblage juxtaposes Hitler quotes with statements by Mr. Bush, Nazi swastikas with American flags, desert-colored toy soldiers with olive plastic figures. And so on.
This is not only idiotic, it's unoriginal. Bob Kuttner had this idea yesterday.
Mad
Mullahs Imitate Addled Al
The mad mullahs who run Iran "promised Thursday a 'burning hell' for any
aggressor . . . as the crowd, braving heavy snow blizzards, chanted
'Death to America!' " Reuters reports.
It's almost an exact replay of Al Gore's January 2004 "global warming" speech.
What's
In a Name?
In an essay on the left-wing site CommonDreams.org, David Green, a professor
of political science at Hofstra University, offers this brilliant proposal for
how the left can start winning elections:
We must go deeper and also reframe names, categories, and their associations. "Liberal" is probably too tainted a term to resurrect for a generation, and so we should proudly describe ourselves as progressives, and insist that others, especially in the media, do the same. In doing so, we should learn the lesson mastered by the right: insistent repetition ultimately works.
If we insisted on being called Marilyn Monroe, would that make us a buxom blonde? One wonders if it will ever occur to anyone on the left that if they want to be known as progressives, the first thing they should do is come up with some progressive ideas. Oh well, for our part, we've decided we're going to start calling the left Charlie.
'The
United States Needs to Lose'
Metro Times, a Detroit weekly, quotes a new book from World's
Laziest Columnist Gwynne Dyer:
"The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq. What is at stake now is the way we run the world for the next generation or more, and really bad things will happen if we get it wrong."
This is a common sentiment on the anti-American left, but Dyer deserves some credit for stating it so forthrightly.
America's
Winning Streak--II
A clarification of our item
yesterday on the Ukrainian presence in Iraq: Reuters points out that the
planned pullout of military forces is not an abrupt cut-and-run operation à
la Socialist Spain:
Ukraine is to gradually withdraw its 1 600-strong military contingent from Iraq and gradually replace it with instructors and a civilian presence, Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk said on Tuesday.
To uphold good relations with the United States, newly installed President Viktor Yushchenko has said he will consult Washington, as well as authorities in Baghdad, before the pullout starts. . . .
Both Yushchenko and his defeated opponent in the long presidential election, Viktor Yanukovich, had called for a troop withdrawal. But within days of being inaugurated, Yushchenko said the pullout must not harm American or Iraqi interests.
Bottom
Story of the Day
"Comedian and liberal talk show host Al Franken said he won't run for the
U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Mark Dayton next year."--Associated Press,
Feb. 10
Who
Says She's a Loyalist?
"Rice, Cotton Groups Prepare to Fight Bush"--headline, Associated
Press, Feb. 9
What
Would We Do Without Studies?
"Study Finds Unloaded, Locked-Up Guns Safer"--headline, (Portland)
Oregonian, Feb. 9
What
Would We Do Without Centcom?
"Pentagon Regularly Reviews War Plans: Centcom"--headline, Agence
France-Presse, Feb. 9
What
Would We Do Without Lawmakers?
"Gasoline to Stay Expensive as Long as Oil High-Priced--Lawmaker"--headline,
Itar-Tass (Russia), Feb. 10
Then
Again, They May Not
"Those Who Feel Betrayed May Turn Toward Faith--or Away"--headline,
Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Feb. 5
A
Marie Antoinette Moment
We've heard a lot about how media elites are out of touch with the culture and
values of the heartland, but a piece in today's New York Times got us to thinking
maybe there's an economic aspect of this elitism as well. The article, by Jodi
Wilgoren, is about John Neace, the father of a 10-year-old girl who apparently
was murdered by a methamphetamine addict. It's a very sad story, but what got
our attention was an aside in the second paragraph:
As dime and dollar donations poured in from around the corner and around the country for the little girl's burial, Mr. Neace, whose $14.75-an-hour factory job barely covers the $400 monthly rent on his trailer, had a thought: What if he could buy the hated buildings, bulldoze them and build a playground in their place?
If Neace works full-time, his $14.75-an-hour wage amounts to $590 a week, or roughly $2,360 a month. That means his rent is less than 17% of his gross income. It's conceivable he works part-time, but in that case Wilgoren should have said so. It appears that she simply skipped doing the math and just assumed anyone who lives in a trailer must be struggling to make ends meet.
Wag
the Dog?
Check out this Reuters photo caption:
The future wife of Britain's Prince Charles(R) could hardly be more different from his first. Young and beautiful, Princess Diana looked as if she had walked straight out of a fairy tale when she took Charles' hand in 1981 to the delight of an enchanted nation. By contrast, Camilla Parker Bowles(L) is a 57-year-old divorcee and mother-of-two Diana called a "rottweiler" and whom Britons have struggled to accept at the prince's side.
It's bad enough that Reuters is editorializing about Parker Bowles's looks--why not just let the picture speak for itself?--but the photo appears in a Yahoo! slide show called "Dogs at Work and Play." Meow!
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Richard Lyon, Robert Paci, Alan Jones, A. Joe Jackson, Richard Brum, John Barrett, Kevin Schmidt, Paul Tozer, Dave Wheeler, Stephen Miklus, Dan O'Shea, Martin Shimp, Jerome Marcus, Jim Orheim, Steve Hilton, Dick Kahane, Ron Finch, J. Lenguado, Gary Pomeroy, William Fraser and Mark McBride. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Bret Stephens: What did CNN's chief really say at Davos? I was there.
- Peggy Noonan: What Pope John Paul II is teaching us through his suffering.
- Tom Nolan: "The Maltese Falcon" celebrates its diamond anniversary.
