|
![]() |
|
|
I raised this issue with Condoleezza Rice, in an interview last summer. (You may find that session here.) I said, "I wonder whether the demonstrators on the [Iranian] street are to be encouraged. One thinks of Hungary in 1956, China in 1989 . . ." The national security adviser answered, "I think you always have to speak up for your principles, and you always have to let people who are living in tyranny or oppressed know that there's somebody who is concerned about them. And the president did issue a statement a couple of days ago. And I think such statements strike an important balance. I mean, you don't want to promise things that you can't do, but you have to speak up for freedom. You can't just ignore it." Hear, hear. That answer mixes both realism and heart, which is typical of Rice (and, I think, of the administration overall). There is a big Iranian demonstration scheduled for July 9. How will the mullahs respond? With violence? Or more meekly? That day may tell us a lot, and in the meantime: a lot of nervous eyes are on that country (including the Iranians' own).
Not many people are as idealistic, clear-eyed, and just plain good as my friend but truth about the United States is more important than ever, particularly in the Middle East, as we all know. A glance at MEMRI.org site of the Middle East Media Research Institute is enough to tell us that.
Speaking of something else the Republicans aren't doing enough of: They should defend Miguel Estrada and point out the injustice of what the Democrats are doing with his nomination. It's not only the smart thing to do politically, it is, quite simply, right. (The only thing wrong with Racicot's little valentine, it seems to me, is that phrase "aspiring presidential candidate." Edwards is not that; he is already a presidential candidate; he is an aspiring president.)
The whole thing bears reading, for its startling relevance and illumination but I wish to single out, for now, one paragraph: "It is conveniently forgotten that the Arab states maintain that a state of war exists with Israel. [This is no longer true of Egypt and Jordan but there are plenty of others.] Nevertheless, when Israel takes steps to ensure its security, they are deplored. [Yes, when Arabs strike, it's merely war and war is hell; when Israel responds, this is an outrageous, "unhelpful" measure.] As long as its neighbors maintain that a state of war exists, it is the duty of the Israeli government a duty which is clearly recognized in international law to do what it sees fit to protect its inhabitants. Israel certainly cannot be expected to pretend that time stands still and to ignore its security requirements while the world waits until this or that Arab leader deigns to open negotiations instead of sending his delegate to the U.N. to engage in name-calling and abuse." A stirring and thought-provoking document.
It's a good thing that Morris and the Clintons fell out, isn't it? We have learned a good deal from him most of it all too confirmatory.
At issue, primarily, is Belgium's penchant for attempting to prosecute perfectly civilized people as war criminals. As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote in The Daily Telegraph, Belgian law "has already been used to launch criminal prosecutions against General Tommy Franks, the commander of American forces in Iraq, over the use of cluster bombs, which claimed civilian lives." Fear not this move.
So, "when they got to Dieu Donne, they stabbed him through his chin, throat, hands, chest, and torso, and he lost consciousness. But while the soldiers were away finding clothes to cover the bodies, he came to and managed to crawl into the nearby bushes, then fled." Friends, I have no comment to make. I just think, I suppose, that this kind of thing ought to be known.
I will repeat a common point, and exhortation, of mine: They're going to say you're brutalizing the country with right-wing extremists anyway. You might as well nominate and fight for principled, able, brave conservatives. Therefore, elevate Clarence Thomas to chief and nominate Mike Luttig (of the Fourth Circuit) elsewhere! Or, as a TV commercial once had it, "Try it you'll like it."
This oughtn't to be worth bothering with, I realize, but just a couple of points. 1) It seems illogical that John Kerry should wear a bomber jacket "because he saw real combat." 2) The issue of whether George W. Bush did a pansy thing by flying fighter jets in the National Guard has been discussed many times, including in this column, and won't be rehashed now. I have a stack of mail from various servicemen attesting to the gutsiness of what Bush did back then. (And see how the military feels about him now.) I'd simply like to remark the extraordinary fact that the Left now praises war service, and condemns the likes of George Bush for cowardice (or whatever). It used to be, the Left praised the dodgers, to the sky. They were the real heroes. The soldiers in Vietnam were . . . well, you know what they were ("baby-killers," etc.). I guess it takes a Republican president or a Republican vice president to get the Left despising dodging, belittling National Guard service, and lauding combat service. I just wish they'd remember all this even out of season when the Republicans have less power.
Right-o.
I received many corrective letters regarding an item I had yesterday: When Barbara Walters asked Hillary Clinton what would happen if Bill cheated on her again, the former First Lady, now senator, responded, "You know, that will be between us." I commented: "Will? Not would? Boy, that was an amazing tense." Readers rushed to inform me that I should have said "mood," not "tense." Perhaps I wasn't in the mood?
This same reader a brilliant man made a point on a quite different subject: "Ever notice that the same multi-culti libs who constantly inform us that jihad means 'inward spiritual struggle' to your average Yusef are the same people who have no qualms about using jihad to describe any conservative cause? They're not using jihad in the 'inward spiritual struggle' sense, they're using it in the holy-war-conversion-by-the-sword sense." Wish I had thought of that.
One letter came in with the Subject heading "Um, hey old guy." It went on to say, "Um, Ft. Lauderdale hasn't been a hot spring-break spot since the late '80s. City officials there changed the rules on loitering, cruisin', etc. Now the hot Florida spots are Daytona Beach and Panama City (along the Redneck Riviera). Get with it, man!" Okay, man!
And thanks for reading. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||