Great editorial in the New York Sun today (reg. req.) about the criticism of Ahmad Chalabi by King Abdullah II of Jordan. Abdullah complained that “if you look at a potential future for Iraq, I would imagine that you’d want somebody who suffered alongside the Iraqi people. This particular gentleman, I think, left Iraq when he was, I think, 11 or 7. And so, what contacts does he have?” The Sun retorts to the King:
You yourself left Jordan before age 10 to attend St. Edmund’s School in Surrey, England, and then Eaglebrook School and Deerfield Academy in Deerfield, Mass. Then you went to the Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst, England.You also spent years taking degrees at Oxford, England, and at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. Isn’t it hypocritical of you to criticize Mr. Chalabi for not suffering alongside the Iraqi people? After all, you weren’t exactly suffering alongside the Jordanian people.
Actually, Abdullah’s case is worse. Chalabi, if he were to run Iraq, would be elected. Who elected the smug Jordanian king? And Chalabi, if he had stayed behind these past few decades, would have been imprisoned or murdered. Abdullah would only have missed a few summer cocktails at Oxford.
BERKELEY LIBERATED: Just weapons of mass distraction found.
JOHN LEO’S ERROR: I respect John Leo a great deal but I think he’s simply wrong about something in the Santorum case, and it’s important to correct it. I agree that the quote is a bit confusing, but it’s important to see it in its full context. Here it is:
In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _
John argues that Santorum is distinguishing between homosexual sexual acts and “man on child” or “man on dog.” But when you look at the full context, I think it’s clear that he isn’t; in fact, he’s equating bestiality and child abuse with homosexuality. The referent throughout is to “marriage.” That’s what isn’t “man on child, man on dog,” and that is what Santorum means when he says “when you destroy that,” meaning marriage, “you have a dramatic impact…” It’s not eloquent, of course. But its meaning is pretty clear to me. Santorum himself could clear it up, but won’t. He could also clarify things and say he’s against sodomy laws, but just doesn’t think they should be broadly struck down by the Supreme Court, another completely reasonable position. But he won’t say that because he doesn’t believe it. One question in my mind: Santorum started this discussion with regard to contraception and the Griswold case. He believes that using contraception is a sin. Does he believe it should be a crime? If not, why not? If he supports sodomy laws because they violate Church teaching, then why does he not suppport laws banning contraception? Or masturbation, for that matter? These are all sins on exactly the same level as homosexual sex. Why do Santorum and other theo-conservatives want to make gay sex illegal but not the others? This is the crux of the matter. In the Texas case, the issue is even clearer. The law bans sodomy for three percent of the population but keeps it legal for 97 percent. Is it really judicial over-reach to protect a small minority from unequal treatment under the law? Someone should ask Santorum directly the criteria by which he distinguishes between all these issues. My guess is that he has no good argument except prejudice. But I’d be thrilled to be proven wrong.
The Dish 