One of the most interesting stories of the last few days was one by Elaine Sciolino for the New York Times. It recounts how the United States is actually scuppering a French effort to win Security Council condemnation of the anthrax attacks in New York and Washington. The Bush administration allegedly wants no such condemnation, since they apparently do not believe that a foreign source was behind the biological warfare launched on the U.S. “Let’s assume this was the work of a bunch of right-wing nuts or a Unabomber kind of thing,” one “senior administration official” told the Times. “That would make it a domestic criminal matter. The Security Council just has no legitimate role in this.” Another anonymous official tells Sciolino: “I’m not going to deny that there were two schools of thought on this.” Hmmm. Now ask yourself: what conceivable harm would it do to have the U.N. condemn this even if it turns out to be a domestic crackpot? I can’t see any problem at all – unless you’re a black helicopter type who doesn’t think the U.N. should have anything to do with any domestic matters in America. So what to make of the administration’s reluctance? Here’s my take: the White House completely believes that the anthrax attack is the work of al Qaeda via Iraq. They may even have evidence. But they don’t want to be forced into the awkward situation of having to respond to such a blatant act of state-sponsored biological warfare yet. With the Afghan war just starting, the last thing they want to tackle is the possibility of nuclear response against Iraq. So they are just batting this issue away, ignoring it, pretending it isn’t here for now. Have you noticed how completely silent the president has been about this? That’s my theory anyway. Give the administration a few months and then the evidence will suddenly be found. But at a time of their choosing.
GROVER’S BUDDIES: Frank Foer does an effective job of showing how Grover Norquist’s attempt to bring Muslim Americans into the Republican fold has become a nightmare. Several of the new members of the Republican coalition turn out to be Hamas and Hezbollah supporters – and Norquist was partly responsible for the fact that the president invited several Muslim extremists into the White House for a photo-op (as first reported by Jake Tapper). I completely understand why Republicans might want to bring new ethnic groups into their big tent. But pure ethnic pandering, without careful inspection of the views or principles of some of the key figures you’re courting, is a recipe for disaster. The Dems have their Sharptons and Jacksons. The Republicans have their Falwells and Dobsons. But a bunch of Jew-hating terrorist-sympathizers seems another dimension of misfortune to visit upon the Bushies. Hey, Grover. Stick to the gays in future. And make sure they don’t meet the Muslims.
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: “While the noble man lives in trust and openness with himself, the man of ressentiment is neither upright nor naive nor honest and straightforward with himself. His soul squints; his spirit loves hiding places, secret paths and back doors, everything covert entices him as his world, his security, his refreshment; he understands how to keep silent, how not to forget, how to wait… this plant blooms best today among anarchists and anti-Semites – where it has always bloomed, in hidden places, like the violent, though with a different odor.” – Friedrich Nietzsche on the Osama bin Ladens of his day, “Genealogy of Morals,” First and Second Essays, Sections 10 and 11.
ROSIE LOVES BUSH: And this was news?
The Dish 