From the WSJ Opinion Archives
He Who
Smelt It . . .
"It smells of sulfur still today," said Venezuela's screwball strongman,
Hugo Chavez, in a speech before the U.N. General Assembly. "Yesterday,
ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States,
the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned
the world."
Oh, it's just too rich. Here's how he began:
Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it. Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, "Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States." [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] . . .
The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples--to the peoples of the world. He came to say--I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.
And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?
And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home."
Here's a photo of Chavez holding up the Chomsky book. We missed the speech but watched some of the cable-TV commentary, in which it seemed that liberals were forced to say things along the lines of, Well, whatever you think of Bush, this guy is really awful.
As Churchill once said, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." But the Angry Left won't be happy about having to take Bush's side. How long before they start claiming that Karl Rove wrote Chavez's America-hating diatribe?
Is
Ahmadinejad Another Hitler?
"A U.S. senator compared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler
and made fun of his name on Tuesday during a congressional hearing on the U.S.
strategy to end Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program," Reuters reports
from Washington:
"Ahmadinejad--I call him Ahmad-in-a-head--I think he's a Hitler type of person," Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich said during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
"He has made it clear that he wants to destroy Israel. He has made it clear he doesn't believe in the Holocaust. He's a, he's a--we all know what he is," the senator added.
Hitler comparisons are almost always unenlightening, but this may be an exception, especially coming from someone so milquetoast that he once accused John Bolton of being insufficiently diplomatic. Ahmadinejad both has advocated and is seeking the means to bring about a Nazi-scale genocide of the Jews. If a Hitler comparison isn't apposite here, we don't know where it would be.
It's curious that Holocaust denial is considered Hitlerian, since Hitler himself believed in the Holocaust enough to make it his life's work. But of course Hitler engaged in a certain amount of misdirection. Here are some soothing passages from his May 21, 1935, speech to the Reichstag:
If present-day Germany stands for peace, it is neither because of weakness nor of cowardice. . . . The blood that has been spilt on the European continent in three hundred years stand in no proportion to the results obtained. . . . Every war means a drain of the best elements. . . . What could I wish but peace and quiet? If anyone says this is only the wish of leadership, I can reply, "the people themselves have never wished for war."
Compare with Ahmadinejad's interview yesterday with NBC's Brian Williams:
Williams: The president of the United States, speaking to the United Nations today, said to the people of Iran, "The United States respects you." But he said, "Your government is using resources to fund terrorists. And pursue nuclear weapons." He said he looks forward to the day when America and Iran can be good friends. And close partners in the cause of peace. How do you react to the statement of the American president today?
Ahmadinejad: We have the same desire, to be together for the cause of world peace. But we have to--see what the impediments are. Is it Iranian forces that have occupied countries neighboring the United States, or is it American forces that are occupying countries neighboring Iran? If Mr. Bush is saying that he can [unintelligible] the distance between the Iranian nation and the Iranian government, he is wrong. I am a normal person. A very average, regular person in Iran. The nation decided that I become the head of the state. The nation and the government are one and single. And together, we share everything. But we too like to rise at a point where we can pursue the cause of world peace.
Probably the strongest argument against the Hitler comparison is that Ahmadinejad, unlike Hitler, isn't an absolute dictator. By all accounts, the real power in Iran rests not with the formal head of state but with the "supreme leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Though we're not sure that makes us feel all that much better.
9/20,
Five Years On
Everyone took note of last week's fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, but
blogger "Tigerhawk" notes an anniversary of an event of equal importance:
President Bush's Sept. 20,
2001, war speech to a joint session of Congress. The speech holds up awfully
well. Here are a few highlights:
The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. . . .
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. . . .
Americans are asking, why do they hate us?
They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.
These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way. . . .
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.
In the years since, the president's critics have faulted, indeed pilloried, him for standing behind these words. We went back and looked at our Sept. 21, 2001, item on the speech, and we were most struck by the concluding paragraph:
To get a sense of how united America is in the wake of Sept. 11, consider the reactions of some of those who, two weeks ago, could have been accurately described as Bush-haters. Bushwatch.com carries an item called "Bush in the zone. Gives best speech of his career." (Scroll down two items to see this site's pre-Sept. 11 attitude; a Sept. 7 item is headed "As the Bushes get more comfortable in D.C., their arrogance increases.") Even Buzzflash.com gives a huge banner headline to a quote from the Bush speech, presented with no apparent irony: "The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them."
Bush-hatred, of course, was back in full force (or more) within about a year and a half of 9/20. And in part, as we've argued before, the return to politics as usual is a sign of America's strength. But those who cheered Bush back then as he described the enormous task ahead, only to turn into (or back into) bitter critics with no strategic alternatives to offer, have to be judged fundamentally unserious about America's national security.
Stung
by 'Articulate'
The "CBS Evening News" has a new opinion segment, and yesterday's
contributor was Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, who offered an odd commentary
about Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state. He began with some ritual bashing
of American foreign policy and said, essentially, that he doesn't like Rice
because she is partly to blame for policies with which he disagrees. Then he
changed course:
That's the way I feel--until I hear some commentator describe her as, quote, articulate, which is code for a black person who speaks standard English. Excuse me, you were expecting the Secretary of State to be inarticulate?
That's when I get this involuntary twitch and I want to defend Condoleezza Rice--when she's patronized, the way black pioneers in all walks of life have been patronized. Look, it may be wrongheaded foreign policy, but Condoleezza Rice is making it.
Condoleezza Rice is a major, major player in this administration. So call her whatever you want, but don't call her a token or a puppet. And please don't call her "articulate."
It is true that "articulate" is a somewhat racially charged word. There is a stereotype that inarticulateness is the norm among blacks, and a white person calling a black person "articulate" can be patronizing, just as Robinson suggests.
But are we wrong to think that he's maybe being oversensitive? When someone calls Rice "articulate," why assume that she is being held to a lower standard based on her race, rather than being held to a high standard to which she lives up completely? A Google search turns up several references to people calling Rice "poised and articulate." If it's invidious to call her "articulate," is it equally so to call her "poised"? Excuse me, but you were expecting the secretary of state to be awkward?
What's more, Rice works for a president who is often accused of being inarticulate. Is that just code for a person of pallor who doesn't speak standard English?
Life Imitates BlameBush
"Under Sharia law, anyone who even indirectly implies that Islam is anything less than 'peachy keen' can only be forgiven once they've been decapitated, disemboweled, and then trampled to death by a herd of unwashed goats. The Pope is probably too much of a bigot to accept such an olive branch, but there is an alternative. He could convert to Islam."--BlameBush.typepad.com, Sept. 17
"The elder son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has called on Pope Benedict XVI to convert to Islam immediately, dismissing last week's apology from the pontiff for offending Muslims. 'If this person were really someone reasonable, he would not agree to remain at his post one minute, but would convert to Islam immediately,' Mohammed Gaddafi told an awards ceremony on Monday evening for an international competition to memorise the Qur'an."--Agence France-Presse, Sept. 19
Open
Mike Night
From a column by Mike Lupica in New York's Daily News:
Ours is a government that is much better at wars against the press and the First Amendment than it is with a war like the one in Iraq. Ours is a government that now thinks it can convene a grand jury to get anything it wants out of reporters, starting with their confidential sources. But then if you ran a country the way the current administration does, turning this into an America in which the government's version of things is the only one that is supposed to matter, you'd want to shut down investigative reporting and scare off whistleblowers, too. . . .
No, it is just Bush's America, where the people in charge think that if they tell a lie often enough it eventually becomes the truth. And in Bush's America, there is no longer any balancing test of any kind, no determination that if some information is leaked, even out of a grand jury, it might be more valuable than punishing the person who leaked it. It is a disgrace.
The same Republican yahoos, the ones who want us to believe they are so vigilant about individual rights, the ones constantly screaming about states' rights, now let the feds trample California's shield law for reporters . . .
Uh, excuse us, but isn't Lupica supposed to be a sportsranter?
Taliban Man Can Run It
"Yale Creates Center on Anti-Semitism"--headline, FoxNews.com, Sept. 19
The
Power of the Media
"Fox Pledges to Extradite All Drug Lords Wanted by U.S."--headline,
Associated Press, Sept. 19
Or
as Fox Calls It, 'Homicide Dust'
"Security Council Deals Jordanian Blow"--headline, Associated Press,
Sept. 14
Marrying
Jane Fonda Still Tops the List
"The U.S. invasion of Iraq was among the 'dumbest moves of all time' that
ranks with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the German invasion of Russia,
billionaire philanthropist Ted Turner said on Tuesday."--Reuters, Sept. 19
The
End Is Nigh!--II
Yesterday we noted a letter to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle from
Elena E. Maroth, who was fretting to the point of hysteria over "global
warming." A reader calls our attention to another letter, which appeared
in the Honolulu
Star-Bulletin May 27 (second letter):
The fact that global warming is melting the polar caps, and that devastating climate changes are already bringing about bigger and more destructive storms and other man-induced ecological disasters, does not seem to have come into the awareness of the average American.
Stark warnings like Diana Leone's "Northwestern Isles vulnerable to rising sea levels" (Star-Bulletin, May 25) should bring home to us that on our own islands rapidly rising sea levels soon will endanger people and animal species. Yet I'm astonished to see that drivers of gas-guzzling, high-emission vehicles don't seem to see the connection between their transportation choices and global warming, already amply demonstrated.
Everyone should know by now that pollution and global warming and other major dangers to our health and economy are caused primarily by fossil-fuel burning, i.e. gas consumption. As the major leader of world policy, the United States is dragging its feet on policy-making and massive public education aimed at reducing global warming. It's up to us as individuals to demand that our leaders make meaningful policy changes to avert impending bigger and bigger ecological catastrophies [sic]. Until they do, it is up to us to voluntarily change our reckless gas-guzzling, high-pollution driving habits.
Elena E. Maroth
Honolulu
On May 27 Maroth was from Honolulu, but her Sept. 19 letter was written from Kensington, Calif., which is in the hills just north of Berkeley. We guess she was so worried about rising sea levels, she decided she'd better get out of Hawaii and seek higher ground.
This
Makes Us So Angry
"Fidel Castro to Play Baseball to Anger Americans"--headline, Pravda,
Sept. 15
Zero-Tolerance
Watch
Tawann Caskey, a boy in the first grade at Milton
Moore Elementary School in Kansas City, Mo., has been suspended for 10 days
"over a 2-inch plastic squirt gun," reports KMBC-TV:
According to Kansas City, Mo., School District policy, the squirt gun is a simulated weapon and a class IV, which is the most serious school offense. [KMBC's Natalie] Moultrie reported that principals have no discretion in cases like Tawaan's. It is an automatic 10-day suspension.
"We ask our principals for safety of students and staff, and we do follow the code of conduct and do not give exceptions to Class IV offenses. We take it very seriously," the school district's Phyllis Budesheim said.
Budesheim adds: "My feeling is that by not giving any exceptions, this young man will not bring a toy gun to school again." No doubt that is true: Ridiculously harsh punishments have a deterrent effect. But that doesn't make them any less ridiculous.
Now
They're Just Good for Your Health
"Fish Used to Detect Terror Attacks"--headline, Associated Press,
Sept. 19
Actually,
They're Colloidal Suspensions
"Babies Can Seem Like Solutions, Expert Says"--headline, Columbia
(Mo.) Daily Tribune, Sept. 19
What
About Child Labor Laws?
"Disney Media Player for Kids to Sell for Holidays"--headline, Reuters,
Sept. 19
Bottom
Story of the Day
"Locally, Some Still Eating Their Spinach"--headline, Oregonian, Sept. 20
The
Dead Hand of the Present
The Associated Press has an odd story from New Brunswick, N.J.:
A doctor has pleaded not guilty to stealing a hand from a New Jersey medical school cadaver and giving it to an exotic dancer, authorities said. . . .
The dancer, Linda Kay, kept the hand in a jar of formaldehyde in her bedroom. Friends have said she called the hand "Freddy."
Those must have been the five strangest tips she's ever received.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to C.E. Dobkin, Dan O'Shea, Brian O'Rourke, Rod Pennington, William Katz, Michael Zukerman, Paul Wood, Joel Goldberg, Steve Prestegard, Ed Diaz, Glenn Taubman, Monty Krieger, Dave Tinkle, Thomas DillonEthel Fenig, Scott Wright, Durwin Rice, Paul Clark, David Jurewicz, Samuel Walker, Rick Reiss, Chris Bergman, Michael Zukerman, Sam Rodman, Arnold Nelson, Robert Paci, Ed Lasky, Thomas Walsh, David Hildebrand, John Neal, Dennis Powell, Jeff Dobbs, David Raske and Mark Van Der Molen. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Michael Rubin: U.S. vs. Iran: One side is playing for real, the other only for time.
- Andy McCarthy (from Commentary): How the courts forced me to give sensitive information to Osama bin Laden.
- Bret Stephens: The pope was defending reason, not attacking Islam.
