 |
|
March
17, 2003, 9:00 a.m.
The
Dems' man, Clinton worse than Blix, FJBs for War, &c.
|
 |
orking with such beauties as Ramsey Clark, Rep. John Conyers is looking
into the impeachment of President Bush over Iraq. Who is John Conyers?
The ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. In the event the
Democrats recaptured control of Congress, he would be chairman
of this most important committee.
Don't you think this
should be an issue for the Democratic party? And the Republican party?
And if not, why not?
Furthermore: Shouldn't
a Democrat's solidarity with a certified nutjob like Ramsey Clark be some
kind of issue, somewhere?
You will recall that the late Rep. Ted Weiss, Democrat of New York, tried
to impeach Reagan over Grenada. So this is a party tradition.
I guess Democrats impeach Republicans for acting like U.S. presidents;
Republicans impeach Democrats for not acting like them.
Our Richard Brookhiser has a (typically) marvelous article in the April
Atlantic Monthly. It concerns George W. Bush and his decision-making
process.
I'd like to draw
attention to one paragraph in the article. Bush counts as a hero and example
Sam Houston, father of Texas. Brookhiser writes,
One of Bush's favorite
stories about Houston concerns the crisis of the last years of his life,
when the governor [Houston], a staunch Unionist, refused to take a loyalty
oath to the Confederacy. Houston's office was declared vacant, and after
he left the state capitol, a crowd showered him with abuse. The lesson
Bush draws from that story is the fickleness of instant verdicts and
the importance of doing the right thing. It is a tale of heroic principle
and of virtue rewarded in the long run: The political nadir of Houston's
life became a high point in the judgment of history.
Isn't that the sort
of president we'd like in office especially now, when we're entering
a dangerous new world, and the right thing isn't always the popular or
most comforting thing?
With every passing
day, I'm more convinced that Bush is, indeed in David Frum's phrase
"the right man."
So, whom did the New York Times turn to, for a review of Eric Alterman's
book alleging that the media, far from being left-leaning, are conservative?
A Clinton speechwriter, of course. (Ted Widmer.) Who else did you expect?
Speaking of the New York Times, a correspondent of mine points
out the following sentence, from a story on a pop-music duo: "In
Russia, feminism is a dirty word, despite the Soviet era's emphasis on
women's rights."
Nice, huh? Now, if
the Times writer meant mere rhetoric, okay but . . .
The flap of a recent New Yorker said, "Why some people are
so sure about going to war and some aren't, by Hendrik Hertzberg."
You see what that
sets up, don't you? How sly and dishonest it is? It establishes two poles:
the pro-war people, who are "sure" cocksure, of course,
and probably heedless of the dangers and people who "aren't"
so sure. But there is at least one other camp, of course, and it is a
huge and influential one: those who are dead-sure that this war is wrong
and that Bush and his allies are moronic, misguided, or criminal for wanting
to wage it.
But, in the New
Yorker mindset, apparently, there are just pro-war red-hots and reasonable,
moderate old worriers.
The Blix interview with MTV was abhorrent, of course, and utterly revealing
of the man. But he said one correct thing, in my view:
I think one must
be aware that the Iraqis would not have moved one inch without political
and military pressure. I took part in Secretary Kofi Annan's discussions
with the Iraqis last summer and I'm quite sure they would not have moved
but for that. It's fine with public opinion and with the Arab League
and many others urging them to accept inspections, but they would not
have accepted inspections had it not been for the U.S. pressure. And
this has to remain there. Even now I think the pressure is a necessary
element. The threat of force is important and vital, but the use of
force is awful.
Contrast this with
a report late last week on Bill Clinton's views: "On the issue of
Iraq, Clinton said he supports booting dictator Saddam Hussein out of
Baghdad and destroying his weapons, but he said Bush has made it more
difficult to line up international cooperation for a possible war.
"Right after
winning U.N. Security Council support in November for weapons inspections,
the White House 'sent 150,000 troops to the Gulf, which convinced everybody
we weren't serious about U.N. inspections. That's how we got into this
political mess.'"
Bill Clinton is to
the left of Hans Blix on Iraq. But then, Clinton says one thing one day,
and another thing the next. That's what it is to be Clinton.
Was reading an interview with PGA Tour player Chris Smith, and wanted
to share a snippet of it with you. You take your comfort where you can
get it.
PGATour.com asked
him, "If you were king for a day, what decree would you make?"
Smith responded, "A flat tax" on income.
Chris Smith for President!
More celebrity comfort? Conservatives will get a huge kick out of this
New York Times story on James Woods, the actor. I'll give you
just one paragraph:
Mr. Woods is that
Hollywood rarity, a plain-spoken political conservative. He's charming
and funny, and even when he's idling, his engine races, ready for some
open road. An hourlong tour d'horizon found him holding forth against
"the feminist jihad," calling Bill Clinton "a virtual
nonstop liar," describing the "overwhelming, unmitigated,
almost psychopathological narcissism" behind Hillary Rodham Clinton's
approach to reforming the health-care system a decade ago, and recalling
with great satisfaction the day he responded to Senator Barbara Boxer's
question about whether he favored abortion by saying, "I do if
people like you have it."
A corker, James Woods.
More celebs? A reader sent me this:
"I saw something
on TV last night that I thought you'd appreciate. West Coast gangsta-rap
impresario Suge Knight, having just been released from prison, was on
the Jimmy Kimmel late-night talk show. And more than once, Suge mentioned
that he supported the president and our country and our fight. He also
emphasized that he was an American, and not a hyphenated African-American.
. . . Rap mogul and admitted thug Marion 'Suge' Knight, new conservative
hero?"
Hmmm.
A couple of years ago, the divine Lucianne Goldberg had "FJB"
buttons printed up, in response to a phrase that the young Hillary Rodham
allegedly hurled at a Clinton campaign aide with whose performance she
was unhappy. (The "J" stood for "Jew," and the "B"
for "bastard." The "F" did not stand for "filigreed.")
I was thinking we
should maybe have new buttons: "FJBs for War."
My Silly Story of the Week (or Day)? From the AP:
Procter & Gamble
has agreed to include a disclaimer in a Metamucil commercial featuring
Old Faithful to mollify the National Park Service. The commercial shows
what looks like a Yellowstone National Park ranger pouring a glass of
Metamucil, a laxative, into the geyser to help it stay regular. It will
now say, "Dramatization Please Obey Park Service Rules."
The government is
an ass. The National Park Service is an ass. Plaintiffs' lawyers are asses.
Etc.
I can't recommend strongly enough the Peggy Noonan essay found here.
Of course, everything Peggy writes is first-rate, but this grabbed me
by the throat. It is sort of a letter to Democrats, from an ex-Democrat,
explaining to them where they've gone wrong. I've said everything in it:
but I haven't said it nearly as well.
My European correspondents tell me that Michael Moore is huge there,
and that American conservatives should not ignore this phenomenon. I know
what they mean. Moore's books and documentaries are making millions of
dollars in Europe, as they reassure many Europeans as to their prejudices
about America. And young people are learning about America through
Moore.
This reminds me of
something David Horowitz says: Conservatives have no idea how influential
Noam Chomsky is. Someone did a survey not too formal, but a survey
nonetheless and found that Chomsky is something like the seventh
most-cited intellectual in history. That includes Aristotle, Kant
all of them.
Also, Howard Zinn's
American-history textbook has sold something like a million copies
and it is straight Communism.
No one knows this.
Because conservatives aren't supposed to whine about such things, you
know? It's unseemly.
By the way, as I
think I reported to y'all at the time, I was shocked to find, on a European
trip last fall, that Susan Sontag was on everyone's lips. Everyone had
read her books and essays, everyone was quoting her and I haven't
read her at all.
Conservatives should
resist ghettoization and be aware of these things. The entire world isn't
the Heritage Foundation, unfortunately.
From a reader: "Moments ago, I heard a Fox News correspondent at
the U.N. report that we are trying to get Chee-lay on board. Can't you
make them stop?"
No, I can't. I said
"Chee-lay" myself, when I was young, until I just gave in to
English, as adults should do.
Another reader said,
"I was watching a CNN story on the African nation of Niger earlier
this morning. The reporter (an American) was pronouncing it 'Nee-ZHAIR.'
How come they don't say 'Paree' or 'Moskva'?"
Another reader: "I
heard an NPR report the other day from 'Havana, Cooba.'" I'm surprised
the guy or gal didn't say "Habana," too. And,
given that this was an NRP report from Cuba, the pronunciation was probably
the least objectionable aspect of it.
Finally, a letter touching on the joys of Indian English an English
I really love.
"I was in Switzerland
last fall and got into a discussion with a guy from India. When I asked
him where he was from, he said, 'Noodle-ee.' At least that's what I thought
he said. Because when I said I'd never heard of it, he said it was the
capital of India. I said, 'Oh, New Delhi!' He said, 'Yeah, Noodle-ee.'
I'd like to see the NPR types start pronouncing it like that."
Me too!
|