BY JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:23 p.m. EDT
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006892
Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:23 p.m. EDT
moreRemember George Lakoff, the Berkeley linguist whose (actually quite banal) advice on how to "frame" issues the Democrats have been lapping up? Check out the first paragraph of an essay he contributed yesterday to the Huffington Post:
For a while last week, the Democrats were doing better at framing the issues. The poll numbers showed that Bush's approval rating was down, that around 60% of the voters had turned against the Iraq War, that support for Bush on his handling of 911 and terrorism was lower, but still pretty high.
Lakoff has just said that a political goal of the Democratic Party is to turn the American people against the war the country is now fighting. Perhaps the Dems will now demand that Lakoff desist from questioning their patriotism.
Jimmy Carter's Legacy
Iran held a presidential "election" the other day, and the "winner" was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the "hard-line" mayor of Tehran. Now the Iran Focus Web site says it has identified Ahmadinejad as a terrorist depicted in a 1979 Associated Press photo "holding the arm of a blindfolded American hostage on the premises of the United States embassy in Tehran." Iran Focus offers this background:
Soon after the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Ahmadinejad, who was studying in Tehran's University of Science and Technology, became a member of the central council of the Office for Strengthening of Unity Between Universities and Theological Seminaries, the main pro-Khomeini student body. . . .
Former OSU officials involved in the takeover of the U.S. embassy said Ahmadinejad was in charge of security during the occupation, a key role that put him in direct contact with the nascent security organizations of the clerical regime and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, which he later joined.
Although Al-Jazeera says some Iranian officials deny that the president-"elect" was involved in the attack, the Washington Times reports that several former hostages recognize him:
"As soon as I saw his picture in the paper, I knew that was the bastard," said retired Army Col. Charles Scott, 73, a former hostage who lives in Jonesboro, Ga.
"He was one of the top two or three leaders," Col. Scott said in a telephone interview. "The new president of Iran is a terrorist." . . .
Donald Sharer, a retired Navy captain who was for a time a cellmate of Col. Scott at the Evin prison in northern Tehran, remembered Mr. Ahmadinejad as "a hard-liner, a cruel individual."
"I know he was an interrogator," said Capt. Sharer, now 64 and living in Bedford, Iowa. He said he was personally questioned by Mr. Ahmadinejad on one occasion but does not recall the subject of the interrogation.
Col. Scott recalled an incident when Mr. Ahmadinejad berated a friendly Iranian guard who had allowed the two Americans to visit another U.S. hostage in a neighboring cell. Col. Scott, who understands Farsi, said Mr. Ahmadinejad told the guard, "You shouldn't let these pigs out of their cells."
Let this be a lesson to those who are calling for America to cut and run from Iraq. Jimmy Carter's stunning show of weakness in the face of the Iranians' act of war allowed the mad mullahs to solidify their hold on power, so that a quarter century later they are on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.
It also sent a message to Islamist wackos everywhere that America didn't have the stomach for a fight--a message the subsequent three presidents reinforced by withdrawing precipitously from Lebanon and selling arms to the Iranian regime (Reagan), failing to fight the Gulf War to victory (Bush père) and bugging out of Somalia (Clinton).
Carter has been traveling the world these past few years advocating a policy of American weakness, but his legacy should be cause for pause for current officeholders who are inclined to agree. Not only did it create problems and dangers we're still dealing with a quarter century later, it wasn't even good short-term politics. After all, the voters decisively rejected Carter when he sought re-election in 1980, and in his ex-presidency Carter has accomplished something we'd never have thought possible: He's made Bill Clinton look like a statesman.
Iraq and Sept. 11
In light of all the bizarre Democratic carping over President Bush linking Sept. 11 to terrorism in Iraq, it's worth going back to a speech one senator gave in October 2002 explaining his vote for the liberation of Iraq:
September 11 changed a lot, but other things have changed: Globalization, technology, a smaller planet, the difficulties of radical fundamentalism, the crosscurrents of religion and politics. We are living in an age where the dangers are different and they require a different response, different thinking, and different approaches than we have applied in the past. . . .
A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.
The man who gave that speech, was, of course, John Kerry*. In the same speech, Kerry faulted Bush for waiting so long to deal with the menace of Saddam Hussein:
The administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago [sic; two years before this speech, Bill Clinton was still president] and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.
In fact, Kerry mentioned Sept. 11--the subject liberals now want to render taboo--six times during his Iraq floor speech.
In an e-mail to supporters yesterday, Kerry blasted Bush for engaging in "campaign style rhetoric" in his Tuesday speech at Fort Bragg, N.C. Then he unearthed an old chestnut from his own losing campaign: "We saw what happened after 9/11, in the mountains of Tora Bora, when the administration took its eyes off the ball when it came to hunting down and capturing Osama Bin Laden."
Just after Bush's speech, Kerry appeared on "Larry King Live," and guest host Bob Costas asked him the obvious question, which he couldn't or wouldn't answer:
Costas: If you had been elected president last November, by this point what would President John Kerry have done in Iraq?
Kerry: Well, I laid out--you know, I don't want to get in--I mean, I think that's not quite the way to go at it.
As Andrew Sullivan wrote in March 2002, "I respect a good opposition raising important, concrete questions about tactics and strategy in a war. But I suspect whiners who are angling for political advantage at the possible expense of this country's security, and our troops' safety."
* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam.
'Ask Them Yourself'
Here's an odd exchange from last night's "Hardball" between host Chris Matthews and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean:
Matthews: If the war in Iraq was a blunder, why don't the top Democrats join you in saying so?
Dean: Well, I don't know. I mean, many of them have said that they thought the president is mishandling this.
Matthews: No. Name one who has.
Dean: Well, I know that a number of people have said that the president is mishandling this situation.
Matthews: No, that is working around the edges of policy. That's micromanaging a war. I'm asking you, why don't they agree with you on policy and say so? Blunder is a big word. I think it's the first time I heard somebody say it. Why don't the top names, the name brands of the Democratic Party use the word blunder when they talk about the war?
Bill Clinton still stands with the president. Hillary Clinton stands with the president. Joe Lieberman stands with the president. They all do. Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat, stands with the president. You're out there alone still saying it's a blunder.
Dean: Well, I thought it was at the time. I mean, I--
Matthews: You still do. You just said so.
Dean: Well, I do. I mean, I thought it was at the--
Matthews: Why don't they?
Dean: Well, I don't know. You could have them on the show and ask them yourself.
What's oddest about this is that we can think of quite a few top Democrats other than Dean who have been totally and consistently opposed to Iraq's liberation: Reps. Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader, and Charles Rangel, the ranking member of the Ways and Means committee; and Sens. Carl Levin, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and Robert Byrd, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the longest-serving member of the Senate.
Dean could have answered Matthews's question, if he knew more about the elected officials from his own party.
The Implicit Threat
Yesterday we asked why President Bush, in his Tuesday speech, had not issued some sort of threat to the seven countries he mentioned whose nationals have been committing terrorist acts in Iraq. Several readers argued that he had done so implicitly. Here's how Miguel Lecuona put it:
I think the omission of a threat and consequences by the President (regarding Saudi Arabia being "with us or with the terrorists") was intentional. It was enough to mention that countries with which we are striving to achieve common cause have some rogue elements, and that the U.S. is taking notice. It will send the right message to Saudi Arabia, and its leadership will hear loud and clear that we are aware of Saudi nationals collaborating with the Iraqi terrorist "insurgency."
I would bet that it has been previously noted in private, and now it is being recognized in public. Condoleezza Rice will have the next move, so I expect to see her boots a-walkin' right on over to the nations in question with evidence, and steadily increasing pressure to rein it in or else.
Reader Chris Bartony offers a slightly different take:
I think the operative statements are the ones along line of "we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Bush is in a tight spot and can't really say, "Listen, we're going to continue to allow the foreign fighters into Iraq. Yup, it makes bad headlines and nasty footage, but that's the way it's going to be for a while. We know how strong they are and they aren't strong enough to derail the effort. We're going to keep letting them come to Iraq to stir the pot so that our military can kill them. Don't worry, America, if they get too big or too strong, we'll snap the borders shut."
Isn't that a real possibility? We have to allow them to come to Iraq because we can't go into other countries to kill them. And until they arm up and come after us, it's tough to identify Joe Jihadi. I was all for closing the damned borders over there (and over here for that matter), but I think there's a method to the madness. The guys who make the trek to Iraq to fight us are dangerous (obviously), and in the absence of the US in Iraq, they would not be peacefully selling bric-a-brac in the local bazaar. We're saving them the cost of a very expensive one-way ticket to the U.S. or Europe by setting up shop in their neck of the woods.
And I think we get a double bonus out of this too. (When the time comes to make an issue of this, it's a good reason to drop the hammer on Mr. Assad or the fine mullahs in Iran.
Just a thought. But if it's true, it's just about impossible for the administration to admit it, isn't it? But if you take the theory as an assumption, then the "inability" to secure Iraq's borders and Bush's lack of threatening the regimes in question makes more sense.
Let's hope.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006892
