August
8, 2002 9:00 a.m. The
Prague Connection, from tee to green, DiFi’s blunder, &c.
uys, thisll be a quite letter-heavy Impromptus, because there are
some gems to share. But first, a couple of notes all my own.
For the past many
months, there has been quite a to-do over whether the 9/11 terrorists
had anything to do, directly, with Saddam Hussein. Did Atta meet with
an Iraqi agent in Prague? That was the great Czech question. So much seemed
to hinge on it. Much ink was spilled over it.
The White House,
the other day, settled the question, from the political and strategic
points of view: Yes, it said (that great it that is the White
House), Atta and the Iraqi had huddled in Prague. The CIA is fuming: Inside
sources those vague but real people say that important
elements in the Agency are bound and determined to prevent any action
in Iraq, and that denying a 9/11-Saddam connection is part of it.
I just want to draw
attention for more than self-tilting reasons to my recent
interview with Condoleezza Rice, excerpted in the current NR. The
good doctor was asked, straight out, whether we needed anything more on
Iraq, in order to confront that regime seriously. And she gave a marvelously
clear answer: Saddam Hussein, beyond question, is an international menace.
And the burden of proof is on him not us as to his fitness
to remain a national leader. And he is failing that burden of proof.
Besides, she said,
while we talk of the risks in confronting Iraq and we should talk
about it it is equally wise to remember the risks of doing nothing.
So, what Atta did
with whom in Prague is immaterial (or invenereal, as an old
golf buddy of mine used to say). Relieving the world of Saddam is right
for its own sake, particularly as he drives toward weapons of mass destruction
which he wouldnt allow merely to sit around and look pretty.
Look,
I know mockery isnt nice, but please forgive me. Im talking
about the New York Times, and the recent report of its White House
correspondent from the links in Kennebunkport, Maine. The report said,
Sometimes business
intrudes on the green, and not always smoothly. Before starting his
game yesterday, Mr. Bush, his driver in his left gloved hand, took
time to condemn an overnight suicide bombing. . . . I call upon
all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers,
Mr. Bush said on the first green of Cape Arundel, at 6:15 a.m. Thank
you. Now watch this drive.
One drives from a
tee, or a tee box; one putts on a green. Later, the report said, Watching
the Bush group play . . . was to watch a commotion, with people putting
before others had finished a practice anathema in a serious game.
Im afraid I have no idea what that means. Before others had finished
what, exactly?
Finally, the report
said, . . . Mr. Bush plays golf to spend time with his father, 78,
who got off a good drive on the first green on Saturday.
I know, I know: I
shouldnt snort. But this is the New York Times the
big leagues, the top! Come on, yall! Its one thing to be left-wing,
but absurd? (Oh, hang on . . .)
More
Times talk. The papers story on John Dingells defeat
of Lynn Rivers in the Michigan district encompassing Ann Arbor, my dear
old hometown, said, [The race] displayed the rift in the Democratic
Party between an old-style union machine and a younger, more intellectual
liberal wing, particularly about issues like gun control, abortion and
the environment.
Friends, I was raised
by Ann Arbor liberals; was educated by them (sort of); was enmeshed with
them. Im not sure there was anything intellectual about
them. Ive since known a few intellectuals: particularly at my places
of employment, The Weekly Standard and NR. Ann Arbor? Wouldnt
have thought of the word, actually. Jacobin comes to mind.
Received
something funny from an NR reader. It was a response to a letter
of his from one of his senators, Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California.
The senator wrote,
Thank you for
contacting me regarding the delay in filling federal judicial appointments.
I appreciate your taking the time to share with me your opinions on this
issue.
I share your
concern about the delay in the confirmation of judicial nominations. Under
the Republican majority in the Senate, confirmation of judicial nominees
has slowed dramatically. I fear that the politicization of the judiciary
will have dire consequences on the distribution [distribution?] of justice
across the United States.
The need for
judges is critical. In the Ninth Circuit, for example, over one-fifth
of the 28 judgeships are vacant. Each one of these positions has been
vacant for so long it is considered a judicial emergency. As soon as these
positions are filled, the Ninth Circuit will be able to hear 750 more
cases per year.
Again, thank
you for your letter. I assure you that I am aware of the shortage of judges
around the country . . . and am working hard to try to resolve this situation.
Oops: Someone mailed
an old form letter, from the time of the Clinton administration. The Democratic
tune has changed now (and so, to a lesser extent much lesser
has the Republican). There must be a new form letter somewhere in the
Feinstein office, speaking of the danger of right-wing, Constitution-hating
judges Klansmen, really and the need to block them. The
Feinstein staffll have to look sharp.
I know a little something
about answering constituent mail it was my main duty when I was
a tender intern in the office of . . . Sen. Robert J. Dole. Time was,
I had a nice little repertoire of small Kansas towns in my head.
In
the
previous Impromptus, I spoke of the new deputy assistant secretary
of defense for East Asia, a man whod served on the National Security
Council staff under Reagan, and also in the CIA . . . and asked, But
why does he have to be named Lawless [Richard P.]?
I received the following
note from an Impromptus-ite:
Perhaps they
could appoint me instead. [Signed,] R. Bruce Looney.