It seems to me that the critical part of President Bush’s elegantly constructed speech last night was his rebuttal of the only credible and responsible line of criticism from the Democrats:
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror … Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.
As brief as this discussion is, it’s persuasive. When anti-war Democrats argue that we cannot “focus” on both Al Qaeda and Iraq, they make no sense at all. Philosophically, pre-empting terrorists from getting weapons of mass destruction must logically include preventing the allies of terrorists from harboring such weapons. And practically, I’ve yet to read a single, credible military account of why we cannot both disarm and remove Saddam and keep up the pressure on Al Qaeda at home and abroad. The whole “focus” issue is as fake as the whole “delay” issue, as Charles Krauthammer deftly pointed out yesterday. If Saddam has weapons, if he won’t give them up, and if such weapons are a threat to the region and to the U.S., what possible reason is there for delaying? These “arguments” aren’t really arguments, of course; they’re desperate rhetorical roadblocks thrown up by some Democrats terrified to face their responsibilities in a time of war. The last phony anti-war argument was that President Bush had yet to “make the case” for war against Iraq, as if grown-ups didn’t have the capacity to make their own minds up on the issue without constant guidance from the commander-in-chief. But that surely must now be in tatters as a point, since the president has made speech after speech in the last year clearly laying out the rationale for the war on terror, a rationale that has always included defanging Saddam. And now he’s gone and laid it out in full, at length and in detail in prime time. And what did the networks do, the same networks that routinely feature talking heads bravely pronouncing that the president hasn’t made his case? They ignored him. Of course they did. What losers and sophists.
SULLIVAN, HITCHENS AND ORWELL: Well, in the end we couldn’t resist. I’ve just finished reading Christopher Hitchens’ lively, witty and oddly moving defense of the life and work of George Orwell: “Why Orwell Matters.” If you’ve read all of Orwell (and I’m getting close) or have barely read him at all, the book is both a wonderful introduction to the man’s work and a stimulating overview of all the issues he raises. Orwell’s ability to confound both right and left, his tenacious honesty, his pellucid prose, his power of moral reasoning, his ability to distinguish between an argument and a feeling – all these come through loud and clear in this little book. Buy it and read it and then join Hitch and me for a weeklong conversation at the end of the month about what Orwell means, and why his example still shines, perhaps more brightly than ever, in an era of war and ideological conflict. Buying the book through this site also helps support us financially, so enrich your mind and support this blog by getting the book today. Click here to purchase.
AIDS SCAM, CTD: We’ve already seen how the attack on the pharmaceutical companies’ intellectual property rights has led to a stark deceleration in HIV research. Now comes news of yet another unintended consequence of well-meant anti-AIDS measures. When you give large numbers of anti-HIV meds to Africa, where most cannot be dispensed effectively in the first place, it’s not surprising that others might find a better use for the pills. Why not re-export them to Europe for a tidy profit? That’s what’s happening now, as this story indicates. So we’ve hurt AIDS research, barely helped any significant numbers of Africans, and now given criminals a whole new career in drug trafficking. Good work, no?
McDERMOTT WATCH: Here he is, marching in front of a poster that has the word “terrorist” plastered over President Bush’s face. Nice to know that his kowtowing to Baghdad’s tyranny is also reflected in a complete moral equivalence about the difference between Saddam and Bush. This is one face of the anti-war left. And it’s depraved.
A BLUE-PRINT: One of the clearest plans for post-Saddam Iraq I’ve yet read.
MORE ISLAMIST DEATH-THREATS: Yet another person daring to criticize the backwardness of Islamism with regard to women, gays and individual freedom in general has received a death-threat. This time it’s a Somali immigrant woman in Holland, and she has just had to go into hiding to protect herself. “This is nothing new – just think of Salman Rushdie,” Secil Arda, the head of a Turkish women’s group, told Radio Netherlands. “Some people have the courage to say something, to give their opinion. I consider our fight a milestone in the process of emancipation. Without this quest we would never have change.” After Fortuyn’s murder and Delanoe’s stabbing, this takes courage. Why aren’t these brave liberals more firmly defended by the Western left? I guess we know the answer to that, don’t we?
ANTI-CATHOLICISM WATCH:“Sexual abuse is disgusting, but it’s not as harmful as the grievous mental harm of bringing children up Catholic in the first place.” – Richard Dawkins, as transcribed in the Dubliner.
ROTH AND NARCISSISM: A reader nails it:
“I finally stayed several months in New York, where I kept a studio. For me New York had become interesting again because it was a town in crisis, particularly in the weeks that followed when everyone was expecting another attack. It was a strange time and the first time for years that New York interested me.” – Philip Roth. Who is this guy to accuse ANYONE of narcissism? I just plowed through “The Human Stain”, which was a piece of crap. This windbag can’t stomach people singing “God Bless America” in honor of firemen and cops who gave their lives in the 9/11 attack (which, mercifully, didn’t interrupt Roth’s swim time), but he’ll devote an entire novel to justifying Clinton’s tryst with Monica Lewinsky?
Ah, yes. Roth reminds me of all those New Yorkers who spent the summer of 2001 lamenting that the city had
lost its “edge” under Giuliani. Well, I’m just sorry 3,000 people had to die for Roth to find the city “interesting” again.
AH, THOSE STEREOTYPES: At the Eagle in New York City on Saturday night, I bumped into a man I’d previously met in Provincetown and came to ask him what he’s doing these days. He laughed. “Well, actually, I’m producing a new series for PBS on the history of the Broadway musical.?Can anyone beat that?
MEA MAXIMA CULPA: For the record, there have been three, not two, presidents elected without a plurality of the popular vote in American history: John Quincy Adams, with a mere 31 percent of the popular vote in 1824, Hayes with 48 percent in 1876 and Harrison’s 1888 squeaker with 47.8 percent. Thanks for your relentless and voluminous capacity for fact-checking my ass.
The Dish 