Those Guys Eat The Body And Drink The Blood

February 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Culture, Election 2008, Episcopal Church | Leave a Comment 

At the same time Sen. McCain struggles to shore up his right wing, pressure builds on him to renounce the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee, who calls the Catholic Church “the great whore.” Sauce for the goose, Democrats say, since Sen. Obama had to renounce Louis Farrakhan. The Catholic League also called on McCain to repudiate Hagee. Some ministers make statements that are beyond the pale. But where does this end? How about giving politicians a pass when it comes to their supporters’ and pastors’ wacky theology and eschatology? After all, a consensus formed among most observers that it was inappropriate to ask Mitt Romney to account for the specifics of LDS doctrine (though polls showed these made some voters uneasy). Should an Episcopal candidate, or a candidate endorsed (heaven and the IRS forbid) by an Episcopal bishop or priest, have to repudiate the Mother of All Moderate And Eager-to-Please Denominations because its prayer book, in a compendium of historical documents, still seems to promote “predestination and election” (p. 871) and says this about millions of devout Roman Catholics praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints (p. 872)?:

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well as of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

Live It, Teach It

February 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Culture, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

According to Slate’s “Hot Document” feature, 97% of 17-year-olds know who gave the “I Have a Dream” speech. An informal poll conducted at the Nixon Library (in the form of my many school tours) reveals that a roughly equivalent percentage of students, asked for a word they associate with the 37th President, say “Watergate.” (My job is to stir in China and Vietnam.) The survey Slate studied reveals that fewer than half the kids know when the Civil War was fought. Not surprisingly, experts blame the Bush Administration because high schoolers are so “stunningly ignorant.” Yet “No Child Left Behind” hasn’t kept educators from teaching everything our youth need to know about Dr. King and the 18 1/2-minute gap.

Don’t Worry, Be Serious

February 29, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Election 2008, Presidents | Leave a Comment 

After a rough two weeks for Sen. McCain, the conventional wisdom is that he’s too old and no match for the eloquent Sen. Obama. There’s something happening in America! people whisper. Obama’s so….He’s so…He’s SOOO going to win! If it’s the new Kennedy argument, it’s good to remember that the old Kennedy barely won (and, some still say, maybe didn’t). If it’s the he’s-so-eloquent argument, Michael Gerson provides a helpful antidote and some advice for McCain. It is always good to remember that just about every study shows that people vote issues, not image; substance, not sexiness.

Obama’s rhetorical skill will present a problem for McCain. The Arizona senator’s close adviser Mark Salter is among the best writers in American politics. But McCain’s delivery is often rigid and old-fashioned — sprinkled with “my friends” in the manner of Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford. And his use of the teleprompter is more awkward and obvious than Obama’s. McCain can and should make an ideological case against his opponent. Why does Obama want to fight terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan but not in Iraq? How would it advance the war on terrorism to grant al-Qaeda’s fondest wish — an untimely American retreat from the Middle East? Would Obama really devote his first year in office to a series of surrender summits with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea? These are serious criticisms; the argument against rhetoric is not. Obama’s political weakness is that he is too liberal, not that he is too eloquent.

Who’s a Conservative?

February 29, 2008 by Paul Saunders | Filed Under Book Review, International Affairs, Richard Nixon | 1 Comment 

Conservative icon Barry Goldwater famously quipped “We’re the new liberals of the Republican party” to Bob Dole in 1996 when reflecting on the new generation of House Republicans. Much of the commentary after William F. Buckley Jr.’s death has had a similar tone, particularly noting Buckley’s differences with neo-conservative Republicans. (See this short piece by my National Interest colleague Ximena Ortiz, for example.)

Jacob Heilbrunn – like Ximena, a Senior Editor at the magazine – makes a similar point in “Pride and Prudence”, a review of recent books focused on the Nixon presidency appearing in the March/April issue of The National Interest, which will arrive in bookstores and mailboxes in the next 1-2 weeks. He concludes with the observation that Republicans grappling with the foreign policy legacy of the current president would do well to reexamine Nixon’s record. I encourage all to take a look.

Buckley, Nixon, and Mao – 1972

February 29, 2008 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under American Politics, China, International Affairs | Leave a Comment 

In February of 1972 three airplanes, two were charter flights, the third was Air Force One, made their way from the United States to China en route to a rendezvous with what historian Margaret McMillan has referred to as “the week that changed the world.”

The two charters were a bit ahead of the presidential plane, and they carried everything necessary to ensure that the folks back home in America would be able to fully participate by proxy in an epoch event. Their cargo included cameras, technicians – and super stars. On one plane sat Walter Cronkite, Eric Severeid, and a host of news anchors and bureau chiefs – the main stream media of the day – 80 journalists in all.

And right there with them was a singular conservative anti-communist along for the ride – William F. Buckley.

At the time, Mr. Buckley was the virtual sole equivalent of today’s vast network of talk-radio hosts, conservative columnists, and right leaning pundits. He was THE voice of a movement. And, though he was surely glad to be on board the plane – he was far from on board with the politics of it all.

Richard Nixon, a man who had built his career and reputation on anti-communism, was going to break bread and new ground with the biggest Communist of them all – Mao Tse-tung.

The passing of Mr. Buckley this week at his Connecticut home at the age of 82, has been observed with the appropriate outpouring of eulogies and retrospectives. Often referred to as “The Patron Saint” of American conservatives, he was a consistent voice, whether in the wilderness or on center stage.

During the 1972 trip to China he was near center stage, but the voice was very much that of a wilderness cry.

Bill Buckley and Dick Nixon had a stormy and strained relationship punctuated by occasional periods of awkward fellowship. They had first met in 1957, when Nixon was Vice-President and as Buckley’s fledgling periodical, National Review, was developing cultural and political traction. By all accounts they were mutually impressed. Buckley had admiration for Nixon largely due to his defense of Whitaker Chambers against Alger Hiss. Nixon was drawn to the intellectual gifts of Buckley. Although this initial affinity did not necessarily translate into support for Nixon’s 1960 presidential candidacy. The Vice President was not conservative enough.

As that decade progressed, however, and the 1968 election approached, Mr. Buckley had, for the time being, suspended his hope for a viable die-hard conservative candidacy (he had passionately backed Goldwater in 1964), and instead he resigned himself to settling for a not-so-conservative candidate, if said contender might be sufficiently open to conservative ideas and influence. Following a meeting at Nixon’s Manhattan apartment in January of 1967, Buckley was well on his way to supporting Nixon for President. His support was more than beneficial that year – it was crucial. One way he helped was to use his television program, Firing Line, to score debating points (in a non-debate campaign year) on third-party contender, George Wallace, during an animated interview a shortly before the election.

By 1972, however, William F. Buckley had become decidedly unhappy with President Nixon. Though there were many issues troubling him, the announcement on July 15, 1971 that the President was planning to travel to China early the next year was when these concerns reached critical mass. China was evil; so was the Soviet Union. The developing détente was anathema to real conservatives. Period.

In spite of this, he had been invited to join the trip largely through the influence of Nixon aide Pat Buchanan, who himself had serious reservations about the whole initiative. Apparently the idea was to somehow bring Bill Buckley, and by extension the conservative movement, into the China card fold.

It didn’t work. Buckley didn’t budge. In fact, quite the contrary – he was emboldened in his anti-communism. Writing at the time about Nixon’s hyper-generous toasts to Mao and company, the very scene clearly distressing him, he said:

“It is unreasonable to suppose that anywhere in history have a few dozen men congregated who have been responsible for greater human mayhem than the hosts at this banquet and their spiritual colleagues, instruments all of Mao Tse-tung. The effect was as if Sir Hartley Shawcross had suddenly risen from the prosecutor’s stand at Nuremberg and descended to embrace Goering and Goebbels and Doenitz and Hess, begging them to join with him in the making of a better world.”

Then in response to the Shanghai Communique – the formal statement issued at the end of the trip pledging progress toward the ultimate normalization of relations between the two nations – Buckley opined: “We have lost – irretrievable – any remaining sense of moral mission in the world.”

Following the China trip, William F. Buckley flirted briefly with supporting the quixotic presidential bid of very conservative Ohio Congressman John Ashbrook. But the emergence of George McGovern’s liberal candidacy for the Democrats managed to keep the conservative intellectual giant in the Nixon fold for 1972.

And this week so many old Nixon hands are fondly and appropriately remembering the contrarian conservative as a giant. He didn’t always play ball with them, but he was a vital and interesting part of the history being made back then.

Mr. Buckley was a man who called them as he saw them. Yet, he seemed to be able to combine a flair for fierce and combative words and deeds with warm personal charm and authenticity – the kind that resonated with others who didn’t always share his views. Possibly his ultimate legacy will be larger than his ideas and will include his manner and method, as well.

Franklin Roosevelt was said to have had “a second rate intellect, but a first rate temperament.” William F. Buckley had equal measure, exceedingly high, of both to serve as bookends for his larger-than-life persona. That’s why he was so well respected and his voice will cry from the wilderness for quite some time following his peaceful passing this week.

Ascending or Descending Towards Ethno-Nationalism?

February 29, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under International Affairs | Leave a Comment 

Here’s a controversial thesis in Foreign Affairs Magazine. Writer Jeffrey Z. Muller argues that ethnic polarization and self-determination will continue to drive the framework of the global arena, and argues that while Americans generally belittle strong ethnic identities, it has been a continual conduit of civilization.

Ethnonationalism draws much of its emotive power from the notion that the members of a nation are part of an extended family, ultimately united by ties of blood. It is the subjective belief in the reality of a common “we” that counts. The markers that distinguish the in-group vary from case to case and time to time, and the subjective nature of the communal boundaries has led some to discount their practical significance. But as Walker Connor, an astute student of nationalism, has noted, “It is not what is, but what people believe is that has behavioral consequences.” And the central tenets of ethnonationalist belief are that nations exist, that each nation ought to have its own state, and that each state should be made up of the members of a single nation.

Featured Articles — February 29, 2008

February 29, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting Takes from Home and Abroad:

In Defense of Lobbying By Charles Krauthammer
Good or bad, the right to petition for redress is protected by the First Amendment.

Bush’s Newest Secret: Who’s Funding His Library? By David Corn
At a press conference the president refuses to say whether he’ll disclose donors to his presidential library, but acknowledges he’ll “probably take some foreign money.”

‘Hope’ is politics, not real Iran, Iraq policy by Steven Huntley
The political salvos over Iraq between Barack Obama and John McCain the other day made for good political theater. More important, the exchange offered a revealing contrast between the politics of realism and the politics of hope.

A Life Athwart History By George Will
Those who think Jack Nicholson’s neon smile is the last word in smiles never saw William F. Buckley’s. It could light up an auditorium; it did light up half a century of elegant advocacy that made him an engaging public intellectual and the 20th century’s most consequential journalist.

Russia’s Last Hope by Victor Erofeyev
IF I recover from a bout of stomach illness by Sunday, I will cast my ballot in Russia’s presidential election. But there’s no need to rush to get well, because my vote will make no difference.

Vladimir Putin’s poodle may yet bite By Con Coughlin
No one is looking forward to Dmitry Medvedev’s decisive victory in this weekend’s Russian presidential election more than the incumbent, Vladimir Putin.

Our view on free trade: Bashing NAFTA misses real reason for factory job losses by USA Today Editors
Clinton, Obama hit wrong target. It’s productivity gains, not Mexico.

May We Not Lose His Kind By Peggy Noonan
He was sui generis, wasn’t he? The complete American original, a national treasure, a man whose energy was a kind of optimism, and whose attitude toward life, even when things seemed to others bleak, was summed up in something he said to a friend: “Despair is a mortal sin.”

On Kosovo’s Fields By Fouad Ajami
America has become the provider of order of last resort in Muslim lands.

Baseball’s ‘Hallowed’ Records By David Joseph
It’s a little late in the game to get worked up over the Roger Clemens affair.

‘Disorder, Disorder!’ By Quentin Letts
Another money-and-politics scandal.

Buckley’s War

February 28, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Election 2008, International Affairs, Iraq War, News media | Leave a Comment 

Noting William F. Buckley Jr.’s retrospective misgivings about the Iraq war and support for Sen. McCain’s candidacy, Andrew Sullivan cogently expresses the view of many who don’t believe that two wrongs (a misguided intervention and too-hasty withdrawal) will make things right. As Sullivan says, the money quote:

And, following WFB, I’ve been struck in retrospect by the utopianism of the whole project. This, I hasten to add, is a conservative judgment, and an indictment of my own previous zeal. At the same time, I don’t want to miss twists and turns that might yield better outcomes. Or strategies that enable us to withdraw as prudently as possible. And there’s no one on the right more able to make that argument than McCain. But he hasn’t made it convincingly yet. Mere appeals against “the white flag of surrender” are not arguments. We’re waiting. For honesty.

Richard Milhous Obama

February 28, 2008 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Election 2008 | 1 Comment 

Barack Obama sounds a bit like Richard Nixon.

No, he’s not deliberately cribbing from our 37th president. It’s hard to picture him telling his writers: “I need to fire up the liberal Democratic base – so go get me some Nixon language!”

But his rhetoric does include echoes of the 1968 Nixon campaign. The similarities are more natural than they seem at first. In some ways, Obama stands in the same spot that Nixon occupied forty years ago. His party has been out of the White House for two terms. He seeks to tie the other party to a protracted war and an unpopular incumbent. And at a time of intense polarization, he tries to tap a national yearning for unity.

So consider the following:

Obama says that what “we need in the next President is the ability to bring this country together; to find common ground so we can meet common challenges.” Nixon said: “The next President must unite America. He must calm its angers, ease its terrible frictions, and bring its people together once again in peace and mutual respect.” (9/19/68)

Obama tells audiences that they have come “together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come.” Nixon said: “We’ll discover anew that this land is our land, all of us together, that its destiny is our destiny. We are one nation, together and inseparable, and if that proposition has been tested in these past years … the nation has shown that it can pass that test.” (6/27/68)

Obama speaks of “a new majority of not just Democrats, but Independents and Republicans who’ve lost faith in their Washington leaders but want to believe again – who desperately want something new.” Nixon had his own version: “The new majority is not a grouping of power blocs, but an alliance of ideas. Men and women of all backgrounds, of all ages, of all parties, are coming to the same conclusions… Their very diversity of background provides a basis for a new unity for America. (5/16/68)

Obama shuns unilateralism in foreign policy: “But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others…” Nixon also stressed joint efforts: “We as a nation must still do our share, but others must do their share, too. In the long run, peace can only be maintained if the responsibility for maintaining it is shared.” (3/7/68).

Obama worries about America’s image in the world: “The disappointment that so many around the world feel toward America right now is only a testament to the high expectations they hold for us. We must meet those expectations again, not because being respected is an end in itself, but because the security of America and the wider world demands it.” Nixon had a similar concern: “Nor do we command either the allegiance or the respect that were ours in the world at large only a few short years ago. No longer do our words receive the hearing they once enjoyed. Those who once followed the United States now observe the United States.” (3/28/68).

And Obama has qualified praise for the other party’s standard-bearer: “Now, John McCain is a good man, an American hero, and we honor his half century of service to this nation. But in this campaign, he has made the decision to embrace the failed policies George Bush’s Washington.” Nixon spoke the same way: “The man who is most likely to be nominated by the Democratic Party – Vice President Humphrey – is a man I respect. He is a man of honor and a man of his convictions. And he honestly believes in the old ways. I believe in a new way.” (6/27/68).

One could go on and on. Again, the point here is not that he is plagiarizing. Rather it’s simply to point out an irony. His Democratic supporters are reacting with deep emotion to things that Richard Nixon could have said.

On Words, Pins, and Patriotism

February 28, 2008 by David Emig | Filed Under American Politics, Election 2008 | Leave a Comment 

Over the last couple of weeks, there seems to be a controversy in the presidential campaign over expressions of patriotism. Senator Obama is being criticized for not wearing a flag lapel, and not putting his hand over his heart when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Incidentally as we all know, H.R. Haldeman started the White House staff and Richard Nixon in wearing the flag lapel in the early 70s.) But is the symbolism more important than the actual act of patriotism?

What is really important is actually fighting for those who give you the freedom in which our patriotism is inspired by. Fighting for the veterans of not only the current conflict, but past wars as well. Making sure when they’re in battle that they have all the material and armor they need to protect themselves. If they become injured, they are entitled to the same service in which they gave this country, giving them the best hospital care and resources to deal with their injuries if they are long-lasting. And finally, making sure that soldiers like those who belong to the National Guard, have a job to come back to and a mortgage that’s not for overdue because they paid their service to their country. No veteran deserves to be on the street.

As a civil litigation paralegal, it was the highest privilege in my legal career to represent American heroes. Our firm represented American servicemen against Japanese corporations for slave labor and back wages. One of our clients was a gentleman named Frank Bigelow. A Seaman Second Class who was captured by the Japanese. Here is his testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 28, 2000. He lost a leg as a prisoner of war. Whenever I spoke to him, he always got to me. In a letter to him before his passing, I explained that he was America to me. When you read his testimony, you will get a sense of why I feel the way I do.

My patriotism is one of deeds, not of words or pins.

No Smiling Nixons — We’re American

February 28, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Book Review, News media, Richard Nixon | Leave a Comment 

News comes that Conrad Black will have to surrender himself within the next few days to serve a sentence for his fraud and obstruction of justice convictions. Friends expect him to keep his head held high throughout. Celebrated for a magisterial biography of FDR, he is also receiving high marks for his new RN biography, which Publishers Weekly called “superb.” (A review is just out in The National Interest.) But can you judge a book by both its covers? When it came out last year in Canada, it showed a smiling Mr. Nixon and bore a title, The Invincible Quest, in keeping with its theme. PublicAffairs, the U.S. publisher, chose the glowering picture from Stanley Kutler’s book of Watergate tapes, Abuse of Power, and the odd title A Life in Full.

Stay Linked-in with The New Nixon On Facebook

February 28, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Social Networking | Leave a Comment 

I encourage all readers to stay linked in with The New Nixon by joining our Facebook page. There you will get immediate notification when our illustrious contributors post, multimedia, and information about Nixon Library Events.

If you don’t already have a Facebook profile, signing up is very simple.

From Henry To Richard

February 28, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under Culture, Nixon Library events | Leave a Comment 

Academy Award-winning scriptwriter Peter Morgan’s latest is “The Other Boleyn Girl.” He wrote “The Queen” and the play “Frost/Nixon”; Ron Howard’s film of the latter opens late this year. Howard’s shown here with volunteer Docent Dolores Andicochea on a ‘06 visit to the Nixon Library, where he shot some scenes last summer.

To Live Is A Mess Of Trouble

February 28, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, Election 2008, Iraq War | Leave a Comment 

Garrison Keillor says the Obama surge expresses Americans’s hunger for “the big leap by which you skip a mess of complicated trouble and move on into the future,” moments such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, RN’s trip to China, Ford’s pardon of RN, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Keillor writes, “That hope for the leap forward seems deeply felt this year. And that’s why people are looking at the skinny guy.” As I write, Karl Rove is on TV reading a quote from Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign opposing just the kind of Iraq withdrawal he now proposes. Perhaps this little-noted change in his views will help him win, but at what cost for the people of Iraq (whether we should’ve invaded or not)? Keillor celebrates Obama’s youth, but the youthful John F. Kennedy, whom Obama emulates, called on us to redouble our dedication to winning our fathers’s Cold War, not abandon it. People of good will may differ on Iraq. But let’s take care when politicians tell us that anything worth doing is easy.

Nice To Meet You, President Medvedova

February 28, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under International Affairs | 2 Comments 

In a post-Sept. 11 world — in any world — it’s newsworthy than neither Democratic candidate can accurately name the incoming President of Russia, Dmitri Medvedev. Yet only as an afterthought to a long thumbsucker about the new guy did the New York Times run this isn’t-this-so-cute sidebar describing how, in Tuesday’s debate, moderator Tim Russert asked what the candidates could say about Vladimir Putin’s hand-chosen successor. Wrote reporter John M. Broder, “Mr. Obama looked expectantly at Mrs. Clinton,” who said it was “Um, Medved– Medvedova, whatever.” For his part, Obama said, “Well, the– I think Senator Clinton speaks accurately about him,” and didn’t even try the name. Obama’s master-of-the-universe move would’ve been to say the name confidently, but he didn’t, so we’ve got to assume that he didn’t know any more than his adversary (and maybe that he knew even less) about this new leader of a country with which, we’re told by some experts, a cold war over resources impends.

Though neither candidate got the name right, an on-line Times article headlines “Mrs. Clinton’s flub” and features references to her “stumbling” and “hiccup” without even mentioning that Obama didn’t know any better and indeed said Tuesday night that she “speaks accurately about” that– that– that Russian guy way over there that she mentioned just a second ago. Clinton was obviously on the money when teasing the press Tuesday night about last week’s SNL’s skit, which showed reporters fawning over her opponent. At least she tried, getting those all-important first two syllables right. They both flubbed — and we all should be a little worried. Presidential candidates can’t keep up with everything on the international scene, but the new leader of a nuclear power whom we’ve been hearing about for weeks is a pretty big thing to overlook. Both candidates enjoy saying that, as President, they’d call in their military and diplomatic advisors on day one. Lucky for us.

The incident also demonstrates the shortage of foreign policy debate in 20 exchanges among and between the Democratic candidates (not that it’s been much better with the Republicans). Everybody’s got their endlessly repeated talking points on terrorism and Iraq. But no one should get near the Oval Office without a basic grasp of key issues and personalities in Russia, China, Japan, and Europe, what President Nixon and HAK used to call “the great powers” — you know, the ones with all the trade, weapons, and people. How about some decent questions at the fall debates? And why weren’t the media all over the candidates like a cheap suit over the Medvedova Affair, as they are when Republicans are clueless?

I Say Incursion. You Say Invasion. And I’m Right

February 28, 2008 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under American Politics, Culture, International Affairs, Iraq War, News media | Leave a Comment 

Listening to the news broadcasts on NPR the last few days, my hackles have been raised by the nonchalant use of the word “incursion” (admittedly, when I listen to NPR my hackles are in a perpetual state of semi-arousal).

For example, on this morning’s Morning Edition, co-anchor Renee Montagne set up her interview with Defense Secretary Robert Gates by saying that the SecDef was in Turkey to deliver the message that “the US is running out of patience with the Turkish military operation in northern Iraq. Turkish forces launched in incursion against Kurdish rebels there a week ago.”

Operation…….incursion…… Where was Renee Montagne when we needed her back in April of 1970, when the media dismissed President Nixon’s insistence that he was announcing an incursion rather than an invasion as a distinction without a difference — just the latest example of Nixonian pettifoggery?

Of course there was an invasion going on — by the North Vietnamese army which had converted the entire Cambodian-Vietnamese border into an off ramp of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, where bumper-to-bumper men and materiel were being funneled into South Vietnam.

So, on April 30th 1970, President Nixon went on TV to announce a classical incursion: a military action of limited scope and duration in order to accomplish a specific goal. The Cambodian incursion began on 1 May and was all over, but the shouting which continues to this day, by 1 July.

In his speech from the Oval Office, RN specifically explained: “This is not an invasion of Cambodia. The areas in which these attacks will be launched are completely occupied and controlled by North Vietnamese forces. Our purpose is not to occupy the areas. Once enemy forces are driven out of these sanctuaries and once their military supplies are destroyed, we will withdraw.”

But the headlines read “invasion” and a February 28th 2008 Googling of “Cambodian invasion 1970” produces 311,000 hits; “Cambodian incursion 1970” yields 58,800.

In military terms, the Cambodian incursion was an unalloyed success. Massive amounts of enemy arms were captured and destroyed; and the vital supply line was interrupted. In military terms, it was an unmitigated disaster. The failure to find an actual enemy HQ (the much vaunted “COSVN”) was reported as evidence of failure. And within a couple of days American campuses erupted in a frenzy of protest; on May 4th National Guard troops fired on students at Kent State.

I’m not writing about the wisdom of the war or the justification for the incursion. I’m writing about the importance of the meaning of words. In the perfervid atmosphere of those times, the reporters and commentators and editors and anchors had no patience for precision. For some, it would slow down the story; for others, it wouldn’t serve their purpose.

But words have meanings just as ideas have consequences, and we do ourselves no favor when we cut definitional corners for the sake of producing more pointed headlines or scoring ideological points. So kudos to Renee Montagne. Thirty-eight years on, I’m prepared to see it as a sign of progress that (at least in reference to a far away conflict of which we know little) the distinction between an invasion and an incursion is at last being acknowledged.

The Emasculation of Russia’s Democracy

February 28, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under International Affairs | Leave a Comment 

The Economist cites ambiguity, lack of regional autonomy, and Kremlin corruption for democracy’s demise.

Update: More on Russia’s emasculation, John H. Taylor writes that Hillary Clinton has apparently feminized the new Russian President’s name in a debate flub.

So Waxman, “So What?”

February 28, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under American Politics | Leave a Comment 

“Well, the testimony we received today indicated that {in} the firing of the travel office employees there was no illegality, there was no wrongdoing, and Mr. Watkins told us that he wasn’t directed by the first lady to fire them. I don’t know what this hearing is all about. Even if she had directed him to fire them, so what?”

The words above are those of Santa Monica Representative Henry Waxman after a hearing on a scandal surrounding then First Lady Hillary Clinton in 1996. The Presidential candidate was being investigated for her role in firing the staff of the long tenured White House Travel Office, and manufacturing false charges against Office Director Billy Ray Dale, in favor of an Arkansas travel company she had close ties to.Ostensibly, Waxman was charging that the House Oversight Committee’s investigation against the Clinton’s was a partisan smear. Whether true or not, Waxman’s claim was legitimate as nothing ever materialized against the President and his wife.Now Waxman is leading the crusade for Hall of Fame pitcher Roger Clemens’s indictment in a signed letter to U.S Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

“In a letter sent to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said it could not definitively say if Clemens had lied under oath during its investigation into his challenge of accusations contained in the report on baseball and drugs prepared by George J. Mitchell. But the committee said it believed that the Justice Department should pursue the matter.”

Wouldn’t the committee already know? And if the charges of perjury lack legitimate face value, why press for them?Accordingly, Waxman is seemingly the proverbial pot calling the kettle black in his attempt to smear Clemens over allegations of steroid use. Waxman should recognize, just as he did in the Clinton case, that even if Clemens received injections of steroids and human growth hormone to enhance his performance, so what?HGH was legal in Major League Baseball during the period (1998-2001) when trainer Brian McNamee allegedly injected Clemens. Furthermore, the legal dispute in question doesn’t even fall under the jurisdiction of Federal Code.Confused? One can only repeat the question: So what?

Featured Articles — February 28, 2008

February 28, 2008 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Featured Articles | Leave a Comment 

Interesting Takes from Home and Abroad:

Up From Liberalism by Wall Street Journal Editors
Conservatively speaking, the life of William F. Buckley Jr. seems wildly improbable. One man is rarely granted his range of gifts: He was at once an essayist, editor, impresario, controversialist, critic, novelist, sportsman and bon vivant.

Geldof and Bush: Diary From the Road By Bob Geldorf
I gave the president my book. He raised an eyebrow. “Who wrote this for ya, Geldof?” he said without looking up from the cover. Very dry. “Who will you get to read it for you, Mr. President?” I replied. No response.

The World in 2009 By Victor Davis Hanson
When President George Bush leaves office, will America once again be liked by most of the world? Not necessarily, since most current problems are either already getting better or not our fault.

‘Experience’ Issue Won’t Beat Obama By Mort Kondracke
While some polls show that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is running even with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in general election matchups, the Republican has to be considered the underdog — and will need a compelling positive vision for America to catch up.

That ’70s Show By Allan H. Meltzer
The Fed must resist political pressure, or we’re in for stagflation.

The Long Haul in Afghanistan by Roger Cohen
If troops are to stay until 2013, as the NATO secretary general suggests, the alliance will need re-branding.

A Genocide Foretold By Nicholas D. Kristof
Without easing the outrage over Darfur — where the bloodshed has been particularly appalling lately — we must broaden the focus to include the threat to the south.

A Little Nuke Music By NY Times Editors
The New York Philharmonic’s concert would have had more significance if it could have celebrated progress toward shuttering North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

No Country for Old Bigots By Larry Elder
Bookings to promote my new book, “Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card — and Lose,” have been difficult. Many media outlets — television, radio, magazines — flatly turn me down, because they find the title “offensive.” The unwillingness to offend, to avoid the appearance of racism, proves one of the main points of my book — that white racism no longer poses a significant problem in American life.

Meet the New Mudslingers by David Corn
Forget Swift Boat Veterans and 527s; this election’s sneaky operators are nonprofits.

Bill’s Joe

February 27, 2008 by John H. Taylor | Filed Under American Politics, News media | Leave a Comment 

Though he’s remembered as the godfather of modern conservatism, among William F. Buckley Jr.’s greatest gifts, a powerful dimension of his living legacy, was helping launch the national career of one of the last of the Scoop Jackson Democrats (foreign policy hawk, domestic liberal), Joe Lieberman. Though the senator’s Wikipedia entry doesn’t mention it, as I recall Buckley’s endorsement was a decisive factor in Lieberman’s narrow 1988 victory over liberal Republican Lowell Weicker. Lieberman and former President Nixon soon became friendly, and after RN died in 1994 the senator graciously agreed to join the board of The Nixon Center. Buckley, who lived in Connecticut, did it again in 2006 when Lieberman had lost the Democratic primary and decided to run for reeelection as an independent. He won decisively. Buckley had nothing against Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger. He just liked Lieberman, whom he didn’t think should have been punished by his party for supporting the war that many congressional Democrats had voted to authorize. These days Lieberman (I-CT) is as unwelcome in his party as proud moderates like Richard Nixon or Nelson Rockefeller would be in the GOP. For the sake of both parties and the country, one hopes this won’t always be true.

Next Page »