Download Full Content – Printable Pickings
Charles Krauthammer with must-read comments on Pelosi’s Armenian gambit.
“Friends don’t let friends commit crimes against humanity,” explained Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which approved the Armenian genocide resolution. This must rank among the most stupid statements ever uttered by a member of Congress, admittedly a very high bar.
Does Smith know anything about the history of the Armenian genocide? Of the role played by Henry Morgenthau? As U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Morgenthau tried desperately to intervene on behalf of the Armenians. It was his consular officials deep within Turkey who (together with missionaries) brought out news of the genocide. And it was Morgenthau who helped tell the world about it in his writings. Near East Relief, the U.S. charity strongly backed by President Woodrow Wilson and the Congress, raised and distributed an astonishing $117 million in food, clothing and other vital assistance that, wrote historian Howard Sachar, “quite literally kept an entire nation alive.”…
… So why has Pelosi been so committed to bringing this resolution to the floor? (At least until a revolt within her party and the prospect of defeat caused her to waver.) Because she is deeply unserious about foreign policy. This little stunt gets added to the ledger: first, her visit to Syria, which did nothing but give legitimacy to Bashar al-Assad, who continues to engage in the systematic murder of pro-Western Lebanese members of parliament; then, her letter to Costa Rica‘s ambassador, just nine days before a national referendum, aiding and abetting opponents of a very important free-trade agreement with the United States.
Is the Armenian resolution her way of unconsciously sabotaging the U.S. war effort, after she had failed to stop it by more direct means? I leave that question to psychiatry. Instead, I fall back on Krauthammer’s razor (with apologies to Occam): In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit.
Gerard Baker in London Times has fun with a column saying the US is the greatest place in the world to be anti-American.
… It has always amused me that the same people who denounce America as a seething cesspit of blind obscurantist bigotry can’t see the irony that America itself produces its own best critics. When there’s a scab to be picked on the American body politic, no one does it with more loving attention, more rigorous focus on the detail, than Americans themselves.
It has always been this way. The fiercest and most effective opponents of US foreign policy in the 1960s were not the students in Paris or the Politburo in North Vietnam. They were Jane Fonda, Bobby Kennedy and Marvin Gaye. …
… Al Gore wants the US to give up its economic autonomy and submit to rule by binding international obligations to curb its carbon emissions. Some of the Democratic candidates for the presidency want to tie down the American Gulliver under a web of global treaties. The British Government, if recent speeches by ministers are to be believed, is now apparently seriously committed to the idea that only the UN has the legitimacy to determine how nations should behave. In other words, that a system that gives vetoes to China and Russia and honours the human rights contributions of countries such as Syria or North Korea should be accorded a full role in the promotion of the dignity of mankind.
There’s a larger irony in all this. Even as the US demonstrates the openness of its own society, its unrivalled capacity for self-examination and self-correction, a free system based on the absolute authority of the rule of law, it is told it must submit itself to the views of Moscow, Beijing, and Brussels.
Fortunately, while the American system may be forgivingly tolerant of people with wild and dangerous ideas, it doesn’t generally let them run the country.
Mark Steyn writes on the Dems “children.”
… So what is the best thing America could do “for the children”? Well, it could try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the Western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a system of unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme. Most of us understand, for example, that Social Security needs to be “fixed” – or we’ll have to raise taxes, or the retirement age, or cut benefits, etc. But, just to get the entitlements debate in perspective, projected public pensions liabilities in the United States are expected to rise by 2040 to about 6.8 percent of our gross domestic product. In Greece, the equivalent figure is 25 percent – that’s not a matter of raising taxes or tweaking retirement age; that’s total societal collapse.
So what? shrug the voters. Not my problem. I paid my taxes, I want my benefits.
In France, President Sarkozy is proposing a very modest step – that those who retire before the age of 65 should not receive free health care – and the French are up in arms about it. He’s being angrily denounced by 53-year-old retirees, a demographic hitherto unknown to functioning societies. You spend your first 25 years being educated, you work for two or three decades, and then you spend a third of a century living off a lavish pension, with the state picking up every health care expense. No society can make that math add up.
And so, in a democratic system today’s electors vote to keep the government gravy coming and leave it to tomorrow for “the children” to worry about. That’s the real “war on children” – and every time you add a new entitlement to the budget you make it less and less likely they’ll win it. …
Power Line with congrats for Bobby Jindal.
The Captain weighs in with good Iraq news.
Bill Kristol thinks the Dems may pay dearly for their rush to defeat.
… last month, over on the Senate side, she couldn’t resist impugning the integrity of General David Petraeus as he testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Clinton said Petraeus’s testimony required a “willing suspension of disbelief.” That is, contrary to all evidence, Clinton accused the commanding general of U.S. troops in Iraq of misleading the American people.
All of this followed by several months the defining statement of the 110th Congress: Harry Reid’s assertion, this past April 19, “This war is lost.” History may well record that statement as the epitaph for the 110th Congress, and the party that led it. The Democrats engaged in endless efforts to make sure the war really was lost. They failed. Now it looks as if the war, despite the Democratic Congress’s best efforts, may well be won. It’s the congressional Democrats who are the losers. And so could be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. Are the American people likely to elect the candidate of a party that has tried its best to lose a winnable war?
Ron Cass, former Law Dean at BU, thinks Berger’s access to the Hillary team is significant.
… During Bill Clinton’s administration, there was no shortage of indications that perhaps the Clintons, husband and wife, were a bit casual about legal niceties. Although the accusations fixated many and resulted in convictions for more than a few Clinton associates, in the end, though he was disbarred for five years, Bill Clinton got something of a break because he was personally charming and his accusers seemed less so. Public reaction was that you might not want him around your daughter, but you’d be happy to go have a drink with Bill.
Hillary, whose stiff demeanor won’t garner the same slack, doesn’t just remind us of prior scandals. Sandy Berger didn’t lie about sex or do something ordinary that isn’t strictly in keeping with law – like speeding on a road where citizens regard the posted limits as advisory rather than mandatory. Sandy Berger committed a serious crime, intentionally, and lied about it, intentionally, and put his nation at risk. Hillary isn’t bothered by any of that. Whatever she says about the rule of law – which limits official power to safeguard all of us – she evidently doesn’t believe it was intended to place limits on her.
Picking Sandy Berger tells us something important about Hillary’s character. We should listen now – while it can do some good.
Michael Malone, of ABC News, continues the ongoing saga of the collapse of the NY Times.
Boom! And down goes the biggest newspaper name of all.
As you may have read, yesterday brokerage giant Morgan Stanley dumped its entire stake — $183 million worth — in the New York Times, in which it was the second largest shareholder. Not surprisingly, Times stock immediately slumped, bottoming at a nearly 3 percent drop to $18.28 — the lowest it has been in a decade.
The actual damage is probably even larger than that. The Morgan Stanley sell-off has been expected for some time now. Ever since April, after Hassam Elmasry, managing director of Morgan’s Investment Management Group failed in his attempt to challenge the Sulzberger family’s iron grip on the Times, the market has been expecting Morgan to pull out — and it is probably no coincidence that the stock has been in downward slide ever since. …
WSJ tells us what it’s like to drive a combine.
Slate – How come Patagonia gets all the monster dinosaurs?