I can see why Bill Safire is a little pissed. There’s no question now that president John F. Kennedy was an extremely sick man when he was president. The sheer mood swings that are inevitably accompanied by massive amphetamine addiction, testosterone injections, sleeping pills, and any number of other painkillers would render most of us difficult to live with (I have my moments on HIV medication), let alone give someone the steady judgment required for being president of the United States. I guess we won’t know for a while just how incapacitated President Kennedy was. Much of the telling archive material is still protected by a phalanx of Kennedy stalwarts who make the Vatican and the old Soviet Politburo look forthcoming. But it matters. The full extent of Kennedy’s physical impairment and the deception, lies and diversions it required are surely an important part of the historical record. I just don’t buy the idea that this level of medication had no effect on the government of the country. It must have. The question now for historians is: how much? And what difference did it specifically make?
POWELL’S BURDEN OF PROOF: The secretary of state clearly has a responsibility now. He must ensure that the U.N. inspections regime is a real one; that it isn’t just another exercise in the world’s pretending to do something while actually doing nothing to defang Saddam. The signs are not good. I think I have as much confidence in Hans Blix as I do in Jimmy Carter. At the same time, I can see why the administration has decided to go the U.N. route. It helps legitimize the police action; and calls the bluff of those who profess to believe in international security but have no intention of enforcing it. But if we find no weapons of mass destruction by February, if sanctions are then lifted, and another terrorist strike occurs with Iraqi-purloined weapons, Colin Powell will bear some of the responsibility for letting it happen. He must know this. Which is why he has to exercise maximum pressure on the inspectors for their work to be real and tough and genuine. This is not, in Tom Friedman’s fatuous phrase, a “war of choice.” It’s a war of necessity – to protect Western citizens from weapons of mass destruction wielded by religious fanatics and their governmental enablers. That’s why avoiding it without solving the underlying problem of Saddam’s weapons will actually make war more likely in the long run, and far, far more dangerous.
PELOSI A CONSERVATIVE CATHOLIC? That’s what she’s claiming. Can someone ask her exactly how conservative she is? Does she oppose women priests? Does she oppose married priests? Does she favor allowing gay priests to serve openly and chastely? These are all good questions – and I’m befuddled why no one has asked them. Unless, of course, this is transparent spin and she’s fibbing. But Democratic leaders don’t do that, do they?
SAN FRANCISCO DEMOCRAT: Several liberal commentators have voiced concern that the phrase “San Francisco Democrat” is a not-too-subtle piece of anti-gay smearing. Here’s my take: they have a smidgen of a point. There’s no question that if you use the words “San Francisco Anything,” some people will immediately think of homosexuals. But the phrase and the city also surely have connotations far beyond that. I find “San Francisco Democrats” as a phrase truly horrifying, for example, and I’m not thinking of gay equality. In my mind, the phrase conjures up all the illiberalism, puritanism, groupthink, and humor-free incompetence that has made San Francisco unlivable for many people. And I don’t think I’m anti-gay. (Richard Goldstein obviously disagrees.) Plenty of gay residents of San Francisco feel the same way about their hyper-liberal metropolis. Others, like this reader, see the issue more broadly:
I was born (in 1956) and raised in San Francisco and my family still lives there. I still commute to work there daily. The term “San Francisco Democrat” refers to the Burton Machine and what it has done to the City. Once Burton, Brown, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi are through, perhaps Shelley, Newsom and other native sons and daughters, from the Castro and the other districts, will make the City great again.
Not much homophobia there. To me, Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s use of the phrase was also primarily about foreign policy and the Democratic Party Convention there. And it’s the isolationist, blame-America-first attitude of the parts of the Left that mainly gives the phrase its meaning. That’s why Nancy Pelosi deserves the label. She is simply not someone you can trust with the national security of this country. I’m grateful for some of my colleagues’ squeamishness about this. But I think they’re protesting a mite too much.
BEGALA AWARD NOMINEE: “That is why the cheerleaders of the new imperialism – The Weekly Standard, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal editorial page – are uneasy. They worry that Mr. Bush has been Blixed. They may be right. But is that such a bad thing?” – Bill Keller, New York Times. Keller knows better than this. He wrote a great Times magazine cover-story on the danger posed by weapons of mass destruction. Removing the threat of their getting into the hands of terrorists is not a function of a “new imperialism,” it’s a function of an old idea, namely self-defense. You may disagree with it and think that we have nothing to worry about from a future (or currrent) al Qaeda-Saddam alliance, but equating Baghdad regime change with imperialism is a cheap shot, a sop to the Raines orthodoxy and below Keller’s usual high standards. (By the way, have you noticed how MoDo hasn’t mentioned the “Boy Emperor” since the election? Instead, we’ve been treated to silly digressions about royal butlers and Saudi drivers. She’s not waving, she’s drowning.)
USEFUL IDIOT WATCH: No, this is not a parody of West Marin country. Or San Francisco Democrats.
THE CLYMER CORRECTION: “An article last Sunday about the Bush family’s political successes reversed the relationship between Presidents William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison. Benjamin Harrison was William Henry Harrison’s grandson. The article also referred incorrectly to the political failures of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s sons. While two of them – Franklin Jr. and James – indeed lost statewide elections, both served in Congress.” – the New York Times, Sunday.
THE JANOVSKY CORRECTION: “An article on Thursday about comments on the midterm elections made at a political forum by Karl Rove, the Bush administration’s chief political strategist, misstated the question to which he responded, “I’m more concerned about the 3,000 who died on 9/11.” The questioner had asked whether he was concerned about 200,000 people who she said marched in Washington against a war with Iraq – not about concerns that 200,000 innocent Iraqis might die in an American-led invasion.” – the New York Times, Saturday. Here’s the original: “The audience included several dozen protesters who held signs critical of various issues, including war against Iraq. But they were largely quiet and respectful. In the question-and-answer session, a woman politely asked Mr. Rove if the administration was concerned over the possibility that 200,000 innocent Iraqis might die in an American-led invasion. Mr. Rove responded, ‘I’m more concerned about the 3,000 who died on 9/11.'” Now this was simple notebook reporting. Was reporter Michael Janovsky there? If he was, how on earth did he hear something that simply wasn’t asked? Some of these Times liberals don’t just have blinders on, they wear ear-plugs.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR PREJUDICE: An email from a gay former serviceman:
I served in the Navy as a surface warfare officer and nuclear engineer for almost 8 years. As a gay man, I left the Navy once my obligation was complete since I was not personally comfortable with the military policy nor would I – as a Naval officer – feel that I could enforce that policy towards my subordinates without sacrificing my personal integrity. The rank and file and young officer leadership did not have issue with gay servicemembers, even in the close confines of shipboard and submarine life. It seems that the anti-gay policies and enforcement thereof reside within the senior military and civilian leadership, even among so-called “liberal” officers. Within some smaller communities of the military, being openly gay is perfectly acceptable at first glance, then with an unfortunate chain of events a crackdown occurs – just like what happened at the Defense Language Institute.
The bottom line is that the military is losing some of its best and brightest. In my case, most of my superiors requested that I remain in the service, having been consistently ranked above my peers, and that I had the command of a ship and perhaps flag rank in my future.
But I left, and of course I could not tell them the real reason why.
Don’t ask, don’t tell….
The Dish 