Peter Beinart should have the last word on Bill Bennett. (Oh, and I’ll be defending the empowered gambler on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” this weekend. I gave up being a talking head a while back for my mental health. But I figure if I can defend Bill Bennett’s privacy on cable, I should get a few days off Purgatory.)
THE ORIGINAL: Of course, the tradition of war-leaders in military garb isn’t just restricted to Bill Clinton, Hillary or Dubya. Here’s one for the ages.
THE FRENCH START TO PANIC: My trusty correspondent reports on the latest front page headlines in yesterday’s Le Monde:
“Iraq: a stabilization force is studied.”- It’s not clear exactly who the attendees at the London conference on post-war Iraq are, but the “unique certitude” is that France, Russia and Germany are not there.
“The UN Fears its Marginalization.”- Well, the title of this one says it all.
“The end of the experience.”- What’s ended is the “internationalism” of the 20th century and all that goes with it, including the UN.
“Powell’s last chance.”- Powell is portrayed as conducting a last-ditch stand to save diplomacy from a regime that “respects only war.”-On Iraq, says the article, Powell was able to “hang tough right up until the moment where he was dropped by France, whose foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, declared on January 20 at the UN that ‘nothing’ could justify a war against Saddam Hussein.”
“The US’s poisoned present to Poland.”- Poland has a zone in Iraq; now let us see if they can handle it, says the article.- Left unsaid:- how can little Poland be in the game when France is not?
“A turn to (economic) rigor” is today’s lead editorial, and it’s all the US’s fault for beating France on Iraq.- Really:- “So now, after a year of laxness, France goes on a diet of stale bread.- Why this new Chirac zigzag?-It does not result from a long period of reflection on the economy but rather from the war in Iraq.-The Anglo-American campaign against Saddam Hussein exploded Europe, shattering hopes of building anytime soon a common EU foreign policy.-The victory of the coalition has not erased the divisions between the war camp and the peace camp – a division where France was the pivot.-Paris cannot take the risk of provoking another rift, this time on the economic front [by unilaterally breaching EU-imposed deficit limits].”
They truly are screwed, aren’t they? Couldn’t happen to a nicer country.
THE HUMORLESS LEFT: Why won’t Naomi Wolf allow HBO to run an Ali G. interview with her? C’mon, Naomi. I know you have a sense of humor. And there’s no better sense of humor than one directed at oneself. (Thanks to Jonah).
DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “The Left wants a world where there are no rules, no morality, and no personal responsibility.” – Meghan Keane, National Review Online.
POLLITT 1, HITCH 0: Katha Pollitt’s screeds win her a National Magazine Award. Hitchens gets nominated for three but gets nothing. These media elites aren’t biased, are they?
TINA’S MUM: A charming – and, I’d say, revealing – tribute from Ms Brown to her mother.
FRUM ON THE BRITS: Don’t miss this insightful little piece by David Frum about the differences between Americans and Brits (scroll down to the bottom to find it). I like to think of myself as an American by now, at least culturally and psychologically. But I may be more British than I’d like to admit. Here’s how David sees the difference:
Don’t misunderstand: I love Britain and I love the British – and I love them just the way they are: blunt, expressive, emotional, highly sexed, indifferent to rules and protocol. I love their informality of dress and their preoccupation with good food and fine wine. I only wish the British would overcome their prejudices and learn to value Americans as they are: polite, formal, stiff upper-lipped, sexually restrained, and imbued with the idealistic spirit of reform.
How about some kind of middle ground between the two?
STILL SPINNING: You have to hand it to the Nation. One of the biggest embarrassments for the Saddam-appeasers on the left was that a Labour prime minister, Tony Blair, was one of its leading proponents. They kept quiet for a while. But now they’re gloating about poor election results in Britain for Blair’s Labour Party:
The parliamentary elections in Scotland formed one part of the first political test for a member of Bush’s “coalition of the willing.” Blair’s Labour party also battled on May 1 to maintain its control over local governments across Britain. There too, Labour suffered serious setbacks. The party’s percentage of the vote fell from 41 percent in the 2001 general election to just 30 percent in the May 1 voting. Labour lost more than 800 seats on the local councils that govern British cities and regions. Most of those seats went to the traditional opposition party, the Conservatives, but a substantial number went to the Liberal Democrats, a third party that was highly critical of Blair’s alliance with Bush before the war.
Don’t you love that qualification: “most of those seats went to the traditional opposition party, the Conservatives”? And what, pray, was the Tory position on the war? Even more positive than Tony Blair. Yes, Labour did poorly. Most governing parties do in mid-terms. But to describe this as payback for the war is truly stretching it.
The Dish 