A conclusion is boring its way inexorably into my consciousness: namely, the people in Washington whom I write about think in lines that run opposite to mine. Perhaps I have become a true contrarian. (My definition of 'contrarian': a farmer who marries the traveling salesman's daughter.)
For example, I thought nothing of the fact that the FBI executed a search warrant in the Capitol building. That did not "chill me" in the least. There was a suspicion, a judge issued a warrant, everything was aboveboard.
But what chills the marrow in my bones is President Bush issuing an "order" to seal the evidence for 45 days. This was the calming move designed to defuse a constitutional crisis? An executive gives an order to a policing body not to examine the evidence that it has lawfully collected in an active investigation. Now, that is scary. Have you ever seen a mayor instruct a police commissioner in this manner? Or a governor instruct a state's attorney? Very unpleasantly autocratic in my book.
--------------------
As I have been remiss lately in linking my columns, here are two weeks worth.
1) Last Friday, at Spectator, my proposal to allow Mexico a role in jointly policing the border.
2) This Wednesday, at Spectator, my analysis of the difference between our inability to fight against evil purposes and our ability to fight against evil tactics.
3) Last Wednesday, at Human Events, my observation that the immigration situation yielded some good news for conservatives, in that they were able to push back and affect the orientation of the debate.
4) Yesterday, at Human Events, my comedy-laden attack on the habit of debating and voting on long bills that nobody has read but a few scheming aides.
6 comments:
Um, Jay, I hate to be the one to do this, but this piece is predicated on a story that appears to be not true.
Tahieri, the Iranian dissident journalist who started first "broke" the "story" has begun backpedaling quite swiftly. Aaron Breitbart of the Simon Weisenthal Center, who so recently "confirmed" the story, is also doing some linguistic gymnastics of late in order to avoid his pants catching on fire.
Canada's National Post admits that the story was false.
However, please accept this and this as examples of the kind of state-sponsored crap going on in Iran. The image associated with the second story is here.
Thanks, James. If you look at the Letters section of the Spectator, people have called attention to this question.
In fact, that's why I described my piece in the post by saying that it was an analysis of the dichotomy between purposes and tactics. That is an enduring insight of my article, transcending any one particular event.
And thanks for those other links. Valuable info.
I wrote it in good faith based upon the news sources extant at the time.
If the story is not true, then the specific criticism of the Iranian government is automatically canceled.
I never claimed to have special information on the subject; if it is true or not will be determined by reporters in the field, as in any other story. If, as you suggest, it is now clear that it was false, I obviously am not continuing to make any accusation.
What I said to James, and quite correctly, is that my opinion piece has value to a reader quite apart from the specific issue of Iran. It offers an insight into areas of consensus within global society and areas of dispute.
While I love to see the words "James Elliot is correct" - especially here at the Reform Club - I certainly didn't want to start a "let's play whack-a-mole with Jay's column" thing. I just wanted to point out what he may or may not have known about the "triggering event."
And ditto with Tlaloc's point. I don't see anything in the "speech and debate" clause that prevents the FBI from conducting a legitimate search in a criminal investigation, so long as they have a warrant (which they did).
Thanks, James, I think we cleared it up, and in a civilized manner, without requiring 43 comments.
And thanks, too, for agreeing with my point that there is nothing wrong with searching a Congressional office with a warrant.
Surprisingly, no one seems to have picked up on my other point: that I don't like the idea of an executive "freezing evidence" in any sort of investigation.
I'm writing a parody of the Right Wing Punditry these days. I've seriously considered trawling the comments section of this site and just using Buzz's comments. They're far funnier than any parody could be. One would almost think he was a performance artist caught in a vicious web of his own performance but for the utter seriousness of his tone. But then, it's their very earnestness - combined with their utter ridiculousness - that makes them so funny.
Post a Comment