From the WSJ Opinion Archives
|
The
Enemy of My Country Is My Friend
What did Speaker Nancy Pelosi accomplish with her visit to Syria last month?
The Washington Times does some man-on-the-street reporting in Damascus:
Many Damascus residents say her private visit with Mr. Assad and senior ministers shattered Washington's attempt to isolate the regime.
"She was enormously popular here, a hero," said one such resident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "This is the best thing that has happened here, if it proves [Mr. Assad] was right not to give concessions."
Along with recent visits by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and officials from the European Union, the resident added, Mrs. Pelosi's trip "bolsters the regime with the Syrian people, and it shows that isolating Syria won't work." . . .
Mrs. Pelosi said she raised substantive issues with Syrian leaders, urging them to stop insurgents from entering Iraq, help win the release of Israeli soldiers thought to be held captive by Lebanese and Palestinian militias, and end Syria's support for terrorist groups.
But nobody talks about that now.
Of course Syria is not a free country. Thus man-on-the-street interviews are a gauge not of genuine public opinion but of what Syrians feel constrained to say--that is to say, of the regime's attitude. It appears Pelosi's visit, by presenting an image of America as divided and irresolute, strengthened Syria's determination to defy the U.S.--"not to make concessions," as the unnamed Damascene put it.
Why would Pelosi do such a thing? Perhaps she's merely naive. More likely, as the Hudson Institute's Lee Smith argues in The Weekly Standard, "the Democrats are playing a dirty game in the Middle East, where, just like Arab regimes, they are using proxies to wage war--except their war is against the Bush administration":
It's hardly surprising that the Asad regime is trying to wait out a highly unfriendly White House and see what fate throws them next. But what has the Democrats so excited about a government that is helping to kill U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians, targeting American allies and interests in Israel, the PA, and Jordan, all while trying to reassert its presence in Lebanon?
"The Democrats were the loudest critics of Bush's unilateralism," says Tony Badran, a fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. "But with Syria, they seem eager to cross the consensus of allies like France, Saudi Arabia, and the U.N. Security Council who are all working to make Damascus pay the consequences for its meddling in Lebanon." . . .
The one thing Damascus has going for it is that it is the ideal entry point to attack the Bush administration's policies in the region.
Democrats seem to believe that by undermining the policies of a Republican president, they are making more likely the election of a Democratic one. Even if true, as Smith notes, by fomenting chaos in Iraq and emboldening America's adversaries in Syria, the Democrats "may be making the job much harder for themselves should they get the chance to govern again someday."
The Democratic approach thus is politically hazardous even if it proves politically successful. It is also morally hazardous, for political leaders owe a degree of loyalty to their country even when it is led by the opposing party. The old idea that politics ends at the water's edge was useful in that it shielded both parties--and, more important, the country--from such hazards.
The
Light Is Better Here
An Israeli report on the government's failures during last year's war with Hezbollah
draws praise from the New York Times, which closes its editorial on the subject
as follows:
One major lesson of the Lebanon experience is that Israel cannot defeat its most dangerous enemies by brute force alone. Its security and survival require a more active diplomacy toward the Palestinians and Syria--and a willingness to take risks. More than ever, Israel needs a government and a leader strong enough to steer it wisely through the uncertain hazards of war and bold enough to test the equally uncertain possibilities for peace.
In reality, Israel has never relied on brute force alone; in just the past decade and a half, its leaders have shown "a willingness to take risks" from the Oslo accords to the unilateral pullout from Gaza--and those risks have not always turned out well for the Jewish state.
The Jerusalem Post reminds us of the sort of adversary Israel is up against:
Sheik Ahmad Bahr, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, declared during a Friday sermon at a Sudan mosque that America and Israel will be annihilated and called upon Allah to kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." Following are excerpts from the sermon that took place last month, courtesy of MEMRI. . . .
The Hamas spokesperson concluded with a prayer, saying: "Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet, defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them."
Plainly it is Israel's enemies that rely on "brute force alone." So why do the Times and other liberal elites demand that Israel be more flexible and pacific? Perhaps in part because Israel, unlike its foes, is susceptible to moral suasion.
It reminds us of that joke about the guy looking for his lost keys. He knows he lost them somewhere else, but he's looking here because "the light is better." Just as he will never find his keys, Israel will never find peace if it follows the advice of the New York Times.
'He's
Too Tall as It Is!'
"Calls for Olmert to Resign Growing"--headline, Associated Press, May 2
Deep
Throat
The Politico reports on a South Carolina appearance by Sen. Joe Biden:
Biden is asked what he'll do when Bush, as is expected, vetoes the Iraq funding bill.
First, he talks about his son, and the equipment soldiers need--"The idea that we're not building new Humvees with the V-shaped things is just crap. Kids are dying that don't have to die."
And: "Second thing is, we're going to shove it down his throat."
Remember, this is the Democratic presidential candidate who's supposed to be serious about foreign policy. Then again, maybe we shouldn't make too much of "shove it down his throat," which seems to be a standard Biden trope. An article from the July 2006 issue of The American Spectator includes this quote:
"The next Republican that tells me I'm not religious I'm going to shove my rosary beads down their throat," railed Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) while stumping for Democrats in Kentucky.
If Biden gets the nomination, maybe he can pick Chuck Schumer as his running mate. A dagger in the throat!
Homer
Nods
Yes, of course, reader Sean Magee, whose email about a possible Disney theme
park in Iraq we featured yesterday, is a lieutenant commander in the Navy, not
a lieutenant colonel. Just a typo (since corrected), sorry.
Variety, meanwhile, reports that a new theme park actually is under way in the Middle East, albeit not in Iraq;
Execs from the United Arab Emirates-based Tatweer have launched the $2 billion Universal City Dubailand in partnership with Universal Parks & Resorts.
The 505-acre development will include a 149-acre Universal theme park along with more than 4,000 hotel rooms, 100 restaurants and a range of retail outlets.
The theme park will be Universal's fourth, after existing parks in Los Angeles, Orlando and Tokyo. Rides will center on the likes of "Jurassic Park" and "King Kong," with Steven Spielberg acting as creative consultant. Park is due to open in 2010. Majority of park will be indoors, given Dubai's soaring temperatures.
A reader who asks not to be identified sends the following comment and photo:
I can shed some light on Disney's desire to invade Iraq. It was either to rescue one of Mickey's cousins who was being held in an amusement park in Basra or to protect Disney's intellectual property.
Attached is a photograph of a park in Basra, Iraq taken during my government-funded vacation to the Middle East in 2003. I never had anyone try to translate the text below "Mickey."
Something tells us Dubailand will be a lot snazzier.
Gimme
Shelter
How many homeless shelters does your town have that are "intended specifically
for transgender youth"? If you live outside New York, the answer almost certainly
is a big goose egg. Here in the Big Apple, on the other hand, one of the city's
leading newspapers regards it as newsworthy that there is only one.
In case you're wondering what "transgender" means, here is what we took away from the story: The residents of this shelter are young men who go to extraordinary lengths to appear as if they were women. They wear dresses, high heels and feminine makeup; they carry purses; they even "take hormones--often bought illegally on the street--to develop breasts and hips and to deter masculine traits like Adam's apples and whiskers." Apparently, though, unlike "transsexuals," they do not go so far as to have surgery to make their bodies more womanlike.
The residents of this shelter, the Times informs us nonjudgmentally, work as prostitutes "on the 'tranny stroll' near Roosevelt Avenue in Jackson Heights [a neighborhood of Queens], where men go for quick sex with men who look like women."
If you've been reading the New York Times as long as we have, you'll find none of this shocking. What did raise our eyebrows a bit, though, is the attitude of the clergyman who runs the shelter, an Episcopal priest named Louis Braxton:
Father Braxton strongly disapproves of the prostitution, but he says kicking residents out for peddling their bodies would only make things worse. So as they leave the shelter dressed in skimpy outfits, he reminds them that the shelter door is locked from 2 a.m. until sunrise and leaves them with his standard parting wish: "I hope you get arrested."
"That's the only thing that stops them--at least for a few days," he said. "These kids have been kicked out of the other gay youth shelters in the city by breaking rules and curfews. We're their last hope. I can't throw them back on the street."
Father Braxton does have rules. No sex with customers within five blocks of the shelter. Sex with shelter workers is forbidden, and sex with other residents is strongly discouraged.
Father Braxton's compassion for his charges is certainly admirable, but something seems awry here. Aren't Christians supposed to "love the sinner but hate the sin"? If "strong disapproval" is the all he can muster for the sin, is he really doing the sinners a service?
What
Would We Do Without Experts?
"Coffee Can Be Good for You, Experts Say"--headline, Reuters, May 1
Higher
Than 100%?
"Left-Handed Women Face Higher Risk of Death"--headline, Daily Telegraph
(London), May 2
Too
Many Doughnuts
"Suit: Cop Was Not Fit"--headline, Chicago Sun-Times, May 1
'This
Stream Ain't Big Enough for the Both of Us, Beaver'
"Otter Moves Toward Water Confrontation"--headline, Idaho Statesman (Boise),
May 1
'But
Noah, You Said You Were Only Bringing Two!'
"Bee Swarm Shuts Ark. Hospital's ER"--headline, Associated Press, May 1
News
You Can Use
"Guilt-Ridden Turn to Internet to Confess"--headline, USA Today, April 30
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "Danny Glover Refuses to Give Speech in Berkeley"--headline, San
Jose Mercury News, May 1
- "Turner Pipe Not Replacing Workforce"--headline, Paris
(Texas) News, April 30
- "Bush, Cheney Committed Impeachable Offenses, Say Liberal Authors"--headline, CNSNews.com, May 2
Craziest
Left-Wing Town in America
If there were an award named after the headline in this item, which municipality
would get it? San Francisco? Berkeley, Calif.? Amherst, Mass.? Someplace in
Vermont? We've got a surprise nomination: New Paltz, N.Y.
New Paltz is in Ulster County, across the Hudson from Poughkeepsie. It's probably best known as the site of Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger's embarrassing commencement speech last year. But as far as we know, Pinch isn't from around those parts. A Poughkeepsie Journal article on yesterday's village election shows just how crazy-left the New Paltzers are.
New Paltz voters elected a new mayor, Terry Dungan, ousting the incumbent, Jason West. West got some attention in 2004 when he "married" a series of same-sex couples, even though such unions are a nullity under New York law. Yet it seems voters rejected West's re-election bid because he wasn't liberal enough:
"I was really gung-ho for West when he first ran," Judy Swallow of New Paltz said. "The sadness with Jason is the fame, perhaps, got in the way of some of the issues."
She voted for Dungan for a few reasons, namely his interests in ecology and sustainability. She said it might have been difficult for West to honor such issues in the face of a proposed 15 percent property tax cut.
"I didn't like the tax cut," she said. "I felt it was pandering to the voters." . . .
"Jason has a little bit of a big ego," said Swallow's husband, Amos Sunshine.
He commended West for marrying same-sex couples in the village, and said it was "brave to venture in that direction." He added that Dungan is a "pretty liberal guy," and he doesn't think he'd stand against the issue.
Also telling are the names of the political parties. Dungan, though a Democrat, ran on the Village Unity Party ticket. West ran as the nominee of the People's Party. And there was a third, write-in candidate, Jonathan Cohen. His ticket: the Groovy Party.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Mark Van Der Molen, Jared Silverman, Ed Lasky, Michael Segal, Michael Zukerman, Steve Karass, Jim Orheim, Marshall Sella, John Vecchione, Ethel Fenig, John Bade, Roger Jones, Bill Thielen, Kevin Burns, Matt Bridges, Dick Clark, Irwin Kraus, Michael Bice, Chuck Coffin, Geoffrey Gill, Seth Kanter, Howie Mirkin, John Relle, Steve Parks, Dave Skocik, Mary Jean Hrbacek, Robert Church, Storrs Warinner, Jim Berg, Bill West, Cameron Williams, Jacques Tucker, Jerry Shaw, Rol Herriges, Pat McWaters, Tom Spillman, Paul Weiss, Thomas McKee, Richard Presley, Robert Thorndike, Joseph Burns, Jeff Starck, Merv Benson, Bruce Goldman, Ray Hendel, Bryan Fischer, C.A. Hicks, Jack Lewis, Chris Green, George Struve, Michele Schiesser and Eric Wieder. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: Immigration spring: No deal is better than one that ignores labor realities.
- Michael Young: America should press Damascus to let go of Lebanon.
- Harvey Mansfield (from Claremont Review of Books): Under some circumstances, the rule of law must yield to the need for energy.
