Author Archive E-mail Author Send to a Friend <% dim printurl printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Version

September 26, 2002 10:10 a.m. Whose “foes”? Why NATO? Forever Lee. Etc.

emember when some Republican congressman, fighting with his opponents in the House, referred to Clinton as “your president,” and the Democrats and the media went nuts? I knew what the guy meant; but he was branded a virtual traitor.

Yesterday, I read Maureen Dowd’s column in the New York Times, proving that I’m an idiot. As you may know, Dowd’s principal belief is that everything concerning W. and his men is psychological, a matter of macho, or “testosterone,” as she often writes. In this latest column, she says, “W., who was always the Roman candle and hatchet man in the family, has turned his father’s good manners upside down — consulting sparingly, leaving poor Tony Blair to make the case against his foes for him, and treating policy disagreements as personal slights.”

It’s pointless to pick at Dowd, but, to begin with, Bush certainly hasn’t left Blair, who is not “poor,” to make the case against Iraq. Both have done so, and have done so convincingly. But what I love is his foes — Bush’s foes. You see, strictly a personal matter, with Saddam, Osama, and the rest of the boys lined up against the ill-mannered Texan, if only in his mind. Bush’s foes, Bush’s bogeys — whatever.

Whether she realizes it or not, terrorists and their state supporters are Dowd’s foes, too. When it comes to their bombings and other evil acts, they will not exempt her, on the grounds that she thinks it’s all a joke.

In a piece about John Ashcroft — the venom against — I tried to correct the myth that he covered up a large, semi-nude statue in the Great Hall of the Justice Department because his fundamentalist sensibility was offended. But I also acknowledged that the story would never die: It’s too “good,” too beloved by Ashcroft’s foes (speaking of foes, personal and otherwise!). Maureen Dowd, for one, has loved to write that the AG put the poor lady — the Spirit of Justice — “in a burqa.” (You see, this was at the time of the Afghan war, and people like Dowd had just learned what a burqa was.)

And here’s Al Gore, or his speechwriter, following her line. It was far from the worst thing he did, but in that awful speech, he mocked Ashcroft for, yes, “putting Lady Justice in a burqa.” Big laughs, from the friendly crowd.

No, it’s not true — Ashcroft’s advance team, unbeknownst to him, ordered a typical pipe-and-drape backdrop, to produce “better visuals” for television when the AG gave speeches or held press conferences in the Great Hall. The idea started when the president came over to do the same — to dedicate the building to RFK. The White House insisted on this standard blue backdrop, the kind found all over America.

But the facts are as nothing: The story will never die, having achieved the status of myth from the moment it was whispered.

With Donald Rumsfeld meeting his fellow NATO defense ministers, we might ask the question, What is NATO for, and should we still be in it? Should it exist at all?

For decades, NATO was a bulwark against the Soviet Union. Now, what is it a bulwark against? Throughout the ’90s, we usually answered with one word: “instability.” NATO is a European check — U.S.-supported — against European instability, an instability that has brought the world great sorrow through the generations.

You may be interested to know that the question came up in a recent meeting with a sharp U.S. diplomat, stationed in Europe. Should NATO continue to be? The diplomat made a very strong point: NATO gives the United States a foothold in Europe. The EU, of course, is barreling ahead, including with its own defense force, pathetic as the notion may appear to some. If the U.S. wants a continuing foothold on the continent, it needs NATO, and a sturdier NATO at that.

And do we want that continuing foothold? Yes — but that’s another discussion.

You gotta love Orrin Hatch, or at least I do. Some of my colleagues are less than crazy about him, for his occasional squishiness on Democratic judges over the years, and other concessions. He is a fairly pragmatic pol, not the flame-thrower and ogre of frequent depiction. And then there’s his friendship with Ted Kennedy, which burns many conservatives. Not so much the friendship as the fact that Hatch likes to boast about it a little, or a lot.

But you could argue that, on social policy, economic policy, and foreign policy, he has been the no. 1 senator of the last quarter-century. He is too seldom given credit for his achievements — as he may be quick to tell you. (If I am not for myself . . .) (A brief aside on Hatch: Most people think of him as a stuffy Utah Mormon, but do you know he’s a gritty little Pittsburgher, who grew up dirt-poor and used to box and work as a janitor? Etc. I once did a piece on this, entitled “Salt Lake Steeler.”)

But I wanted to say? Oh, yeah. Hatch was positively stirring the other day, when he defended Miguel Estrada, the brainy judge whom Bush has nominated to the D.C. Court of Appeals — and whom left-wing groups are doing their utmost to defeat. For one thing, the idea of a conservative judge “of color” scares the daylights out of them. Hatch took after Hispanic activist groups, saying, “They ought to be ashamed of themselves. They have sold out the aspirations of their people just to sit around schmoozing with the power elite.”

You might wince a little at that “their people” — but, oh, what a comment, and may we have torrents more of them!

I was looking at a photo of Saddam Hussein and two of his sons, and I had a recurring thought: All of these people — Saddam, his family, his ministers, his henchmen — have the same, thick, dark mustache. It seems to be a regime requirement. Who do they think they are, the Oakland A’s? (That’ll date you.)

One of the great clichés is, “Freedom is indivisible,” and it’s true. Solzhenitsyn, a Russian former schoolteacher, inspired strugglers all over the world, and he still does. When Armando Valladares publishes Against All Hope, about Cuba, it lifts dissidents in some dungeon in China.

So I was moved to read about Vaclav Havel’s recent meeting with Cuban exiles in Miami. Here is an excerpt from Carol Rosenberg’s report in the Miami Herald:

“Among the Cuban dissidents who greeted Havel at the Freedom Tower was Ramon Colas — just eight months in Miami. A founder of the independent library of Las Tunas, he said he discovered the Czech thinker in 1998, when a copy of ‘The Power of the Powerless’ arrived among donated books.

“‘It was extremely emotional to meet him,’ said Colas, 40. . . . The former child psychologist said he lost his job at a Cuban hospital because he worked with opposition groups inspired by Havel’s books. ‘Havel showed me the power of living in the world of truth. He told me that, even in the middle of the Castro dictatorship, I was a free man.’”

Yeah, that’s nice talk, but don’t forget: These Cubans are nothing but dirty right-wingers who are just dying to torture blacks and impose a Reign of Sugar over the literate, healthy masses.

Come to think of it, Castro does a pretty good job of torturing blacks himself (see Oscar Biscet).

While we’re on Eastern European heroes, I noted that Lech Walesa has just started a TV show on fishing. And isn’t he entitled? That is a fruit of freedom: Rather than risk your neck for liberation, you can talk about fishing — or do it.

In a recent Impromptus, I wrote about a photo of a pretty little Afghan girl on the editorial page of Le Monde. She wants to grow up to be a doctor. I pointed out that, if not for the U.S. military — and George W. Bush — we wouldn’t have that photo, because a) the girl couldn’t have shown her face and b) the very possibility of an “image” would have been in question. But did Le Monde acknowledge any of this? And did they acknowledge that they had opposed everything that made such a picture possible? Are you kidding?

A reader contributed a point I should’ve thought of, but didn’t, in my pique: “You should have mentioned that the girl’s prospects of fulfilling her dreams and growing up to be a doctor were extremely limited, to say the least! The U.S. liberation has made that possible.”

So true. The United States should act in its own interests — but isn’t it amazing how that action has the side-effect of bettering life for so many others?

Here’s a point that is marvelous — simple and marvelous: “As I followed you in your column from [Tom] Daschle to [J. Robert] Oppenheimer to [Robert] Fisk, something occurred to me: Among the whole swath of lefty intellectuals, where is the anti-nuke chorus now that we have Saddam to worry about? Aren’t they alarmed by his build-up? Shouldn’t something be done to stop it? Shouldn’t dreary radical Germans be marching with skeleton masks and papier-mâché missiles? Shouldn’t there be ‘human chains,’ someplace?

“When I was in college (in the 1980s), it seemed there was a SANE/Freeze, no-nukes, arms-are-for-hugging sit-in or teach-in every other day.”

This point, ladies and gentlemen, is a bolt from God. Nuclear weapons are to be worried about only when they’re in the hands of Ronald Reagan — not so much when they’re in the hands of a Third World anti-imperialist like Saddam Hussein. Can’t you see?

The other day, talking about this or that, I let drop that, according to Bill Buckley — who has circumnavigated the globe many times over — the friendliest people in the world are Nova Scotians and New Zealanders. (New Zealand also has a lot of support, from world travelers, for Most Beautiful Country in the World.)

A reader writes, “I always say to my friends that the friendliest people I have ever met are Australians and West Texans. I capitalize ‘West’ here because they are truly their own state. Australians and West Texans are in fact identical in their sincere friendliness, honest dispositions, and all-around candor. I could live in either place just fine.”

Someone from Up North protests, “Tell Bill Buckley that if he likes Nova Scotians, come to Newfoundland!”

Perhaps you’ve heard this already, but if not, you’ll love it: “Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was greeting Louisiana State University law students after a speech a few years ago when one enraptured student came up to him and said, ‘I’ve named my pet fish after you.’ ‘Oh, you’ve named him “Nino”’? the justice said. ‘No,’ said the student, ‘I’ve named him “Justice Scalia.”’ Later, a professor who’d overheard the conversation asked the student whether he had other fish named after justices. ‘No,’ the student replied, ‘Justice Scalia ate all the others.’”

Beautiful.

Continuing our days-long discussion of Aussies: “I was listening to NPR on September 10. It was a great show that featured Victor Davis Hanson and other wonderful, rational thinkers talking about America’s response to the terror attacks. One caller was an Aussie. He mentioned that some of the U.S.’s agricultural trade policies hurt Australian farmers, and asked, ‘If America treats her friends this way, how does she treat her enemies?’

“The poor caller got slapped down fairly quickly by one on the panel who apparently grew up in a fruit-farming family. The caller’s point got lost in the reminiscences that followed. But what stuck in my head was the thought that, while the U.S. should always look out for its own interests, when it comes to a country like Australia — which, as you noted, has stuck with us through some fairly messy affairs — we should be very careful and considerate.

“Once the present mess is over (which I hope will be in my lifetime!), I want the U.S. to make a very careful list of which countries stood with us and which did not. I want the countries that stood with us to enjoy some of the perks that should come with being our friends. This might include a little leeway on issues like trade, and should definitely include a presumption of help when needed. I know this sounds like global politics as junior high school, but . . .”

I hear you.

Another one: “I am a Viet Nam veteran [I love that old spelling of Vietnam] and I would like to add my cheers to Australia. When I served in the Mekong Delta, the only ally I saw on the ground was Australia. They served willingly and cheerfully. Never heard a complaint from them about us getting them into this. They were brave, well trained, and well equipped. I’ve never forgotten the fact that they stood up with their friends when bullets were flying and did the right thing. I wish every American could be made aware of what great unswerving friends the Aussies have been. And you could not find a better, more cheerful, and totally fun group of guys anywhere. Someday, I hope, I will visit there.”

May I end on a golf note? Lee Trevino has come out against Augusta National in its fight against a bullying women’s group. Lee — for whom my adoration is second to none — has always had a chip on his shoulder about Augusta, and it hurt him. He should’ve won the Masters, several times. But he convinced himself that the club was against him, that he wasn’t long enough for the course, that a fader of the ball like him couldn’t win (on a course with a lot of draw shots), blah, blah, blah. It was all nonsense — complete nonsense. But it blocked Trevino from winning. He wouldn’t use the locker room, changed his shoes in the parking lot, had all that class crap well up. Etc.

Lee, and only Lee, prevented Lee from winning the Masters. He talked himself out of it. It’ll always be a blot on his record, one of the greatest in golf, of course.

But at least we can say that his Augusta pique is consistent! He will not — to borrow from present parlance — “move on.” And that’s another thing that makes Trevino a kick.