- The Washington Times - Thursday, October 16, 2003

Albright slams Bush

In France, no less! Whatever happened to the polite notion that domestic disputes end at water’s edge? Here’s what formerSecretaryofState Madeleine Albright said in France in a Europe 1 radio interview, in order to tout her new book: “It’s difficult to be in France and criticize my government. But I’m doing so because Bush and the people working for him have a foreign policy that is not good for America, not good for the world.”

They lapped that one up in Paris. She described the situation in Iraq as “chaos.” Any criticism of France for making U.N. diplomatic pressureonSaddam impossible? Nah: She said that France was “a little bit right” to foil and deceive the Bush administration in the months and weeks before the war. I hope she sold an avalanche of books by pandering to the French, that’s all I can say. To lose what was once a classy reputation for a few book sales would just be pathetic, wouldn’t it?

Quote of the week

“The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them … [The Jews] invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy, so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have gained control of the most powerful countries, and they, this tiny community, have become a world power. We cannot fight them through brawn alone, we must use our brains also.” — Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, prime minister of Malaysia, at an Islamic summit meeting earlier this week. No word on whether he distributed copies of “Mein Kampf” after his harangue.

Dowd again

#A little reminder of how some people’s memories are short. Here’s New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd on March 9 of this year:

“The case for war has been incoherent due to overlapping reasons conservatives want to get Saddam. The president wants to avenge his father and please his base by changing the historical ellipsis on the Persian Gulf war to a period. Donald Rumsfeld wants to exorcize the post-Vietnam focus on American imperfections and limitations. Dick Cheney wants to establish America’s primacy as the sole superpower. Richard Perle wants to liberate Iraq and remove a mortal threat to Israel. After Desert Storm, Paul Wolfowitz posited that containment is a relic, and that America must aggressively pre-empt nuclear threats. And in 1997, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard and Fox News, and other conservatives, published a ‘statement of principles,’ signed by Jeb Bush and future Bush officials — Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams. Rejecting 41’s realpolitik and shaping what would become 43’s pre-emption strategy, they exhorted a ‘Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity,’ with America extending its domain by challenging ‘regimes hostile to our interests and values.’

But on June 4, only three months later, we discover that, according to Miss Dowd, “For the first time in history, Americans are searching for the reason we went to war after the war is over … Conservatives are busily offering a bouquet of new justifications for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq that was sold as self-defense against Saddam’s poised and thrumming weapons of mass destruction.”

So, what was it? An incoherent set of multiple reasons or a single, crude one, i.e. self-defense against the “imminent” threat of WMDs? It doesn’t really matter to Miss Dowd, of course. Whatever the Bush administration does, she will criticize it. When it offered many reasons, she lambasted it for incoherence. If it had merely offered one, she’d be making the same inane case today that they weren’t complex enough. They can’t win. And she merrily goes on criticizing whatever it is they will do tomorrow.

Against the FMA

More and more principled conservatives are coming out against amending the Constitution to bar any benefits to gay couples in any state or city. Here’s the latest — from Arizona Republican, Chuck Muth:

“[The Federal Marriage Amendment] is a solution in search of a problem. No state court has yet to rule in favor of recognizing “gay marriages.” But even if one or more states do recognize gay marriages, federal law already defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. And while FMA proponents say the Full Faith & Credit clause of the Constitution would force states to recognize gay marriages from other states, other legal scholars contend it won’t. Shouldn’t we at least wait to see if something is broken before trying to fix it?”

More to the point, should the first resort be meddling with the most successful constitution in human history to address a contentious social question? The last time we did that was during prohibition.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide