The Dish

A priest reader sends in what the Catholic Church, by coincidence, mandates as the first reading this coming Sunday: Hab. 1:2-3; 2:2-4.

“How long, O LORD? I cry for help
but you do not listen!
I cry out to you, “Violence!”
but you do not intervene.
Why do you let me see ruin;
why must I look at misery?
Destruction and violence are before me;
there is strife, and clamorous discord.
Then the LORD answered me and said:
Write down the vision clearly upon the tablets,
so that one can read it readily.
For the vision still has its time,
presses on to fulfillment, and will not disappoint;
if it delays, wait for it,
it will surely come, it will not be late.
The rash one has no integrity;
but the just one, because of his faith, shall live.”

Several joyful lefties have emailed me to say that the United People’s website is based in Denmark, not the U.S. Hence no fifth column. I wish. Check out the names and faces of the “committed organizers” – there are many Americans, on campuses and elsewhere throughout the country. Websites can be registered anywhere (the one you’re reading is written in D.C., Ptown and Chicago, uploaded in Seattle, managed in New York, and transmitted worldwide). What matters is the provenance of the people behind it. A core group of these people are indeed Americans, from, among other places, Minnesota, Palo Alto, San Francisco, Redwood Valley, and Albuquerque. One of them, Kevin Danaher, named as a “committed organizer” of this organization, just had an op-ed published in the Washington Post. Did the Post’s editors vet his credentials?

HERE THEY GO AGAIN: Fresh on the heels of the news that gay servicemembers risking their lives for their country will nevertheless risk expulsion at any time, come the pleasant remarks of Lou Sheldon, a major figure of the religious right. According to the Washington Post, Sheldon wants to bar any aid for the spouses or families of gay victims of the September 11 attacks. Do these people have any clue about the true meaning of the Gospels? Or any clue about the meaning of America?

POSEUR ALERT: “We’d abided so long in our shimmering impassive skins, sealed like airplanes ourselves, stationary airplanes: climate-controlled, with weather and pestilence and human frailty all sheltered inside. More than just the world’s largest filing cabinets, my other and I were bodies undertaking a long consideration of space, ticking off earth-rotations, swatting birds. When after so very long the new body entered mine I was accepting, more than I might have predicted. Though I shivered I tried to permit myself to learn what it had to teach me, this intersection of presences. Beside me was another struggle with the same knowledge: two brides, two grooms. But the marriages were brief. The lesson opaque. No, J.G. Ballard crap isn’t going to do it either, exaggerated empathy for the machines and buildings won’t help anything, won’t get me out of what I’m still trying not to feel.” – Jonathan Lethem, Rolling Stone. I think he’s talking about the WTC massacre.

Bush continues to surprise. The $300 million food drop into Afghanistan gives a whole new meaning to compassionate conservatism. I must say I’m cautiously impressed. If this stage in the campaign is designed to foster as broad a coalition for the destruction of al Qaeda and the Taliban, so far so good. If these actions are designed to minimize domestic and foreign opposition while preparing for a major and relentless attack on terrorism, so much the better. If Bush is handing over our foreign policy to Colin Powell now for the important task of diplomacy prior to a systematic campaign to wipe out terrorism and the states that still sponsor it, better still. But there’s a chance that something else is happening. There’s a chance that Bush is simply taking a minimalist approach to this war, after a rhetorical fusillade. If all this amounts to is a few commando raids against bin Laden, if Saddam is allowed to stay and prepare yet another counter-attack, if Hamas and Hezbollah are left intact, if the Saudis are allowed to continue their policy of fostering extreme Islamo-fundamentalism, then this policy is worse than nothing at all. Anything less than a full-frontal assault on terrorism and terrorist-sponsoring states would be sending a clear signal to bin Laden and his ilk. That signal would be that, for all our bluster, we are not serious, that we can absorb and accept an act of war upon us with mere minor retaliation as a consequence. The terrorists will understand from this that they can strike again with relative impunity, and next time, make it even bigger. I worry every time I hear president Bush tell us to get back to normal. Normal is the last thing we should feel. What happened on September 11 was a brutal invasion of this country. There is no normality after it. The only thing that follows should be an extermination of the enemy in all its forms – relentlessly, constantly, insistently. No, I’m not for rushing into an unfocused action. I’m not for alienating any friendly state we can find. But everything – everything – must be subordinate to the ultimate goal of extinguishing the terrorism that threatens the United States and the West. I still believe this is what president Bush is aiming for. But there are some signs that he is going wobbly. I’m hoping and praying that those signs disappear soon. Whatever the dangers of action, the dangers of inaction are now far, far greater. I pray to God the president understands this – and doesn’t let this unique opportunity slip between his fingers.

IF CLINTON IS CALIGULA…: Doesn’t that make B-b-b-Bush C-c-c-c-Claudius?

THE ENEMY WITHIN: The notion that there might be the chance among some enclaves of the decadent left for a fifth column during this war was roundly condemned when I mentioned it in an aside in a recent piece. Anthony Lewis called my suggestion a “disgusting diatribe.” Tim Noah called on me to retract it. Having attended the protests in Washington last weekend in which it was quite clear that many of these nihilists openly want a defeat of the West, I beg to differ. These people may not be many; they may be obscure; they may even be unhinged. But they exist – just as there existed, now beyond historical dispute, a cadre of Americans who worked actively for Moscow during the Cold War. Anyway, I hope Lewis and Noah take a moment to look at the following website, run by a group called the United Peoples. Among the contentions of this group is that the massacre was actually perpetrated by the U.S. government, that 4,000 Jews were given advance warning and stayed away from the WTC on September 11, that the U.S. military trained the terrorists, and that this whole event was orchestrated to foment new defense spending and a crackdown on the “anti-globalization” movement of which these people are an integral part. I quote: “[T]hese terror actions were precisely what Sharon and Bush at this particular moment needed to get out of their deadlocks, and ? hardly any other move could have brought about the present favorable situation for their genocidal policies. A very high percentage of probability therefore speaks in favour of the assumption that more than 6,000 working class people (NOT CEOs: they together with 4000 Jews had been warned beforehand!) of many different nationalities were killed by their host country in order to produce the present situation.” Yes, of course these people are cracked, and there are very few of them. But they exist, and they are Americans. If they do not constitute a fifth column, then maybe Messrs Noah and Lewis could tell me what does.

“How many intellectuals have come to the revolutionary party via the path of moral indignation, only to connive ultimately at terror and autocracy?” – Raymond Aron, “The Opium of the Intellectuals” (1955).

ALICE WALKER’S PBS SOURCE: Yesterday, I wondered how Alice Walker could refer to any “good works” Osama bin Laden can be credited with. A reader reminds me of a PBS documentary in which the following was said: “NARRATOR: In the Sudan, bin Laden set up a host of businesses, among them a tannery, two large farms and a major road construction company, and he reportedly paid for 480 Afghan vets to come work with him. The Sudan liked this wealthy Saudi who was enthusiastic about investing in their fledgling Islamic state. When bin Laden finished a major road construction project, President al-Bashir treated him like a national hero. ” Ah, the moral achievement of road construction. Where have we seen that before?

CLINTON’S REGRET: In last Friday’s New York Times, an anonymous close friend of Bill Clinton’s reflected on the former president’s mixed emotions after the WTC Massacre: “He has said there has to be a defining moment in a presidency that really makes a great presidency. He didn’t have one.” A reader points out how similar these feelings are to another character in history as captured by the Roman historian, Suetonius: “He even used openly to deplore the state of his times, because they had been marked by no public disasters, saying that the rule of Augustus had been made famous by the Varus massacre, and that of Tiberius by the collapse of the amphitheatre at Fidenae, while his own was threatened with oblivion because of its prosperity, and every now and then he wished for the destruction of his armies, for famine, pestilence, fires, or a great earthquake.” To whom was Suetonius referring? Caligula.

As each new story comes in about the scale of the intelligence failure before the September 11 massacre, the clearer it becomes that a large amount of anger is the appropriate response. Bart Gellman’s piece in the Washington Post actually shows that the Clinton administration had a chance to nab bin Laden as he was being expelled from Sudan. The reason they fumbled the ball was that the Saudis were unwilling to take custody of bin Laden, and the Clintonites decided they didn’t have enough evidence to indict bin Laden in an American court. Indict him? Why wasn’t he killed? Such are the fruits of treating terrorism as a simple criminal offense, rather than an act of war. Thanks to former national security adviser, Tony Lake, and to the secretary of state, Warren Christopher, bin Laden escaped to Afghanistan to plot the further murders of Americans. The Post also has a damning article about Clinton’s lame cruise missile strike against bin Laden after the embassy bombings. As one expert put it, “I think that raid really helped elevate bin Laden’s reputation in a big way, building him up in the Muslim world. My sense is that because the attack was so limited and incompetent, we turned this guy into a folk hero.” In other words, the Clinton administration let the guy go, then succeeded in cementing his reputation. Way to go, guys. A similar sorry tale is told by Sy Hersh in the New Yorker. If any of you think George Tenet has any reason to be still running the CIA, you should read Hersh’s article. Yes, the first Bush administration needs to take a hit. But the largest responsibility for running our intelligence services into the ground must be the Clinton administration’s. “From Bush to Clinton, what happened [in Afghanistan] is one of the most embarrassing American foreign policy decisions, as bad as Vietnam,” says Bob Kerrey. “We also had a half-baked Iraqi operation and sent a signal that we’re not serious.” Amen. Yes, I know this is hindsight. But accountability matters. When will Tenet resign? And when will Clinton himself fess up to his record of appalling negligence? In the last resort, the only ultimate responsibility of the president of the United States is the security of its citizens from foreign attack. Yes, both Bushes share part of the blame for our intelligence collapse. But Bill Clinton shoulders by far the most.

SPECIAL CLINTON-BASHING EXTRA: On the plane to Chicago today, I was busy reading the New Yorker and came across Nick Lemann’s piece on Hillary Clinton. Nick’s reporting on this administration has, I think, been easily the best out there, so I hope he doesn’t take this personally. But Senator Clinton’s response to a question Lemann posed is simply jaw-dropping. In the context of the World Trade Center massacre, he asked her “how she thought people would react to knowing they are on the receiving end of a murderous anger.” Clinton’s reply: “Oh I am well aware that it is out there. One of the most difficult experiences I personally had in the White House was during the health-care debate, being the object of extraordinary rage.” She talks about hecklers and the threat of violence and the rhetoric spewed by radio talk show hosts. I’ve no doubt these things hurt. Heck, I’ve had my fair share of the same kind of thing. But to equate that with the murder of thousands of innocent people by terrorists is simply deranged. Or rather, it’s just another sign that this woman adds whole universes of meaning to the word narcissism. Even after a massacre, it’s still all about her.

Tony Blair’s speech to the Labour Party Conference yesterday was the most memorable since Margaret Thatcher’s stunning performance the day after her hotel and cabinet had been bombed into a pile of rubble and dust by the IRA. How strange that one of the greatest evils of the modern world should have brought out the best in two prime ministers. But how fitting as well. Take a moment to read the full text of Blair’s speech. There are some marvelous passages: “Understand the causes of terror. Yes, we should try, but let there be no moral ambiguity about this: nothing could ever justify the events of September 11. The action we take will be proportionate, targeted; we will do all we humanly can to avoid civilian casualties. There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must.” Thus a Labour prime minister sends a rhetorical cruise missile into the leftist editorial offices of the Guardian, the Observer, and the Independent. Then there’s his passionate defense of America: “America has its faults as a society, as we have ours. But I think of the Union of America born out of the defeat of slavery. I think of its constitution, with its inalienable rights granted to every citizen still a model for the world. I think of a black man, born in poverty, who became chief of their armed forces and is now secretary of state, Colin Powell, and I wonder frankly whether such a thing could have happened here. I think of all this and I reflect: yes, America has its faults, but it is a free country, it is our ally and some of the reaction to September 11 betrays a hatred of America that shames those that feel it.” Take that, Mr. Chomsky. Blair’s pro-Americanism isn’t like Thatcher’s. She revered America’s defense of freedom, its relatively small government, its defeat of tyranny abroad. Blair admires its liberalism and search for social justice. Both, of course, are right. And neither, strictly speaking, is or was a Tory in foreign policy. They’re Gladstonians – convinced of their morality, determined to defeat what they see as evil, and committed to semi-utopian visions of the possibility of world progress and the duty of the righteous to impose it. My own vision is closer to Thatcher’s than Blair’s, but grown-ups realize that these two strains in Anglo-American politics – conservative liberalism and liberal liberalism – are both necessary for a healthy politics in both countries. What neither Thatcher nor Blair really believed in was the dark pessimism of real Toryism or the true socialism of the British Labour past. As such they represent the two political wings of Britain’s Americanophilia. The United States – in Reagan and, now, Bush – was lucky to have each of them at exactly the right time.

Having barely noticed in its first few years that foreign policy actually exists, the leftist magazine, the American Prospect, runs a splendidly honest piece about the anti-war demonstrations I also witnessed this weekend. I like this sentence: “We shouldn’t expect much charity toward the president from protesters capable of airing slogans like “The Real Terrorist Works in the White House.” I consider George W. Bush a dim bulb, even an impostor — and certainly oppose many aspects of his foreign policy — but calling him a terrorist is a truly vile form of moral equivalency.” I know this shouldn’t be a hard call, but, hey, it’s progress.

SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE: “In a war on Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden will either be left alive, while thousands of impoverished, frightened people are bombed into oblivion around him, or he will be killed in a bombing attack for which he seems quite prepared. But what would happen to his cool armor if he could be reminded of all the good, nonviolent things he has done? Further, what would happen to him if he could be brought to understand the preciousness of the lives he has destroyed? I firmly believe the only punishment that works is love.” – Alice Walker, Village Voice. Just give that old Osama a big ol’ hug. But what exactly are the “good, nonviolent things” he has done?

THE FIRST FAKED ANTI-MUSLIM HATE CRIME: It had to happen, but this soon? Here’s the first report of the incident; and here’s the truth. I’ve no doubt that some Arab-Americans are being targeted for despicable abuse, although the evidence so far seems mercifully thin – which is an enormous credit to the people of this country and to the president who has admirably spoken out against discrimination. But equally, it doesn’t surprise me that this happened on a campus. The highest status imaginable among the left-marinated universities is ethnic victimization. No surprise that some poor souls are trying to exploit that warped value-system.

HALBERSTAM ABSOLVES CLINTON: Interesting insight into the minds of some liberals who simply will not acknowledge that Bill Clinton bears a great deal of responsibility for the failures of U.S. foreign policy, security and intelligence in the 1990s. In Salon, David Halberstam blames himself (fair enough) and other journalists (I’m happy to beat my breast as well) but he won’t finger Clinton. This despite this anecdote from his new book: “The most telling story is about Clinton’s election in 1992 right before he was inaugurated. He comes to Washington to meet with the House Democratic chairmen. When he gets to Lee Hamilton of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Hamilton says, “Well, Mr. President, we have China. Whatever you do on China, you’re only going to please half the people. Then, there’s Saddam Hussein … ” Clinton interrupts him and says, “Lee, I’ve been traveling around our country for a year and no one cares about foreign policy other than about six journalists.” Hamilton is taken aback and replies, “That may be true, but the last presidents have been defined by foreign affairs.”” When pushed by Salon to acknowledge that a president might actually be required to lead the people, rather than follow them, Halberstam simply stammers: “In essence, Clinton reflected the national mood. Had there been one more term, had he not been pulled down by the Lewinsky thing, thereby losing two years of his second term, it might have been different.” Of course, in this, Halberstam reflects the view of the Clintonites that the president had no responsibility for the appalling trauma he put the country through in 1998 – just while Osama bin Laden’s plot was thickening. Some things never change.

Fascinating report in the left-wing British paper, the Observer, about the extent of the Clinton administration’s responsibility for hobbling our intelligence operations in the last ten years. Vast files of intelligence from Sudan, specifically about Osama bin Laden, were simply ignored or spurned by Clinton officials. According to the Observer, “One senior CIA source admitted last night: ‘This represents the worst single intelligence failure in this whole terrible business. It is the key to the whole thing right now. It is reasonable to say that had we had this data we may have had a better chance of preventing the attacks.’ He said the blame for the failure lay in the ‘irrational hatred’ the Clinton administration felt for the source of the proffered intelligence – Sudan, where bin Laden and his leading followers were based from 1992-96. He added that after a slow thaw in relations which began last year, it was only now that the Sudanese information was being properly examined for the first time.” Quick, Sandy. Better leak something to the New York Times to spin this one away.

RUSHDIE AND THE LEFT: I agree with almost everything Salman Rushdie says today in the Washington Post. It is a gorgeous piece in some ways – and a watershed. Why? Because of the following sentences: “It’s time to stop making enemies and start making friends [in the world]. To say this is in no way to join in the savaging of America by sections of the left that has been among the most unpleasant consequences of the terrorists’ attacks on the United States … Let’s be clear about why this bien-pensant anti-American onslaught is such appalling rubbish. Terrorism is the murder of the innocent; this time, it was mass murder. To excuse such an atrocity by blaming U.S. government policies is to deny the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are responsible for their actions.” Thank you, Salman. Thank you.

Edward Luttwak shrewdly dissects our new foreign policy in today’s Times. I think he’s right in arguing that this really is the new new world order. What has been truly remarkable in the last two weeks is the alacrity with which Russia and China have joined the coalition against Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism. Many will worry about our new allies – their violation of human rights, their unsavory actions in, say, Tibet and Chechnya. Those worries are real and important. But they must take second billing to international order of the most basic kind. This crisis has taught us that lesson. In fact, one of the encouraging things since the massacre has been the unity of major states. Before, each state dealt with terrorism in its own way after its own fashion. Because the United States was never fully involved in this battle, coordination was difficult and took a back seat to rivalry, or even playing one country’s terrorists off against another’s. But as we saw earlier this summer, as IRA terrorists emerged from the Colombian jungle after training sessions, these networks are linked. We are right to start with al Qaeda, but we would be terribly wrong if we ended there. We have a unique opportunity to put in place an architecture for world order unknown since the nineteenth century. And so far, the Bush administration seems to be doing an effective job in constructing it.

LETTERS: Intelligent, non-abusive criticism of my piece on Clinton; input from a former Israeli Special Forces guy; etc.

THE SUPREME COURT BARS CLINTON: Well, well. How could they? After enduring a full day of relentless, organized, abusive emails from the Clinton apparatchiks, all I can say is: at least some people understand the concept of accountability.

THE MILITARY AMENDS: It seems as if I and other media outlets jumped the gun in thinking that the military had suspended its ban on honest gay servicemembers for the duration of the war. A “stop-loss” order was indeed authorized by the president and secretary of defense, and it was assumed that this would apply to all discharges including gay ones. This was the case in the Gulf War. Perhaps aware that such a suspension would, in the current climate, completely undermine any credibility that the military has in insisting that gay soldiers are a threat to military competence, the Airforce’s top brass have decided to exempt gays from the stop-loss order. It’s the only exemption – and a patent attempt to ensure the viability of the policy if and when this war is over. None of the other services has yet spelled out the details of its own stop-loss procedures, so we’ll see if this is more widespread. This nuance means a lot to servicemembers who might have breathed a little easier in this war. But it will be interesting to see if any actual discharges occur during the war. We’ll see. My bet is that there will be very few. But one thing is clear. This country may be unified, but gay soldiers, sailors, marines and airforce fighters – those who are putting their lives at stake for us – are still very much second class citizens. Mark Bingham’s legacy has not yet reached the Pentagon.

BRAVE WORDS OF REASON: “I have no hesitation in describing this mentality, carefully and without heat, as soft on crime and soft on fascism. No political coalition is possible with such people and, I’m thankful to say, no political coalition with them is now necessary. It no longer matters what they think.” – Christopher Hitchens, on the left-liberals who have equivocated in their response to the September 11 Massacre.

HOME NEWS: This month marks the first full year of this site. This is no time for celebration, but I’d like to express my thanks to my readers, who not only have supported the site financially and emotionally, but have also provided many of my tips, links, and ideas over the past twelve months – from all sides of the political spectrum. Many of you I even count as new friends, especially those who often differ from me but keep coming back at me with good criticism and ideas. When I started, I really had no idea whether this would work. October 2000 saw us get 35,000 unique visits, 175,000 page-views and 1.3 million hits. In September 2001, we got over a quarter of a million unique visits, a million page-views and well over 6 million hits. Thanks to my soulmate and webmaster, Robert Cameron, and to his crew at Fantascope, especially Vince Allen and Jonathan Keller, for their design work and constant attention. The much-promised redesign is almost ready to go, but my sudden work load has postponed it for a few weeks. Fear not: it’s coming. Thanks again to you, the readers who make this whole thing work. Don’t forget to click on the Tipping Point to support our efforts, if you feel like it.

Robert Rubin, who, as Joe Klein showed, was a major obstacle to shutting down terrorist financial networks in the last decade, now steps up to the plate. No mention of his own past failures. Perhaps he hopes no-one will notice.

THE PACIFIST LEFT ORGANIZES: If the following excerpt from the September 27 newsletter of the left-liberal group ActForChange is any guide, the Taliban need to be very, very scared by the way some activists are gearing up to respond to the September 11 Massacre. One suggestion? Write the Taliban ambassador! “We have even located a way to contact the only accessible public representative of the Taliban!” the excited activists write. “It remains important to let decision-makers know that we are engaged in civic life and attentive to the responses being made on behalf of the American people … Please consider the following actions … Tell the Taliban What You Think. The Taliban has been roundly condemned in the international community for providing a safe haven for Osama bin Laden and other known terrorists in the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. If you wish to send a message to Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan, calling on the group to turn over bin Laden and ease the oppression of women and relief workers in Afghanistan, ActForChange will print out your e-mail and mail or fax it to him.” I’m sure you can arrange a flowery American greetings card as well.

IT’S NOT CLINTON’S FAULT – NOTHING EVER IS: One theme of the largely obscene torrent of pro-Clinton emails is a revealing one. Rather than question the obvious fact of the last administration’s ultimate responsibility for national security, they argue that the Republicans are at fault for distracting Clinton with what they now call a “jihad” against the president. This follows the usual pattern, fomented by Clinton himself, that he is never to be held responsible for anything ever (except all the good things that happened on his watch). Even after close to 7,000 innocent deaths, Clinton is still the victim. I have a brief response to this in three parts. The president need not have done things that resulted in a sexual harassment lawsuit against him in the first place. The president could easily have settled such a suit years before it metastasized into impeachment. The president could have told the truth as soon a the Lewinsky scandal hit and defused the entire situation. The responsibility for his distraction is ultimately his alone. That’s what responsibility means. That’s what accountability means. As president, he actually had a duty to defuse that situation in order to function effectively as commander-in-chief. But he chose his own political suicide instead. I opposed convicting the president; and thoroughly criticized the Starr Report. But that doesn’t mean the president should be excused for avoiding responsibility and accountability. And the fact that those ideas were so thoroughly trashed by Clinton himself is only further proof of the damage he did to the culture and the government.