The Review
NRO dumps Lott
(
Review) The editors of
say "Lott Should Go."
In 96-point type.
Red.
Speaking of people who need to go...
(Review) Jim Hoagland writes that Saddam is, as usual shooting himself in the foot, and tenders a fond farewell to the man who gave Hoagland so many column inches.
U.S.-led coalition forces will handle four basic tasks when you are gone: They will find and destroy the weapons of mass destruction you pretend not to have; prevent communal bloodshed; help get oil fields back to full production quickly; and distribute humanitarian supplies. The transitional Iraqi regime that will be roughly sketched in London this weekend will stand beside a U.S. military proconsul for a year or two.
In return for the deeper understanding of the brutal nature of Middle East politics, of tyranny and genocide you offered me, a final spot of advice: Do you think this constant banging on the Security Council for "giving in to American blackmail" is really helping your cause?
You're making Bush look reasonable and responsible. You're putting a second resolution within his reach. He brought the Iraq case to the United Nations, and he should keep it there as long as you let him, all the way to war. All the way to your becoming only a columnist's fading memory of the monsters of yesteryear.
From your mouth to God's ear, Jim.
Dear Trent: Get out
(
Review) Peggy Noonan chimes in with her call for Trent Lott's resignation. I can't believe Lott would be stupid enough to try to habg on to the Majority Leader's position, but then again, I'm dumbfounded that he was stupid enough to say what he did in the first place.
Lotts more
(
Review) Deroy Murdock also thinks Trens Lott's a weasel and should be booted out of his leadership position.
Blogs 1, Reinhardt 0
(
Review) Pejman Yousefzadeh runs down the fact chacking on the 9th Circuit's execrable 2nd Amendment decision.
This isn't good
(
Review) Well, evidently Al-Qaida obtained some VX nerve gas from Iraq. A drop of VX the size of a pinhead will cause you to die a horrible death.
Still happy with "containing" Saddam Hussein?
CHickens coming home to roost
The list of "Dump Lott" columnists is growing longer.
Charles Krauthammer
Thomas Sowell
Jeff Jacoby
John Fund
Clarence Page
Richard Cohen
It's bipartisan and unanimous. Trent Lott must go.
This is funny
(
Review) Doonesbury has it right, for once.
No choice
(
Review) John Hughes asks, "How can we
not act on Iraq?"
Thanks a Lott
(
Review) Steven Barnes writes that Trent Lott's extraordinarily foolish may hurt the Republicans when it comes to issues like affirmative action.
Well, says I, then dump him.
First of all, I think Lott's comments were absolutely toxic. Strom Thurmond's 1948 campaign was explicitly centered on racial segregation and racism. His campaign was the last gasp of the evils of slavery and vicious racism that were the proximate cause of the Civil War.
And this isn't the first time Lott has said something like this. He said essentially the same thing 22 years ago at a campaign rally in 1980.
Trent Lott is an incompetent buffoon who should be ejected from his leadership post in the Senate.
A change in tone?
(
Review) The editors of the
Wall Street Journal's response to the nomination of CSX's John Snow as Treasury Secretary is to ask, "is another big-business CEO what we
really need at Treasury?"
Bad computer! Bad!
Blogging will be light until this afternoon, due to computer difficulties.
Angels dancing on the head of a pin
(
Review) National security analyst James Robbins says that, as far as the Iraqi declaration goes, we've seen all this before. No matter what is in the declaration--and so far, it appears to be mainly a rehash of previously released documents relating to the pre-Gulf War period--regime change should still be our main policy in Iraq.
All of this is very interesting, but it has overshadowed the legitimate national-security concerns of opposition to Iraqi aggression, exposure of Saddam's support for terrorism, punishment for his human-rights abuses, freeing the Iraqi people from his dictatorial rule, and returning Iraq to the community of nations. I do not for a minute believe that this debate impedes Allied war planning, nor do I believe it will materially affect the timing of the conflict, if it comes. The Iraqi report is the product of a process begun by the president last September in order to help build an international coalition for action against a regime that poses a significant threat to the Mideast region, and to the world. To the extent it achieves that, it is a success. And if it leads to disarmament under U.N. auspices, it will have the beneficial effect of setting a precedent that other states — such as North Korea — might profit by. But disarmament without regime change (by whatever means) will only be a palliative. And the greatest arms reduction in the history of man came about as a consequence of the decline of the Soviet Empire and the collapse of communism. That's the kind of arms control we can count on.
One thing is sure. If Saddam Hussein is replaced by a moderate, democratic government, the threat level will surely be reduced.
9th Circuit misses the target
(
Review) Brendan Miniter writes about why the (th Circuit's 2nd Amendment decision was mistaken, if not dishonest.
Mythmaking
(
Review) Fered Barnes lists the six Democratic myths about Election 2002.
The Bush Doctrine
(
Review) Joshua Muravchik deals with the objections to the Bush Doctrine.
Contrary to Time, and contrary to Gore’s plaint that Bush has arrogated to himself the “right to preemptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat,” the document makes plain that the policy of preemption is aimed at terrorists and “rogue states” alone. The latter term, coined in the Clinton administration, is here given precise definition perhaps for the first time.
Rogue states, says the strategy paper, have a number of identifiable characteristics. They
brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers; display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party; are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the[ir] aggressive designs; sponsor terrorism around the globe; and reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.
This is a definition that would readily apply to the three members of Bush’s “axis of evil,” and perhaps to Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya—but to few, if any, others. One might challenge aspects of the enumerated criteria, but the claim that Bush has sought an unlimited writ for preemptive action is nonsense.
More reasonable is the fear that others might borrow the doctrine of preemption for their own, less savory purposes. Some states, no doubt, will try to do precisely that. But (to anticipate somewhat the third objection) there is less cause for alarm here than meets the eye, for the fear rests on the assumption that international law acts as a substantial barrier to misbehavior by states. In truth, international law is not self-enforcing, and serves as a barrier only insofar as states, meaning usually the United States, are willing to enforce it. In practice, miscreant nations routinely cloak their actions in spurious claims of self-defense or of other rights enshrined in law. It is not the cleverness of their arguments but rather the willingness of others to bear the burdens of counteracting them that determines what they will get away with.
There's much, much more, and it's all good.
He'll be working this stuff out in therapy for years
(
Review) Noemie Emory writes that Al Gore still has issues with the 2000 election.
Campaigning this fall at the side of bemused and even stunned Democratic candidates, he turned their events into therapy sessions, as he called on voters to avenge the great wrong done to him. The New York Times's Adam Nagourney reported one such appearance before college students in Iowa: "Do you remember where you were when they stopped counting the vote in 2000; do you remember how you felt?" he asked. "'Cheated!' a few of the undergraduates roared back. . . . His decision to invoke the issue explicitly suggested that after a long silence by many Democrats, Mr. Gore, at least, continued to look at the disputed vote in Florida as a source of continuing anger. . . . 'You were robbed!' one man shouted out when Mr. Gore raised [the issue]. . . . Mr. Gore beamed as he stoked up his crowd."
And did this work? Just ask the candidates, most of whom lost. "You can pretty much correlate the Democrats' worst results on Tuesday with Al's travel schedule," wrote Mark Steyn of Canada's National Post. "Everywhere he went, [he] had a consistent message: 'This election isn't about the war or the economy, it's about me.'" A staffer at the Democratic National Committee told the AmericanProwler.org, "He was just a disaster. Whoever was supposed to prep him did an awful job. All he talked about was himself. No upbeat message, no rallying cry for the candidates. Just him."
That says it all, doesn't it? "Just him."
Big Brother is watching you
(
Review) Nat Hentoff writes that, thanks to the government's Total Information Awareness Program, Big Brother really will be watching you.
The Liberal Quandary Over Iraq
(
Review) George Packer writes a fascinating story for the
New York Times Magazine about the internal rifts among liberals over the possibility of war with Iraq. In it, he describes the various factions of the left, and their points of view about the war. The story is not only very interesting, but contains the following gem.
One chilly evening in late November, a panel discussion on Iraq was convened at New York University. The participants were liberal intellectuals, and one by one they framed reasonable arguments against a war in Iraq: inspections need time to work; the Bush doctrine has a dangerous agenda; the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East is not encouraging. The audience of 150 New Yorkers seemed persuaded.
Then the last panelist spoke. He was an Iraqi dissident named Kanan Makiya, and he said, ''I'm afraid I'm going to strike a discordant note.'' He pointed out that Iraqis, who will pay the highest price in the event of an invasion, ''overwhelmingly want this war.'' He outlined a vision of postwar Iraq as a secular democracy with equal rights for all of its citizens. This vision would be new to the Arab world. ''It can be encouraged, or it can be crushed just like that. But think about what you're doing if you crush it.'' Makiya's voice rose as he came to an end. ''I rest my moral case on the following: if there's a sliver of a chance of it happening, a 5 to 10 percent chance, you have a moral obligation, I say, to do it.''
The effect was electrifying. The room, which just minutes earlier had settled into a sober and comfortable rejection of war, exploded in applause. The other panelists looked startled, and their reasonable arguments suddenly lay deflated on the table before them.
Michael Walzer, who was on the panel, smiled wanly. ''It's very hard to respond,'' he said.
It was hard, I thought, because Makiya had spoken the language beloved by liberal hawks. He had met their hope of avoiding a war with an even greater hope. He had given the people in the room an image of their own ideals.
The left, of course, is full of ideals. But ideals are worthless unless you are willing to give them over to action.
No Tears for O'Niell
(
Review) Former Bear Stearns chief economist and current TV financial news host Larry Kudlow kicks up his heels at O'Niell's departure, and analyzes the situation from the Supply-Side POV.
A New Agenda for a New Economic Team
(
Review) Stephen S. Roach, chief economist and director of global economics for Morgan Stanley, analyzes the Bush economic team shake-up from an economic point of view.
The View from London
(
Review) Gerard Baker analyzes the firings of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Niell and Economic Advisor Larry Lindsay for the
Financial Times
The Religion of Peace
(
Review) King Abdullah II of Jordan also says Islam is a religion of peace.
A little more action by His Majesty, along with the other Arab leaders, might help ensuring that its followers are people of peace as well. Judging from the anti-Semitic and anti-American diatribes that regularly spew forth from the Mosques in the region--Mosques that are controlled by the state, it is important to note--they aren't very serious about it yet.
