Not the play. The politics. My favorite email about this non-story about the Bush administration “knowing” that September 11 was possible (based on vague, tragically uncoordinated intelligence about al Qaeda and hijacking that had been around, in some cases, for years) came in the following message in bold capitals: “AN INVESTIGATION INTO INACTION (NOT ASSUMING THAT ACTION COULD HAVE PREVENTED ANYTHING) IS IN ORDER!” I think that nicely sums up the prevailing media sentiment. And today we have the kind of warning that Ms Dowd would prefer: a constant, incessant government alarm that we may be fried or massacred at any moment – or, then again, that we may not. These things are very hard to know about in advance in specific, usable detail – a sad fact that led to the unfairly-ridiculed Tom Ridge color-coding warning system.
A REAL INVESTIGATION: So what are we supposed to do? Absolutely ensure that real coordination between agencies responsible for intelligence is as smooth and as instant as possible. That’s what really failed last July, when the president’s request to find out what threat al Qaeda posed to the homeland stopped at the CIA, and failed to include the FBI. (It seems to me Safire gets it right this morning.) Maintain maximum security at all times. And yes, for goodness’ sake, let’s thoroughly investigate what went awry on both Bush’s and Clinton’s watches (and who or what was to blame). But after that, what? We cannot be immobilized as a free society, and any mobility leads to openings – especially the ‘outsid-the-box’ horror of 9/11. That’s why an indispensable part of this is constant military, paramilitary and police work across the globe to stymie terrorism. And yes, Tom Friedman is right that we need to be moving toward independence from Middle Eastern oil. But he’s surely wrong that this administration is unaware of that. Why the cozy relationship with Russia? Oil, dummy. Why ANWR exploration? Same reason. Why a less regulated energy sector? Same. Just because the Bushies don’t see the solution to the problem exactly as Friedman does – in the tabloid terms of a Manhattan Project – doesn’t mean they don’t recognize the issue and haven’t taken initiatives to deal with it. I’d be for more conservation measures as well, and more emphasis on energy independence. But the truth about this war is that it will take years for security to return, and even then, it will never be perfect. We’re not going to have a simple warning before the next atrocity occurs. And we won’t win easily – meaning some sort of atrocity is inevitable.
THE PEARL VIDEO: A website has now emerged that links to the hideous murder video of Daniel Pearl. The ethical issue is: is it valid for such a video to be linked to? The networks have taken a pass – except for a brief excerpt from Dan Rather. But if they were to broadcast the video, it would surely be a decision of a different magnitude that for a simple website to provide a link. Such a link doesn’t in and of itself broadcast the murder. Rather, it gives the reader a simple choice whether to view the gruesome anti-Semitic act or not. The case seems stronger to me because the media in general has refused to highlight the fact that vicious anti-Semitism lay behind this murder. There is also the case of the feelings of his widow, and her right to privacy, which should not be taken lightly. But we are also in a war. Winning it will require our looking at the face of the enemy and seeing him for the evil he is. Because I am not completely sure yet how I feel about this, I’m providing no link. But I’d be interested in hearing from anyone with strong or cogent views on either side.
LOMBORG RESPONDS: “Another person claims that I go “about essentially calling the majority of the practitioners in the field liars.” This is of course wrong – I actually use most of the respected researchers’ knowledge. However, I also ask the important but often unformulated follow up questions: how much of a problem is this, what will the solution cost, how much better will the solution make things, and finally, what else could we spend our money on. That most of the natural scientists have not focused on this is quite natural and in no way makes them liars, but these questions are nevertheless very important to pose.” Bjorn Lomborg replies to the discussion so far on “The Skeptical Environmentalist.” Check out his full response on the Book Club Page. Next up: send your questions in for Bjorn. We’ll be sending them to him very soon.
DOUBLE STANDARD?: A friend notices that the Weekly Standard has published nothing about the Church’s sex abuse scandal. Can this be true? If so, there’s a weird switcheroo going on in the conservative magazines. It used to be that National Review was seen as a the guardian of orthodoxy, protecting such conservative icons as the Catholic Church. But now the Standard seems to have greeted the biggest story in Catholicism in America in decades with silence. Why? Has the uber-theocon, Mr. Bottum, decreed that this is a small affair which will blow over? Trust me, this story will last longer than, er, say the presidential campaigns of Colin Powell and John McCain.
THE EURO-LEFT ON FORTUYN: Even dead, he’s ridiculed. The Guardian’s cartoonist, Steve Bell, shows what most Euro-lefties feel is the most important lesson from the Dutch elections.
CARTER: I was asked on NPR on Saturday morning what I thought of Jimmy Carter’s trip to Cuba. I politiely said, “not much.” But I hadn’t read Jay Nordlinger’s account of it at that point. It’s even worse than I thought. Nordlinger also fondly speaks of my Anglicisms – figures of speech that I thought I had eradicated these past eighteen years but which, alas, seem to linger. Mr has a . ?
THE LEGO KING: So it was irony, after all. Here’s the guy who put a Lego Jesus on a little plastic cross. It all seems very silly.
The Dish 