The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Foes and Allies

8.22.02 @ 12:01AM

DOUBLE ENTENTE
Re: Jed Babbin's Meanwhile, Back in Baghdad:

I'm encouraged by Jed Babbin's explicit reference to joint American-Israeli military action in a campaign against Saddam. The autism of the national security establishment in this regard continues to baffle and amaze me. All those deep thinkers, wringing their hands in dread over the solo confrontation with this overinflated gangster, bemoaning the absence of "coalition partners."

I know ! Why don't we enlist the support of the regional superpower! You know, the one we have invested tens of billions of dollars in, shared supersecret military technology with, and which, as a liberal democracy, is our unshakable ally? Why in the world do we not come out of the closet and launch our campaign with Israel and the incomparable IDF at our side? It seems to me that at this late date it is a bit silly to worry about making the Muslims mad. As far as I can tell, the Muslims who would harm us are already trying as hard as they can to do so. Is there some other argument against this known only in Foggy Bottom and the Harvard Club ?
-- Paul Kotik
Plantation, FL

Jed Babbin replies: Whoa, big fella. I'm glad to have the Israelis to help, and you are right in posing them as our only reliable ally in the area (except Turkey, which is absolutely key to beating the terrorists.). The problem with the national security staff is that every time they say or do anything, some Congressional big mouth blabs it, or some commercial satellite owner gives Saddam pictures of it for free. They aren't autistic, just grumpy. As to the other problems at Foggy Bottom, they are in a constant state of denial of the facts. It's what they think their job is, more's the pity. Blame Harvard, blame Dartmouth, blame any of them you'd like. But the problem is only partly their fault. Mostly, it's the careerists in State and Fort Fumble who can't admit they've been wrong about everything east of Casablanca for the past three decades or so.

MARTHA'S PLACE
Re: Michael Craig Martha Stewart's Guilt Trip:

Michael Craig makes good points in his article (even if he does resort to the cretinous, suck-up non-word "spokesperson"). But as to "guilt," I have to put myself in Miss Stewart's place: if I owned a lot of stock in a company, and somebody told me it was going to tank very soon, what would I do? I'd no doubt sell the stock. What would you do -- pretend you never heard it? Pul-lease.
-- Larry Eubank
Lgeub@cs.com

Michael Craig replies: Some people might be shocked that The American Prowler has become the house organ for Martha Stewart, but I agree with you. Most people would find it difficult to ignore credible, concrete information telling you that your investment was about to plummet.

But I'll go you one further. Sam Waksal, who is obviously guilty, probably deserves a bit of our respect. Here he is, the CEO, the guy who got his kids and his friends to buy the stock -- they've sunk hundreds of thousands into it -- and the FDA has told him they're going to reject the application for its main product, practically its whole reason for being. He feels terrible that those people who followed his advice are going to suffer, so he tries to save them. He's still got to go to jail, but at least he had a good reason. Like Eddie Cicotte said when indicted in connection with purposely losing the 1919 World Series, "I did it for the wife and kiddies."

The real culprit here is the FDA. Virtually alone among federal agencies, the FDA has failed to gather that its action on a drug application could be material to the stock market. The FDA told Waksal and let him sit on the information before it released it to the public.

I can't defend my use of "spokesperson," though I figured if I trashed "those damned regulators," I could at least sneak on to the right side of the political spectrum. (I also recall that on Ed McMahon's TV show, "Star Search," they had a category of talent called "Spokesmodel." I suppose I took for granted that you could put any word at the end of "spokes-" and get away with it.)

Thanks for reading.

The Skeptical Spokesinvestor

MARTHA AND HILLARY
Oh, to be a rich, white, liberal Democrat is sooooo hard these days!

How dare the lowly masses question her highness of all that is great and good? They only buy the crap she peddles. I bet Martha would be shocked and horrified that most of the buyers of her self-important garbage probably voted for Bush.

You see, Martha is a good Democrat. Friend of Hillary! Thus we must bow to her all knowing power and never question her actions! Who are we to deny her the bounty of her greatness and goodness by pointing out she broke a silly little law?

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Hillary Clinton, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Israel, North Korea, Oil, Unions