The Strength of Bush

The Strength of Bush

Bush just doesn't give a [barnyard epithet] about those pinhead layabouts.

I had a few quibbles with Bush's SOTU?the Crawford Coffee Shop joke is tired; he was too timid about the necessity of lowering taxes; and it would've been refreshing if the only "prop" in the audience was his wife?but coupled with his appearance before Congress last September, this president is certainly the most stirring speaker of my lifetime. What discombobulated the dream-world pundits the most was Bush's naming names: specifically, the "axis of evil," North Korea, Iran and Iraq. Historically inaccurate! thundered The Boston Globe, as if the President and speechwriters Michael Gerson and David Frum were making an exact parallel to Germany, Italy and Japan.

Bush had the guts to align the United States squarely with Israel in a single paragraph: "Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld?including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Jaish-i-Mohammed?operates in remote jungles and deserts and hides in the centers of large cities."

When the President lashed out at the "axis," naysayers claimed it was John Wayne on the podium, trying to score political points: after all, the United Nations might object if the U.S. intervened in Iraq without unimpeachable evidence that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. How dainty and sportsmanlike.

The American public, if not the cocktail-hour generals in the media, cheered the following common sense that's so rare in Washington. Bush said: "Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since Sept. 11. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world...

"I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

On Jan. 31, the Times editorialized: "There may well be circumstances that call for military action elsewhere in the months ahead, perhaps even pre-emptive strikes. Sept. 11, however, does not give Mr. Bush an unlimited hunting license. As a number of his predecessors [like who, besides LBJ?] learned to their and the nation's dismay, turning too quickly or too frequently to the use of force can cost a president support at home and damage American interests and alliances abroad."

This myopic view sums up the attitude of the liberal establishment. Everything is couched in politics. Has it occurred to these critics that perhaps Bush is more concerned about the safety of this country than his own reelection or historical legacy? Do we really care if the French object to the President's "saber-rattling"? And when will the Times and its like-minded ostriches realize that Bush isn't talking about "months," in the war on terrorism, but years? The U.S. military isn't going to invade Baghdad tomorrow or even this spring: it's a huge undertaking that'll involve covert action abroad and intense strategic planning. But there's no doubt Bush intends to take out Hussein and do the world an incalculable favor.

The reaction of North Korea, Iran and Hezbollah after the SOTU ought to put the gravity of an unstable world in perspective.

A Pyongyang spokesman blasted the "[U]nilateral and self-opinionated foreign policy, political immaturity and moral leprosy of the Bush administration."

Iran's Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said: "The U.S. president is talking crazy in accusing Iran of harboring al-Qaida people. Can anybody speak more stupidly than this?"

And Hezbollah's Deputy-Secretary-General Sheikh Naeem Kassem ranted at a rally in Beirut last week: "Bush is faithful to Satan, was his devotee, and is the greatest devotee in a leadership thirsty for killing and blood and aggression."

Aside from the reference to Satan, these remarks aren't notably different from those in editorials written in New York, Paris and London.

Which means that Bush and his Cabinet are in full control.

Comic Geeks

There are greater mysteries to ponder?such as why The New York Times allowed Yasir Arafat to further soil its filthy op-ed pages last Sunday?but for the life of me I just don't get why some adult men are nuts for video games and comic books. This isn't a criticism: everyone has a hobby, and an argument can be made that my own quirks of coin-collecting, accumulating Mexican kitsch and saving old periodicals is daft in its own way.

Still, when my two sons engage in lengthy conversations with guys three times their age about the latest PlayStation 2 action release or the value of a 1983 Spider-Man issue, I might as well be the man on the moon. Sort of like John Ashcroft making small talk with Screw's Al Goldstein. (The Attorney General's A-okay in my book, but what the hell?sorry, John?was he thinking when those benign statues at the Justice Dept. were covered by drapes? Talk about giving his ill-intentioned opponents a layup.)

A couple of weeks ago, MUGGER III declared Feb. 2 "International Comic Day," an occasion when he and his brother would be allotted five minutes at a number of stores to accumulate as many titles as they could, providing Dad (aka The Wallet) approved. I'm a sucker for imagination, and so went along with the ruse, especially since it gave me the opportunity to scour the bins of Bleecker St. Records (not far from Village Comics) for Texas rockabilly CDs.

First stop was Jim Hanley's Universe, a pretty cool (and clean) place that stocks collections of daily Dick Tracy and Gasoline Alley strips from the 40s that keep my attention while the boys pore over racks of Spider-Man (their current obsession) comics. And I've never seen a more chipper staff: when the boys want to look at t-shirts, the guy or gal on duty patiently lays them all out on the counter and never raises a fuss when either one of my sons changes his mind a dozen times.

We visited Times Square's Midtown Comics for the first time last Saturday, and this is where the adult factor just blew me away. The two-floor outlet was jam-packed, mostly with men who were eligible to vote in the '84 elections. Actually, there is plenty of merchandise to keep a grownup occupied?rare videos of Dragnet and Burke's Law, back issues of Playboy dating back to the 50s and even political paraphernalia?but it's the stock of superhero comics that's the main attraction. It was a riot watching Junior on a stool combing through the racks and getting elbowed by competitive thirtysomethings also in search of some rarity.

As a preteen, I had a collection as well?never touched the Marvel stuff, preferring the D.C. Superman and Batman numbers?and spent many a rainy day trading comics with my friend Gary Carter, whose house on Dumbarton Lane in Huntington was as immaculate as mine was overflowing with dirty dishes, scores of paperbacks, toy Civil War soldiers and dog-eared copies of Life, Look and McCall's. Once I joined the Boy Scouts, however, as well as discovered the Village Voice and National Enquirer, the comics were dispatched to the attic and later sold for a nickel apiece at a blowout 1970 garage sale.

So, frankly, I just don't comprehend adults eagerly awaiting the newest line of Marvel titles. But unlike Kennedy spear-carrier Thomas Oliphant?who last Sunday in The Boston Globe blasted President Bush's use of the word "axis" to describe Iraq, Iran and North Korea, as if the speech wasn't vetted more times than the Rams watched videotapes of the Pats' Tom Brady?I won't judge the motives of these comic eccentrics, who are probably blissfully unaware of the bankrupt companies Enron and Global Crossing.

How About the Badminton Bowl?

One of the silliest declarations from the moral arbiters at The New York Times appeared on Feb. 3, an editorial warning from Gail Collins' team of writers that the National Football League should take better care of its players.

The Times' keyboard quarterback wrote: "Football is a rough sport, and professional football is especially violent, so it is no surprise that many players in today's Super Bowl game will be 'playing hurt,' as the saying goes... Injuries have always been part of football, but the problem has grown worse as players have become even bigger and faster, and collide with even greater force. There is anecdotal evidence that many former players end up so debilitated that they can barely function later in life. The National Football League owes it to the players and their fans to conduct a thorough analysis of how many players are disabled by the game, how such injuries may be mitigated and what role painkillers may play in exacerbating the damage."

Anyone for a bracing game of touch football at the country house?

Fact Check: Of course football (as well as boxing and hockey) takes a physical toll on the players, but it's an individual's choice to pursue the sport professionally. Given the lucrative contracts athletes receive today, it's hard to imagine that many would decide to opt for a working life in a factory instead.

The editorial cites a Sports Illustrated article from last year that said, "Johnny Unitas could no longer close the hand that made him the league's most dangerous quarterback (but his two knee replacements were working well)." Having spent 14 years in Baltimore, I can safely say that Unitas, who along with Brooks Robinson owned that town, wouldn't trade his football glory (and lucre) for a normal hand and the life he'd have led had he not starred for the Colts. Punching a time clock doesn't compare to the adoration of 60,000 fans on any given Sunday.

Likewise, after Sunday's game, I don't think the Patriots' Tom Brady would mind taking a painkiller or two to ply his trade.

I'll wager that if Collins took a poll among the male workers at the Times as to whether they'd rather be journalists or professional athletes, the latter choice would come in at 90 percent.

President McCain

The political writer Elizabeth Drew is the journalistic community's favorite example of a duller-than-Al-Gore pundit. And it's true that her long tenure as The New Yorker's "Letter From Washington" columnist was undistinguished, as she produced reams of copy that was so dated by the time it hit newsstands that the prose was only worthwhile for transatlantic flights. However, after Tina Brown wisely sent Drew to the funny farm of has-beens, her successors, with the exception of Michael Kelly, haven't been much of an improvement. There's no need to delve into Sidney Blumenthal's conflict-of-interest pieces?he makes Paul Krugman look like David Broder?for Sid's playing footsie with the Clintons while on Si Newhouse's payroll is well-documented. Joe Klein, an unusual choice for Brown, since the sleazy dustup over his novel Primary Colors made him decisively un-v.hot, wasn't in total cahoots with the White House, but after his monetary killing on the book (and film) he'd clearly run out of juice.

Nicholas Lemann, the current "Letter from Washington" correspondent, is, incredibly, several steps down from Klein. For example, there's his Feb. 4 contribution, a long piece about Sen. John McCain that, except for the peg to current events, could've been written at any time in the past two years. It's the same story, just punctuated with updates. In fact, recalling Drew, it took me four before-bed sessions to actually finish the puppy-love "Letter," as I dozed off every time Lemann went into raptures about McCain's "Code."

Did you know that McCain's a darling of the media, logging more Sunday talk show appearances in 2001 than any other politician?

That the Arizonan is the nation's number-one advocate of campaign finance reform?

Or of his more than five years of torturous confinement as a POW in Vietnam?

Lemann's promoting a third-party candidacy for Teddy Roosevelt-disciple McCain in 2004?naturally, on the "Bull Moose" ticket?even as Bush has peeled away all of his potential issues for such a run, which is probably more desired by the media than by the Senator himself. McCain, to his credit, is a hawk on Iraq; I think we know where the Bush administration stands on that question. When campaign finance reform is passed by an Enron-petrified, and gutless, Congress this spring, the President will sign the legislation. The McCain-Evan Bayh proposal of national service was ably co-opted in Bush's speech last week (although in fairness, Lemann's profile came out before Tuesday's address).

At one point, Lemann recounts a visit to McCain's office by a New Hampshire supporter in the 2000 race who's had "trouble getting work." The author sympathizes, quoting Mr. Clean: "There are still people out there who are sore winners. The thing that's hard to understand is, they won. It's because we upset the apple cart. We rained on the parade. Bush and I have a cordial relationship?it's the other levels that don't."

How surprising. The brief Bush-McCain battle was bitter, and neither side came off as particularly honorable. So why would the President's administration hire anyone from his challenger's campaign, especially when he puts such a premium on loyalty? Besides, until Sept. 11, McCain, and his minions, was a constant source of irritation to the President: courting Tom Daschle, hardly discouraging talk he'd defect from the GOP; voting against the tax cut; and siding with the opposition at every high-profile moment.

McCain's a showboater, relishing the attention he still receives in the media, but he's a mere enabler: it's the reporters who are still on the "Straight Talk Express" tour of two years ago who, whether out of guilt about not fighting in Vietnam or sheer weakness for flattery, can't let go.

Journalists on the Take

Joe Conason, one of the few remaining toadies for the Clinton administration, wrote a decent column for last week's New York Observer about the prevalence of "celebrity journalists" supplementing their income by giving extraordinarily lucrative speeches to various corporations. Before scolding four specific examples?Larry Kudlow, Paul Krugman, Bill Kristol and Peggy Noonan?Conason even summoned the fortitude to take a dig at The New York Times. He wrote: "When The New York Times published a long article about the failure of American institutions to scrutinize Enron, journalists rated only a few perfunctory closing sentences. The story didn't note that, unlike so many other publications, The Times expended much newsprint celebrating Enron and the deregulatory fervor that made Enron's fraud possible."

I'll leave Conason's outdated view about deregulation aside for now?except to note that just as unions often have crooks for leaders, so do free-market corporations?and simply agree that the moonlighting by Beltway media stars is often unethical. Naturally, Conason sticks up for Krugman, who severed his ties with Enron upon joining the Times, and sticks it to Kristol, who as editor of The Weekly Standard is an employee of bogeyman Rupert Murdoch. Conason suggests that Kristol, who accepted $100,000 from Enron as opposed to Krugman's $50,000, and wasn't especially contrite about cashing those checks, can still do the right thing.

"But hypocrite and fraud that he is," Conason says, "even Bill Kristol isn't beyond redemption. The first step would be to disclose all his corporate emoluments. Then he ought to give back that $100,000 to the Enron employees who were cheated. And then he should fire himself."

Well, that's one view. But if Conason craves consistency, why doesn't he also suggest that Krugman turn over his $50,000 to Enron employees (and although the Times quack economist disclosed his tangential tie to Enron in a beginning column for the Times, he didn't mention how much money he received)? Additionally, Krugman bragged that his services were so in demand on the lecture circuit that leaving the Enron advisory board wouldn't bankrupt him. I wonder, even if Conason doesn't, from just exactly what other corporate concerns he received speaking fees. Not a word about that.

But Enough on Crusading Joe.

I've written recently about the valuable work Andrew Sullivan has posted on his Web log about journalists' conflicts of interest. It was fascinating, though, to read about Sullivan's own dodgy habits. Last Friday, in an editorial headlined "Scribbler's Ethics," The Wall Street Journal wrote: "Meanwhile, the Internet ethicist, Andrew Sullivan, has been denouncing any journalist who's ever taken a dollar from Enron. This includes our contributor Peggy Noonan, who disclosed last week in her OpinionJournal.com column that she billed Enron $250 an hour for 100 to 200 hours of speech-writing work. In other words, she got paid like any other contract employee, which is called business between consenting adults. The first time she wrote about Enron for us was also when she disclosed her Enron fees, so she has nothing to apologize for.

"Certainly not to Mr. Sullivan, who recently wrote a fine piece for The Wall Street Journal on the failure of Talk magazine but then without asking re-sold the article to the Times of London, which didn't bother to give us credit. Mr. Sullivan's explanation is that he didn't think we had international publication rights, although The Wall Street Journal Europe is distributed in London. Leaving aside the fine points of copyright law, Mr. Sullivan's behavior may not have been 'unethical,' but it wasn't very nice."

Shamelessly recycling articles without permission to any publication that'll shell out the cash seems a peculiar tic of European-born journalists. Read a column by Christopher Hitchens in, say, The Nation or Salon, and chances are you'll see the same words a week later somewhere else. Same with New York Press' own Alexander Cockburn who, until our factcheckers discovered his work in obscure newspapers and magazines, was just as bad.

Toby Mills posted a letter on Jim Romenesko's website last week wondering why Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, who also hosts CNN's Reliable Sources, is allowed to cover the flailing cable network for his main employer. That's a question that Kurtz has never adequately answered and I suppose never will. What really ought to burn Kurtz's Post editors is that he'll often repeat his CNN observations in his Monday column. That's a double-dip that hacks like Hitchens would surely applaud.

Finally, Richard Blow, writing for TomPaine.com, said on Jan. 31: "But the argument over who's to blame misses the larger point that Sullivan is rightly making: Journalists shouldn't accept money from outside sources. Period. Now, such purity will never happen, simply because many journalists long to live as well as the people they cover in higher-paying professions such as business, law, and even politics. It's hard to earn $50,000 a year and cover sleazy lobbyists and political consultants who are pulling down $500,000. The culture of corruption is seductive?especially in Washington, where journalists in recent years have only gotten cozier and cozier with public officials. Remember when NPR's legal correspondent Nina Totenberg had Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg officiate at her wedding? Talk about a conflict of interest."

And of course this chumminess is bipartisan. Rush Limbaugh brags about his friendship with Justice Clarence Thomas, which is just as egregious as the Totenberg-Ginsberg bonding.

 

Feb. 4

Send comments to [MUG1988@aol.com](mailt:mug1988@aol.com) or fax to 244-9864.