 |
|
April
17, 2003, 8:45 a.m.
Bill
Clinton, always. My kind of suicide. The ever-reliable British press
— and more
|
|
 hat
to say about Bill Clinton's recent comments, in which he trashed U.S.
foreign policy (in the most untutored and common way)? There aren't many
words left. We've said it all, about Bill Clinton. He doesn't get any
better; quite the opposite. In fact, his departure from the presidency,
and from active politics, seems to have freed his inner dope. No longer
having to worry about votes — done with triangulation — he's
at liberty to be a sort of slightly-more-moderate Susan Sarandon.
I can't improve on Bill Kristol's comment, on Inauguration Day 2001,
after Clinton gave that rally speech in the airport hangar: "hopelessly
vulgar."
 Want a
little more Bill Clinton? Okay. I was intrigued by an item on Page Six,
a New York Post gossip page (which is not on page 6, incidentally).
It seems that Clinton attended a Willie Nelson concert, at the Beacon
Theater. When the ex-prez walked onstage to speak, "there was loud
booing and yelling." This evidently irked Clinton, who made some
remark about "angry Republicans." (Perhaps he wanted to say
"angry white males.")
Said the Post, "A Clinton aide acknowledged some booing,
but added: . . . [Clinton] was not upset at all. [The crowd] gave him
quite a rousing ovation and he was mobbed by all the talent."
Now, what I want to know is, Is that "talent" like celebrities
or "talent" like nubile women?
There are
reports that the (former) Iraqi information minister — nicknamed
by some "Comical [not Chemical] Ali" — killed himself.
This would accord with the shame-and-honor theory of Arab life. My main
thought, however, was that it's nice when one of these extremists can
kill himself without murdering innocent others in the bargain.
I quote
you Mark Bowden in the Philadelphia Inquirer, who was quoted by
Daniel Pipes in the New York Post: In Iraq, "the defending
army attempts to place its own civilians in danger." And the invading
army "tries to avoid killing and hurting them."
A weird, weird world, and war.
Time
magazine had a story on the widespread anguish in the Arab world over
America's liberation of Iraq, and the failure of Saddam Hussein to put
up a tougher fight. A U.S. official was quoted as saying, "Let's
face it, if 9/11 happened tomorrow, there would be dancing in the streets."
You mean, again?
David Letterman
had a priceless comment about Iraq — deep, too. "And now the
really difficult part: We have to rebuild Iraq into a strong and independent
nation that will one day hate the United States."
There is enough wisdom in that crack to merit a dissertation.
A reader
of ours keeps one of the now-familiar photos from liberated Iraq on his
fridge. It has three exultant G.I.'s in it. "After two days it occurred
to me that there's a Polish American and a black American. Wanna bet that
the third G.I. isn't Latino American? So much for the Anglo-Saxon imperialist
blah, blah, blah."
A nice insight.
Carol Moseley
Braun is on the presidential stump, and she's lettin' it fly. The ex-senator
said, "When Democrats get in, they give us peace and prosperity.
When Republicans get in, they give us depression and war." Pretty
stark, huh? Of course, if a Republican said something like that (think
Bob Dole, in the '76 debate versus Mondale), he would attract a stink
storm. But no one pays attention to Carol Moseley Braun. Maybe one should.
You know
how Democrats expropriate certain words and phrases — good and important
ones — and turn them into something mushy and awful? Back in the
'80s, when national security was a big issue (as it is now), Democrats
took to saying, "Education is a national-security issue. Medicare
is a national-security issue." Etc. It was the only way they could
play the game — the GOP was clobbering them on the real issue
of national security.
Well, listen to another Democratic presidential candidate, Rep. Dennis
Kucinich: "Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. Homelessness
is a weapon of mass destruction. Lack of adequate education is a weapon
of mass destruction."
Honestly, there is something perturbing and sick about that.
Uh-oh:
Still another Dem presidential candidate — Sen. Bob Graham —
is a third-person-er. Like Bob Dole. The other day, he said, "The
fact that I am from Florida . . . will help elect the next president of
the United States, which I am confident will be Bob Graham." I had
to check that sentence a couple of times — because I couldn't tell
whether it was Graham ("I") or someone else, talking about Graham.
So annoying.
When I
started out in journalism, I heard that the British press was bad —
famously bad, comically untrustworthy, outrageously unreliable. If a British
paper asserted that Copenhagen was the capital of Denmark, or that Eli
Whitney had invented the cotton gin, you couldn't believe it.
I thought this was rather hard on the Brits. Surely that was a stereotype
— maybe springing from envy of British style — and, besides,
on my trips to London, I'd found the press entertaining and rich.
But the Observer comes out and says, "William Kristol, a
long-time friend of Bush from Yale days . . ."
It's hard to pack more falsity into so few words! (Kristol and Bush —
any Bush — are not, er . . . friends. And Kristol went to Harvard,
both undergrad and grad. Other than that . . .)
Robin Winks,
the Yale historian — he really was at Yale — is dead.
There was a time when I gobbled up just about every book on intelligence
and espionage I could. And just about the best was Winks's Cloak
and Gown, about the relationship between academia and the CIA.
A magnificent thing.
May I commend
an article to you? It is about affirmative action and American higher
education, and it was penned — pretty bravely, I would say —
by a professor at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington. 'Tis here.
In a previous
Impromptus, I marveled that Saddam had in his possession a video of The
Hanoi Hilton, one of the greatest anti-Communist movies ever made.
It was found in the collection at one of his palaces. "So curious!"
I observed.
Many, many readers wrote and said, "Don't you get it, Jay? Saddam
and his henchmen weren't watching The Hanoi Hilton for the anti-Communism,
etc.; they were watching it for the torture. Maybe gleaning some new techniques."
Of course!
I was taken
with the insight provided by a reader of this column. He noted that the
media were repeatedly referring to looting Iraqis as "looters"
and "thieves." (Fair enough.) But, back during the L.A. riots,
you never heard "looters" or "thieves" — only
"protesters" and so on.
Wish I had thought of that.
I publish
the below letter because I don't think that its sentiments are atypical:
"I'm a card-carrying Democrat who believes strongly in the ideals
that the Left stands for, or at least used to stand for. (I'm not happy
that the Democrats are now the party of racial discrimination in the name
of 'diversity' and hobbling immigrant children through 'bilingual' education.)
I am eagerly looking forward to the 2004 election so that I can cast my
ballot for President Bush. He has led the country through a time of tribulation
with courage and resolve, and I don't think anyone could have done better.
He was a bit shaky at first, but he has truly grown into the job since
9/11, and turning him out next year would be an act of supreme folly.
I think he is destined to be compared with Lincoln and Roosevelt in terms
of wartime leadership, and while I may disagree with some of the administration's
domestic policies, what we as a country are involved in right now is far
greater than any of the things that the two parties tend to bicker over.
I doubt I'm alone in feeling this way, so it seems quite likely that Bush
will win re-election by a Reaganesque margin.
"P.S. If you print this, please do not use my last name. I work
in the publishing industry, and it could hurt my career. Leftists aren't
always as tolerant as they claim to be."
Really?
On this
same theme, you might want to check out a commentary
by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro in Insight magazine: Gore voter deeply
affected by Sept. 11 and bowled over by President Bush.
In my yesterday's
column, I made a comment about the sport of Halliburton-bashing.
A reader writes,
"I was a Mormon missionary in Venezuela from '94-'96. For some reason
I loved to see Halliburton trucks, facilities, and people around. I don't
know why. I just remember driving by a Halliburton building and being
pleased on thinking that the building was full of guys from Texas, Oklahoma,
and Louisiana. I still get warm fuzzies thinking about Halliburton, no
kidding."
"Dear
Jay: Recently I started working for an organization that runs leadership
conferences in D.C. for international and American high-school students.
We are told to always be sensitive to other cultures. The student handbook
includes leadership quotes from famous people, and lo and behold they
have a quote from Castro. I'm trying to figure out what their definition
of 'sensitive' is.
"Also, in our writings we cannot use the word 'American.' We must
use 'U.S. culture,' or 'U.S. citizens,' etc. I've worked with foreigners
for many years, including Canadians, and always hear them say 'American.'
Who are we being sensitive to?"
Finally,
"You quoted that Baghdad imam as saying, 'Now I can start to live.'
I remember when South Africa held its first open elections, and seeing
video of an old black man being wheeled out of the polls. He had to be
eighty. He was pounding his hands on the arms of the wheelchair and shouting,
'Today I am a man! Today I am a man!' I'm choking up just writing it.
It's the simple eloquence that comes from a hardship you and I are lucky
enough never to have known.
"I hope we shall soon hear such sentiments coming from Cuba and
North Korea — and Zimbabwe and Libya and Vietnam and Sudan and .
. ."
There is a P.S.: "Advice for Kim Jong Il: Reinforce your monuments."
I should say!
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
