Wednesday, November 24, 2004
November 18, 2004
The Circuits Holiday Buying Guide
Toys and Games Opportunities for Learning Under the Cloak of Play A toy box full of gadgets can help you hone your skills or just unwind. (11 Products)
Mobile Devices The Right Tools To Keep You Untethered When you decide to hit the Road, small is almost always better (and often just as powerful). (10 Products)
Recreation Making the Outdoors a Bit Greater Recreational tools can help you to get the most out of mother nature. (7 Products)
Music Music Steps Out, With Style There are many technology solutions for listening on the road and on the run, or for staying put. (10 Products)
Entertainment Turn the Home Theater Into a Multimedia Empire Entertainment doesn't have to stop with TV and movies. Investigate some new ways to store, view and display. (10 Products)
Cameras and Video Some Imagination to Go With Your Images With cameras and camcorders, portable and multifunctional models are the ones to have. (11 Products)
Home Office The Humble Home Office? That's a Thing of the Past Tools for communicating can help families stay in sync, in touch and on the same network. (10 Products)
Illustrations by Red Nose Studio
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Back to Top
News Home - Help
STATE OF THE NATION
Tue Nov 23,11:07 PM ET
By William F. Buckley Jr.
It is speculated that the president has already got his staff to hammer out preliminary drafts of the State of the Union address, though it will not be delivered until January. I remember in 1966 being seated alongside professor Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in a CBS studio. Our duty was to opine on the State of the Union speech being given by President Lyndon Johnson. He had defeated Barry Goldwater soundly a year before and had recently decided to challenge the North Vietnamese invasion of the South, summoning a great army to service in Indochina.
William F. Buckley
Schlesinger and I waited as the president rolled on and on with plum pudding after plum pudding, designed to appease those who disapproved of his venture in Vietnam. In despair, after 70 minutes, Schlesinger reached down for a bottle of whiskey, and we drank together our joint concern for Mr. Johnson's endless exploration of the state of the union.
There will be a lot of that kind of thing in President Bush (news - web sites)'s address. He is correctly concerned for any number of things that don't have anything to do with Iraq (news - web sites), but Iraq will be the subject on which the eyes of the nation will train. What's going to happen?
The election in Iraq is scheduled for the last week of January. This we have been holding up as the validating moment for our whole enterprise in Iraq. To the end of bringing on such an election, we have set up 9,000 voting sites, promising that they will grant the voter the security freely to express his mind. If only a small number of Iraqis show up, that will be prima facie evidence that threats of retaliation against prospective voters served their purpose.
The Iraqi voters will be selecting political representatives to serve them in a national legislature. What range of concerns will these legislators espouse? In our own critical election of 1800, we had the Federalists of Hamilton and Madison, the Democrats of Thomas Jefferson, the Southern slaveholding interests, the free-traders and the protectionists. There was no party pleading the cause of irredentism, a return to colonial status. That war had been fought and decided.
The war to jettison Islamic extremism has been fought -- but whether it has been won is not a settled question. There are at least 10,000 men who are determined that strife and tyranny shall prevail. So how do we adjust to the possibility that the election will fail to introduce working democratic order? The result can't be guaranteed, which brings us to obligatory concessions in the presidential message that have to do with national security.
Some writers and thinkers who are referred to as neo-cons aren't exactly that, Wilsonian dogmatists. This is the community, notably including the Center for National Security, that has over the years fought superstitions that have been generated so profusely about disarmament. The analytical axiom of this community is that fewer arms do not bring lessened risks. We have been told by President Putin, no less, that Russia has designs on a brand-new family of nuclear weaponry which, said Mr. Putin, would make his country mightier than ever, and perhaps even the mightiest.
We have heard such talk before, and it is wise not automatically to dismiss it.
Solidarity is encouraged by the party of President Bush in the matter of the war in Iraq. But the point that should not be lost is that the concern for national security is a concern that transcends the war in Iraq. That war can be said to have been, at distinct moments in the past, coextensive with the concern for national security. But policies that once conflated do not necessarily continue fused, any more than marriages that once brought two persons into singularity always survive as such.
We went to Iraq for the right reasons, a venture in affirming the palpable demands of national security. At this moment we can't say with absolute assurance that the venture will succeed in its stated purpose, but we know that the demands of national security will continue, that challenges aimed at our national security will continue, and that we will have to meet them in whatever theater they appear, and in whatever guise, with tactical energy and self-confidence, but with an eye to the strategic reserve.
That lesson was nowhere more vividly spelled out than in Vietnam. Our specific aims were not met there, but our grander aim -- our mightiest aim -- was not sacrificed. This is the point that Mr. Bush will need to make in his important address.
(EDITORS: If you have editorial questions, please contact Alan McDermott at amcdermott@amuniversal.com.)-->
Story Tools
Email Story
Post/Read Msgs (46)
Formatted Story
Ratings: Would you recommend this story?
Not at all 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Highly
(lCopyright © 2004 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.Questions or CommentsPrivacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Ad Feedback
today's papersAnchor AwayBy Eric UmanskyPosted Wednesday, Nov. 24, 2004, at 12:43 AM PT
The Los Angeles Times' top non-local story offers the latest from Ukraine, where about 200,000 protestors rallied in the capital, far more than Monday, and demanded the prime minister acknowledge voter fraud and concede defeat. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal world-wide newsbox, and Washington Post all lead with a coalition sweep into the Babil province just south of Baghdad, an area dubbed "the triangle of death." It's the same operation yesterday's LAT caught wind of. The NYT says the campaign has started with 11 raids in one town. The Post says the military won't go in full bore until armored units arrive in "the coming weeks." USA Today leads with an in-depth investigation: "HOLIDAY TRAVEL ESTIMATE AT 37.2M; Record Numbers Expected to Fly."
Ukraine's current president, who picked the prime minister as his successor, seemed to blink a bit, calling for negotiations. On the other hand, the prime minister's office called for the opposition candidate (aka the apparent winner) to give up. "You have a government, which to my opinion, doesn't know what to do," said a widely quoted "senior Western diplomat."
The White House has responded strongly to the electoral shenanigans, saying it's "deeply disturbed by extensive and credible indications of fraud." The Russian foreign ministry took a different stand, saying "the elections were democratic, free, transparent and, of course, legitimate." President Putin added, "Ukraine is a state of law. It doesn't need to be lectured."
Pondering the modest start to the latest offensive in Babil, one "senior officer" told the Post, "We just haven't been able to get enough force down there to go and find the [weapons] caches, then stay down there and get the police up and running." The NYT describes a recent drive though one town with a cop who said he never leaves his car—it's too dangerous: "He estimated there had been little police presence on the streets for about a year."
As the Post emphasizes, another prominent Sunni cleric was assassinated, the second in two days.
The NYT stuffs a report from the CIA concluding that Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan gave Iran "significant assistance" for its nukes program including designs for "advanced and efficient" nukes components. It was thought Khan only gave Iran old stuff. The Times also notes that former CIA chief George Tenet, in another one of those supposed to be off-the-record pay-to-play speeches, called Khan "at least as dangerous as Osama Bin Laden." Khan has been pardoned by Pakistan's President Musharraf and the U.S. hasn't been allowed to question him.
Chasing yesterday's NYT, the WSJ says the Pentagon has drafted a classified order saying special ops should be prepared to operate against al-Qaida types world-wide, including in friendly countries. The Journal says that as the draft is currently written allies "might not be informed that U.S. personnel are operating within their territory."
The LAT fronts and others mention President Bush "ordering" the CIA to ratchet up its staff, including a call for a 50 percent jump in the number of spies and analysts. The reason the other papers don't front it: The "order" includes no timetable and said funding is "subject to the availability of appropriations."
In an interesting tactic, the just-about-out-the-door deputy director of the CIA pens an op-ed in the Post defending the agency against, among other things, charges that it's been leaking like crazy: "The CIA was not institutionally plotting against the president."
The WP and, to a lesser degree the NYT, say some FDA managers appear to have tried to slime the agency researcher who slammed the FDA last week. They reportedly made "anonymous" calls to a whistleblower group he had contacted, and offered what turned out to be bogus criticism of his work. The researcher has since sought whistleblower protection.
Everybody fronts Dan Rather's semi-unexpected announcement that he's stepping down from his anchorship, effective March. Rather said it has nothing to do with the black-eye over the never-authenticated Bush National Guard memos he had insisted were legit. "Dogs are going to bark and the caravan moves on," he told the Post. As it happens, an independent investigation of that incident is expected to file its report next month. Rather will continue on as a 60 Minutes correspondent. No word yet on a new anchor.
A piece inside the Journal says the tax-return snooping provision that turned up in a recent budget bill was basically a mistake, as Republicans have said: "Draft documents, faxes and internal e-mails sent during the final talks last week support the House Appropriations Committee's claims that it wanted the extra authority to visit Internal Revenue Service facilities solely to oversee IRS operations, not individual tax records."
The NYT flags some of the swine that was stuffed in the budget bill. A sampler: $236,000 for blueberry research, $133,000 for maple research, and $1.5 million to create an archive for the papers of former national leader Rep. Richard Gephardt.Eric Umansky writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@hotmail.com.Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2110102/
The Los Angeles Times' top non-local story offers the latest from Ukraine, where about 200,000 protestors rallied in the capital, far more than Monday, and demanded the prime minister acknowledge voter fraud and concede defeat. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal world-wide newsbox, and Washington Post all lead with a coalition sweep into the Babil province just south of Baghdad, an area dubbed "the triangle of death." It's the same operation yesterday's LAT caught wind of. The NYT says the campaign has started with 11 raids in one town. The Post says the military won't go in full bore until armored units arrive in "the coming weeks." USA Today leads with an in-depth investigation: "HOLIDAY TRAVEL ESTIMATE AT 37.2M; Record Numbers Expected to Fly."
Ukraine's current president, who picked the prime minister as his successor, seemed to blink a bit, calling for negotiations. On the other hand, the prime minister's office called for the opposition candidate (aka the apparent winner) to give up. "You have a government, which to my opinion, doesn't know what to do," said a widely quoted "senior Western diplomat."
The White House has responded strongly to the electoral shenanigans, saying it's "deeply disturbed by extensive and credible indications of fraud." The Russian foreign ministry took a different stand, saying "the elections were democratic, free, transparent and, of course, legitimate." President Putin added, "Ukraine is a state of law. It doesn't need to be lectured."
Pondering the modest start to the latest offensive in Babil, one "senior officer" told the Post, "We just haven't been able to get enough force down there to go and find the [weapons] caches, then stay down there and get the police up and running." The NYT describes a recent drive though one town with a cop who said he never leaves his car—it's too dangerous: "He estimated there had been little police presence on the streets for about a year."
As the Post emphasizes, another prominent Sunni cleric was assassinated, the second in two days.
The NYT stuffs a report from the CIA concluding that Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan gave Iran "significant assistance" for its nukes program including designs for "advanced and efficient" nukes components. It was thought Khan only gave Iran old stuff. The Times also notes that former CIA chief George Tenet, in another one of those supposed to be off-the-record pay-to-play speeches, called Khan "at least as dangerous as Osama Bin Laden." Khan has been pardoned by Pakistan's President Musharraf and the U.S. hasn't been allowed to question him.
Chasing yesterday's NYT, the WSJ says the Pentagon has drafted a classified order saying special ops should be prepared to operate against al-Qaida types world-wide, including in friendly countries. The Journal says that as the draft is currently written allies "might not be informed that U.S. personnel are operating within their territory."
The LAT fronts and others mention President Bush "ordering" the CIA to ratchet up its staff, including a call for a 50 percent jump in the number of spies and analysts. The reason the other papers don't front it: The "order" includes no timetable and said funding is "subject to the availability of appropriations."
In an interesting tactic, the just-about-out-the-door deputy director of the CIA pens an op-ed in the Post defending the agency against, among other things, charges that it's been leaking like crazy: "The CIA was not institutionally plotting against the president."
The WP and, to a lesser degree the NYT, say some FDA managers appear to have tried to slime the agency researcher who slammed the FDA last week. They reportedly made "anonymous" calls to a whistleblower group he had contacted, and offered what turned out to be bogus criticism of his work. The researcher has since sought whistleblower protection.
Everybody fronts Dan Rather's semi-unexpected announcement that he's stepping down from his anchorship, effective March. Rather said it has nothing to do with the black-eye over the never-authenticated Bush National Guard memos he had insisted were legit. "Dogs are going to bark and the caravan moves on," he told the Post. As it happens, an independent investigation of that incident is expected to file its report next month. Rather will continue on as a 60 Minutes correspondent. No word yet on a new anchor.
A piece inside the Journal says the tax-return snooping provision that turned up in a recent budget bill was basically a mistake, as Republicans have said: "Draft documents, faxes and internal e-mails sent during the final talks last week support the House Appropriations Committee's claims that it wanted the extra authority to visit Internal Revenue Service facilities solely to oversee IRS operations, not individual tax records."
The NYT flags some of the swine that was stuffed in the budget bill. A sampler: $236,000 for blueberry research, $133,000 for maple research, and $1.5 million to create an archive for the papers of former national leader Rep. Richard Gephardt.Eric Umansky writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@hotmail.com.Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2110102/
