“Bush condemns Jerusalem bombing ‘in strongest possible terms'” (MSNBC TV). Well of course he does. But he shouldn’t have facilitated the attack by criticizing Israel in a way that made clear he regards cutting a deal as the main goal of his efforts. He shouldn’t have criticized Israel for defending itself — doing on a small scale what the U.S. has done on a large one. He shouldn’t have put the screws on Israel while publicly overlooking continued Arab (except maybe Jordanian) hostility to Israel and sympathy for Palestinian terrorism. He shouldn’t have tolerated the Palestinian leadership’s good-cop/bad-cop game. His inconsistency signals weakness, and it’s no surprise under the circumstances that the Palestinians continue to make terror attacks. For them, it pays.
Hillary redux
Does anyone else see the similarity between H.R.C. and Nixon? Both tainted by scandal, they are also the most polarizing figures from each of their respective parties. The irony is particularly sweet, since H.R.C. revels in her hatred for R.M.N. I think she has a slightly better chance of being elected President than Nixon would have if he were alive today, (and there were no term limits), but not enough of a chance to actually get elected. The intensity of hatred, contempt, and mistrust felt for these two individuals by the body politic is equal at least, and may be skewed higher towards Hillary, with the passage of time having mitigated somewhat the enmity directed at Nixon. Hillary, however, is the true legacy of the Clinton Presidency. Bill Clinton was nothing more than a patsy who achieved his highest goal in life when he ejaculated on a kneeling intern in the hallway of the Oval Office, and a patsy does not merit lasting hatred. All of the baggage of the House of Clinton now falls directly on her head. FWIW, here is my admittedly non-scientific prediction:
Probability of a 2004 Hillary run—1% She will let fellow Dems cut each other up and will wait for a non-incumbent.
2008 Hillary run—95%
2008 Hillary win—5% Have to allow for the Republicans screwing up.
Building A Free Iraq: Lessons From Eastern Europe
Radek Sikorski has a good short article drawing on the experience of Eastern Europe.
Three major lessons emerge from the Central European experience. For regime change to result in liberal democratic order, a nation must remove the old regime from power, remember its crimes, and dismantle the social infrastructure that supported it. This will be hard for the citizens of Iraq, but not impossible.
Sikorski argues that the old regime must be pretty ruthlessly rooted out. He also argues that the Iraqi diaspora must be encouraged to return. Their experience living in free societies will be critically important.
It occurs to me that the same three things will be necessary before a viable Palestinian state can be formed. But we are not trying to do, or to encourage, any of them. The Arafat terrorist regime will remain in place, it will continue to lie about and glorify its terrorism, and the social infrastructure of intimidation will remain in place. Yet more evidence that Dubya’s road map thing ain’t gonna work. (David Warren looks to be right about that, unfortunately.)
Trotsky
So, Leo Strauss is now OUT as the brooding intellectual omnipresence lurking behind the puppet-masters who pull the strings on poor, unwitting Dubya. That rube. No, get this, Leon Trotsky is the true master-mind, ruling the 21st century from the grave, through his minions who have seized the commanding heights from within. Whoa.
Actually, this is probably truer than the stupid Strauss brouhaha. The intellectual background of many of the original Neocons of the ’70s (Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, et al.) was Trotskyist, just as many of the original circle at William F. Buckley’s National Review in the ’50s were former communists (James Burnham, Frank Meyer (I think), Whittaker Chambers). These guys retained some pretty hard-nosed notions about the use of force after their “conversions”, and they had no sentimentality about the nature of the enemy. So, Trotsky is certainly somewhere in the gene pool of modern conservatism. So, grandpa Leon, welcome to the war on terrorism.
Another thing, that article has this passage:
In 1933, while in exile in Turkey, Trotsky regrouped his supporters as the Fourth International. Never amounting to more than a few thousand individuals scattered across the globe, the Fourth International was constantly harassed by Stalin’s secret police, as well as by capitalist governments. The terrible purge trials that Stalin ordered in the late 1930s were designed in part to eliminate any remaining Trotskyists in the Soviet Union. Fleeing from country to country, Trotsky ended up in Mexico, where he was murdered by an ice-pick-wielding Stalinist assassin in 1940. Like Macbeth after the murder of Banquo, Stalin became even more obsessed with his great foe after killing him. Fearing a revival of Trotskyism, Stalin’s secret police continued to monitor the activities of Trotsky’s widow in Mexico, as well as the far-flung activities of the Fourth International.
There are some analogies here. It makes Trotsky sound like Osama and his Fourth International sound like Al Qaeda. Like Osama Trotsky was a man who proved himself on the battlefield, but was unable to seize political power in his own country, and was driven out of it, who relied on literary skills and charisma to attract a multinational gang of followers, who had sympathizers in many countries who supported and financed him, who was willing to use and advocate violence. The parallels are not that strong, but are still interesting. Critically, Osama will not manage to secure a sympathetic segment of public opinion in Europe or America.
Anyway, I just hope that if Osama is alive, that our Delta Force guys don’t use an ice pick on him when they find him. Too risky. Just shoot him like a rat at the dump.
(Via Arts and Letters Daily.)
Drudge Interview
Radar Magazine has an interview with Matt Drudge, conducted in part by Camille Paglia. Drudge has a few interesting comments. For one, he is a pro-lifer but not part of any organized religion. There are more people like this out there than the media would have us believe. (I’m a pro-lifer, but Roman Catholic, so I’m part of the Evil Religious Right, so no surprise there.)
Of most interest to me were these comments about Hillary Clinton’s future:
DRUDGE: Oh, she’s a superstar. She’s the brightest light on Broadway. She’s Harvey Weinstein’s First Lady of our Heart. She is the Democrat to beat in ’08, and her opponent may turn out to be Rudy Giuliani. And if I had to predict right now, I would think she could clean up.
PAGLIA: Really? But she can’t even give a speech. She has no ability to interact with –people in a spontaneous way.
DRUDGE: Let’s put it this way: I’m staying alive just to see her run against Giuliani. I think you will see a dynamic, a red-versus-blue rematch, that would just fascinate the country. Camille, as you remember, one of the finest performances we’ve seen out of Washington was the first lady coming out of the grand jury office wearing a dragon coat and white face powder. And I expect much more from Hillary as we ramp up for the next election. She has decided to go undercover and play it very calm and very conservative and Miss Marm. But she will surround herself with the Blumenthals, the Harold Ickeses, and everything else we loved and hated about the ’90s. The corruption, the crimes, the craziness will all come back to the fore.
I agree with every single word about Hillary. And I am filled with dread and loathing. My only quibble is that I am holding to my earlier prediction that Hillary will run in ’04. The fact that Terry McAuliffe survived the 2002 debacle shows me that the Clintons still have control, and that the money spigots will open for Hillary. Her book just came out. There are nine empty suits to divide and conquer. There is wartime-popular Bush in the White House during a recession — its all in place. Clinton II will launch this Fall.
No one else seems to agree with me on this. But what the Hell. I’m sticking with my prediction.
I also disagree that Giuliani will be the R nominee in ’08. Any R nominee has to be at least nominally pro-life and Giuliani isn’t. He should be in charge of Homeland Security. Or Iraq.
It’s a pretty good, if overlong, inteview, and it is good to see nutty Camille Paglia back in action.
(via the LA Examiner, via Instapundit.)