From the WSJ Opinion Archives

by JAMES TARANTO
Monday, September 17, 2007 3:42 P.M. EDT

All You Need to Know
Frank Rich opens his New York Times column yesterday (link for subscribers) as follows:

"Sir, I don't know, actually": The fact that America's surrogate commander in chief, David Petraeus, could not say whether the war in Iraq is making America safer was all you needed to take away from last week's festivities in Washington. Everything else was a verbal quagmire, as administration spin and senatorial preening fought to a numbing standoff. . . .

On the sixth anniversary of the day that did not change everything, General Petraeus couldn't say we are safer because he knows we are not.

The Times illustrates the column with a drawing of a tiny Petraeus beneath an enormous cartoon bubble containing the quote. The N and O in KNOW are written in thick, baroque letters to set them apart from the rest of the quote.

Rich's column, however, is misleading. WashingtonPost.com has the transcript, and here is the remark in context:

Sen. John Warner (R., Va.): Are you able to say at this time if we continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?

Petraeus: Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.

Warner: Does that make America safer?

Petraeus: Sir, I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted out in my own mind. What I have focused on and been riveted on is how to accomplish the mission of the Multi-National Force-Iraq.

I have not stepped back to look at--and you've heard, with other committees, in fact, you know, what is the impact on--I've certainly taken into account the impact on the military. The strain on our ground forces, in particular, has very much been a factor in my recommendations.

But I have tried to focus on doing what I think a commander is supposed to do, which is to determine the best recommendations to achieve the objectives of the policy from which his mission is derived. And that is what I have sought to do, sir.

Petraeus wouldn't say whether we were safer because his job is to carry out his mission, not to make policy. Later, however, he backtracked from this position:

Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.): I thought you had an excellent, very candid response to Senator Warner's question, and that was, he asked you, going forward, the recommendations that you're making, will that make America safer. And you said that you could not answer that question because that was beyond the purview of your--beyond the scope of your responsibilities.

Petraeus: Well, I thank you, actually, Senator, for an opportunity to address that, frankly.

Candidly, I have been so focused on Iraq that drawing all the way out was something that for a moment there was a bit of a surprise. But I think that we have very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq. Trying to achieve those interests--achieving those interests has very serious implications for our safety and for our security. . . .

So I think the answer really, to come back to it, is yes.

So Petraeus first said he didn't think it was his place to say whether the country was safer, and later said that it is safer. The notion that "Petraeus couldn't say we are safer because he knows we are not" is nothing more than a product of Frank Rich's fevered mind.

But it may be that Rich came to this opinion out of ignorance--that "Sir, I don't know actually" is all he knew about Petraeus's exchanges with Warner and Bayh. This would be so if his source of information was his own newspaper, which did not publish the transcript, and which had only this to say in its news report:

Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, who is one of the party's leading voices on foreign policy, asked whether the current strategy in Iraq was "making America safer." General Petraeus retreated to an explanation that he was doing his best "to achieve our objectives in Iraq."

But when pressed again, he said: "Sir, I don't know, actually."

Frank Rich is an opinion columnist, and as such he is entitled to express the tendentious view that this out-of-context quote "was all you needed to take away from last week's festivities in Washington." But it's embarrassing to the Times that its news judgment is in line with the politics of one of its shrillest columnists.

Hamsher Dance
Surprisingly enough, one of the few Democrats to criticize the McCarthyite tactics of MoveOn.org has been Elizabeth Edwards, wife of the lovely and talented John Edwards. As the Des Moines Register reports:

MoveOn.org should not have labeled Gen. David Petraeus "General Betray Us" in a controversial newspaper ad, Elizabeth Edwards said in Des Moines Friday.

"Someone who's spent their life in the military doesn't deserve 'General Betray Us,' " said [Mrs.] Edwards. . . .

Elizabeth Edwards said the group could have made its point by simply using Petraeus' own previous words about purported good news in Iraq without insulting him personally.

This rather tepid rebuke drew criticism from Jane Hamsher of the Angry Left blog FiredOglake.com (last seen posting racist photos at the Puffington Host):

So here's the rule. You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a hammer to beat the left with. Just. Don't. Do. It. . . .

When offered the opportunity to cudgel your own side, you pivot and attack. How about, "glad you mentioned that. . .I think an ad is about as relevant to George Bush's growing collection of toe tags as a haircut is to the problems facing this country." Or, "thanks for the opportunity to discuss this, Chris. I personally would not choose the word "betrayal" to characterize General Petraeus's lack of judgment or skewing of the facts to perpetuate the war, but I do think we should be looking at the fact that this was the bloodiest summer ever in Iraq and asking ourselves if the assessment we're being given about the situation is realistic. . ."

There are any number of ways you can answer that question well and none of them involve attacking MoveOn. They're out there on the left so you can look "moderate." They're saying what needs to be said, opening the conversation up so John Edwards isn't considered the left-wing fringe loon that nobody should listen to.

Now wait a minute, has Hamsher just characterized MoveOn.org as a bunch of left-wing fringe loons that nobody should listen to? And didn't she earlier describe said loons as being on the Edwardses' "own side"? Mrs. Edwards's criticism of MoveOn.org is perfectly consistent with the dynamic Hamsher describes, portraying herself (and by implication her husband) as moderate by contrast. She's just doing the Hamsher dance.

Angry Hippie Whitewash
Reader Moses Weisberg has a firsthand report on this weekend's "antiwar" protest in Washington:

As a George Washington University student who attended the counterprotest along with the College Republicans, I can attest that this protest was exactly the same as the other ones that occur weekly in front of Walter Reed Hospital. The smell of pot was prevalent, as was the smell of the communists and anarchists who made a strong showing.

As our group walked in front of the White House we were heckled and had cameras shoved in our faces. Maybe the most interesting facet was that we were all asked why we hadn't enlisted yet (even the ROTC students). That question seems to betray a distinctly authoritarian view of supporting a nation. Is the only way you support a cause to actively fight? Must proponents of "choice" get abortions to be true to their cause?

Needless to say, the police were far more enamored with the pro-war demonstrators' behavior than with the angry hippies.

Power Line has photos, showing losers carrying signs reading, among other things, "Socialist revolution is the only solution," "Free Iraq from imperialist occupation," and "9-11 was an inside job: Bush liar murderer, terrorist."

Yet if you read the news coverage--e.g., the Associated Press, the New York Times, the Washington Post--you'd have no idea that this was anything more than a gathering of normal, if perhaps slightly overenthusiastic, Americans.

The Times gives away the game when it says, in its lead paragraph, that the event "evoked the angry spirit of the Vietnam era protests of more than three decades ago." But that era's protests drew huge numbers of people, many of them young men who didn't want to get drafted and young women who didn't want the supply of men curtailed by the draft.

Many of those baby boomers grew up to be journalists, and many of them wish to keep alive the idea that their motives back then were idealistic rather than selfish. So it's no wonder that the press describes today's Potemkin "antiwar" movement as if it were the real thing.

The Extremist Group That Is an Extremist Group
The New York Times reports on last week's assassination of Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, a tribal leader who had cooperated with coalition troops:

The extremist group that calls itself the Islamic State of Iraq, another name for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is foreign-led, claimed responsibility on Friday for the bombing that killed him.

Is that beautiful prose or what? Reporter Alissa J. Rubin (or perhaps her editor) begins her sentence with the subject, then takes a detour of 26 words (27 if you count foreign-led as two words). Before getting to the verb, she even manages to repeat the subject ("extremist group"), employing it as an appositive. And they say Iraq is a distraction!

Meanwhile, the BBC reports that "the purported head of al-Qaeda in Iraq has offered a reward for the murder of a Swedish cartoonist over his drawing depicting the Prophet Muhammad." In his October 2004 videotape, Osama bin Laden had this to say:

Contrary to what Bush says and claims--that we hate freedom--let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?"

If this doesn't prove that al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaeda, we don't know what could.

The Wisdom of the French
France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner says the world must prepare for war with Iran, Agence France-Presse reports from Paris:

"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," he said in an interview broadcast on French television and radio.

"We must negotiate right to the end," with Iran, he said, but underlined that if Tehran possessed an atomic weapon, it would represent "a real danger for the whole world."

Calling the nuclear standoff "the greatest crisis" of present times, the minister said: "We will not accept that the bomb is manufactured," and hinted that military plans were on the way.

"We are trying to put in place plans which are the privilege of chiefs of staff and that is not for tomorrow," he said but stressed that although any attack on Iran was far from taking place, "It is normal for us to plan" for any eventuality.

In Washington, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates took a more muted approach on Sunday.

"I will tell you that I think the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat . . . through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach," he said.

Here is an opportunity for America to stand with the world and our allies, and instead the Bush administration adopts an approach of arrogantly unilateral mutedness. No wonder we've lost our moral standing. Anyway, that tears it: If George W. Bush is re-elected in 2008, we're moving to France.

Keep Your Suspicions, I've Seen That Look Before
Mickey Kaus notes this exchange from the recent Democratic debate on the Spanish-language Univision network:

Unidentified female: Sen. Clinton, the negative tone of the immigration debate has left the country polarized and has created certain racist and discriminatory attitudes toward Hispanics.

Mrs. Clinton: Well, I think this is a very serious problem. And, as I said earlier, there are many in the political, and, frankly, in the broadcast world today, who take a particular aim at our Latino population and I think it's very destructive.

Kaus then notes one example of someone in the political, and, frankly, in the broadcast world, doing just that:

I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants. . . . People have to stop employing illegal immigrants. I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.

Who said this? Mrs. Clinton, of course.

Teddy's Trials
"Sen. Edward Kennedy has held preliminary discussions with publishers about writing a book on his career," the Associated Press reports. And he certainly has a lot to write about:

He has served in the Senate since 1962, emerging as a leading legislator and voice of liberalism while enduring the deaths of his brothers, the breakup of his first marriage and numerous other personal trials.

One trial, though, he managed to avoid by pleading guilty to leaving the scene of an accident. Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

Life Imitates ScrappleFace

  • "The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) today filed suit against the NFL New England Patriots franchise claiming that video spying operations, purportedly aimed at their on-field opponents, actually cast a wider net than the team has thus far acknowledged. 'We plan to prove that Coach Bill Belichick also spied on fans in the stands,' said an unnamed ACLU spokesman."--ScrappleFace.com, Sept. 14

  • " 'The president has been allowed to spy on Americans without a warrant, and our U.S. Senate is letting it continue,' said the New Mexico governor in a statement. 'You know something is wrong when the New England Patriots face stiffer penalties for spying on innocent Americans than Dick Cheney and George Bush.' "--CNN.com, Sept. 14

Metaphor Alert
"The bears would have us believe the sub-prime credit virus heralds the end of the world. They are wrong. . . . The stock market--which I still believe is the best barometer of the health of business and the economic future--has behaved surprisingly well during this difficult stretch of turbulence. . . . Yes, profits are getting sloppy. And yes, there are some credit shocks out there yet to be revealed. . . . The animal spirits may have had their wings clipped a bit by the credit crunch, but there is still plenty of sizzle and juice in that story. It's very easy to be totally pessimistic and bearish right now. That is precisely why I will avoid falling into that trap."--Larry Kudlow, National Review Online, Sept. 14

Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires
"Woods on Fire at Tour Championship"--headline, United Press International, Sept. 14

Stix Dix Nix Hix Chix
"Police Find Live Chicken in Wisconsin Man's Trunk at Traffic Stop"--headline, FoxNews.com, Sept. 15

Years From Now, They'll Be Wistful
"Men Shocked 2 Weeks Ago by Power Lines Remain Critical"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 17

Don't Feel Bad, Bill, America Still Loves You
"Microsoft Loses European Appeal"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 17

Watch Out for Captain Manzini
"MY RIDE: '39 Plymouth Coupe Provides Magical Memories of Mother"--headline, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 14

Breaking News From 1 B.C.
"Madonna: I'm an 'Ambassador for Judaism' "--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 16

Breaking News From 1983
"Missile Defense Strains U.S.-Russia Ties"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 16

Bottom Stories of the Day

  • "My Prize Leeks Were Sabotaged"--headline, Daily Telegraph (London), Sept. 13

  • "Hip-Hop Artists Gather to Play New Video Games"--headline, Athens (Ga.) Banner-Herald, Sept. 17

  • "Wesley Clark Endorses Hillary Clinton"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 16

  • "Corn Maze Bears President Ford Likeness"--headline, Associated Press, Sept. 16

  • "Chafee Quietly Quits the GOP"--headline, Providence Journal, Sept. 16

  • "Prince Charles to Star in Hollywood Movie Telling Us How We All Should Live"--headline, Daily Mail (London), Sept. 17

By Any Other Name
Important news from the University of Michigan's student newspaper, the Daily:

The University's Office of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Affairs plans to pick a new name by the end of the semester in an effort to be more inclusive.

Gabe Javier, an LGBT affairs assistant, said the current name doesn't represent allies--members who suport [sic] the group regardless of whether they fit into any of the categories mentioned in the title.

"Part of it is that the letters are more exclusive than inclusive," Javier said. "There are lots of people who are part of the LGBT community that may not identify as a lesbian, bisexual or gay person."

Another problem with the current title is the ambiguity of the word "transgender," he said.

The term is typically used to encompass people with a gender identity different from the male or female classification that society would conventionally designate to them. But many people tend to confuse it with the word "transsexual," a term for a person who wants to assume the physical characteristics and gender roles of a different sex.

The organization began investigating a name change in October 2006.

The Daily quotes Andrew Sullivan as saying, "The p.c. crapola gets you down." Aw c'mon, Andrew, don't be so homophobic. Instead of sarcasm, we're going to offer some serious suggestions. They want to include "allies," so they need something that includes an A. How about ACLU? AFL-CIO?

Oh yeah, those are taken. So is ILGWU, which is similar to LGBT except that it includes more letters and omits the T, getting around that whole "transgenderal" quagmire. Maybe they should think about a shorter name. BLT? Nah, that excludes vegetarians.

We've got it: XYZPDQ. For far too long xylophonists, Yukoners, zoologists, paleoconservatives and dysmorphophobes have felt excluded by the queer-identified community!

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michael Segal, John Williamson, Jared Silverman, Frank Micciche, Harley Matters, Monty Krieger, Thomas Linehan, Thomas Mayer, Keith Rayburn, Dagny Billings, Neal Getz, Kyle Kyllan, Bryan Fischer, Roland Hirsch, Steve Biddle, William McCarthy, Bill Pearce, Drew Kelly, Bill Schweber, Jeff Baird, Paul Giansante, Eric Orbock, Ray Hendel, Lisa Schell, Preston Williams, Dawn Fordham, Peter Huntsman, Chris Green and David Shapero. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

Click to email this article EMAIL THIS Click to format this article for printing FORMAT FOR PRINTING
ARCHIVE