Redstate

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Featured Stories | History — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Johann Hari thought it would be fun and enjoyable to pay good money to go on a National Review-sponsored cruise, see all of the conservatives, record all of the comments they supposedly made and then come back and write an article (subscription required) whose headlines reads as if Hari went on a right-wing Titanic.

You see, Johann Hari believes he has quite the splendid sense of humor.

Meh. Whatever. It's a time-honored tactic to act like one is on some sort of safari in the enemy's jungle and then to come back and write about it. Hari's article isn't exactly innovative in form. As for the snark he so generously dishes out, even if Hari recorded the comments he reports on with 100% accuracy, so much of it reads as him saying that the people on the National Review cruise are crazy because they don't agree with him.

So I chuckled through most of the article, thinking it a rather predictable exercise in sneering and sarcasm. Hari won't impress or persuade anyone with this piece. The people who like it already agree with him. The people who Hari sneers at won't exactly warm to him or to his side of the political divide.

But the following part of the article pretty much stood out for its childish and ignorant tone:

. . . one morning on the deck, I discover Kenneth Starr, looking like he has stepped out of a long-forgotten 1990s newsreel. His face is round and unlined, like that of an immense, contented baby. As I stare at it, all my repressed bewilderment rises, and I ask: Mr. Starr, do you feel ashamed that, while Osama bin Laden was plotting to murder nearly 3,000 American citizens, you brought the government to a standstill over a few consensual blow-jobs?

He smiles through his teeth and says, in his soft, somnambulant voice, "I am entirely at rest with the process. The House of Representatives worked its will, the Senate worked its will, the chief justice of the United States presided. The constitutional process worked admirably." It's an oddly meek defense, and, the more I challenge him, the more legalistic he becomes, each answer a variation on, "It wasn't my fault."

Where to begin?

Read on . . .

I suppose one could begin with a series of questions. To wit: Is it really possible that the entire government of the United States of America came to a standstill because of the impeachment and trial of Bill Clinton? And al Qaeda used the precise moment of the impeachment and trial to plan the September 11th attacks? And that this moment in time, while Bill Clinton was under political siege, was all the time that al Qaeda needed to plan the 9/11 attacks? No more?

Really?

I mean, gosh, I thought our system was more resilient than that, given that we survived Watergate and all. Specifically, I was assured during the impeachment and trial that President Clinton was able to "compartmentalize" his problems and still deal--brilliantly, admirably and sexily--with the many crushing burdens he sustained as the Atlas-like President of the United States that he was. Apparently, it is not fair to blame the 42nd President for the fact that the 9/11 attacks were planned on his watch. But it's perfectly fair to blame--wait for it!--Ken Starr.

How utterly fascinating. Evidently, the whole of the United States government was completely and helplessly paralyzed during this time. 535 members of Congress, Cabinet Secretaries, the Director of Central Intelligence, the National Security Advisor (whose pants tailor must've been one talented person, let me tell you), the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military as a whole--these people, all of them, could do nothing about any terrorist threats whatsoever because of the impeachment and trial of Bill Clinton. And thus, supposedly, Ken Starr has the blood of the victims of September 11th on his hands.

I suppose it wouldn't be nice to bring this up, but since I did, let's point to the following date: December 16, 1998. That was during the House impeachment debates. Note that December 16, 1998 is referenced on the post as the date that Operation Desert Fox, the bombing of selected sites in Iraq, commenced. Let's repeat that: During the impeachment debates, the Clinton Administration decided to bomb Iraq.

Does that kind of thing happen at the command of a government that was brought "to a standstill"? I really don't have to answer that, do I? And the answer I really don't have to give makes clear that America is a great deal more adaptable to circumstances than Johann Hari's exceedingly inaccurate sense of history makes it out to be. The government and the national security apparatus of the United States government functioned as well during the impeachment and trial of Bill Clinton as they did in times when Bill Clinton was not in political peril.

But if Hari is concerned that crass politics might get in the way of American national security, perhaps he will write his next article about this. Golly, let's think about this for a minute: Al Qaeda is in Iraq and is fighting us--along with, for the moment, certain Iraqi sects--for effective control of Iraq. If al Qaeda wins effective control of Iraq, they will likely do to the country what they did to Afghanistan; take it over and use it as a base of operations for the planning and implementation of future terrorist attacks.

Like the ones we saw on September 11th, for example.

Now, if terrorists attack the United States, I might want attention turned to what politicians could have done to stop those attacks and why they might have failed. However, I am going to blame the terrorists for the actual attacks. I figure they are the ones responsible, after all.

But thanks to Johann Hari's commentary, I suppose that I should not be surprised if some people decide to blame politicians who cut short the military and reconstruction effort in Iraq for any terrorist attack on the United States or on American interests that emanates from al Qaeda cells in Iraq. Cells that could have been destroyed or broken apart if the military and reconstruction effort were allowed to run its course. Will Hari confront Harry Reid on a cruise and make accusations? Will he accost Nancy Pelosi in a port of call? Will he chastise John Murtha? Will he castigate Russ Feingold?

Betcha he won't. Betcha all of this outrage for the vulnerabilities of the United States to terrorism will be focused on . . . I really can't believe I even have to take the time to critique so stupid a thesis . . . Kenneth Starr.

Wow. Oh, and by the way, Hari seems to forget that the only reason Starr was able to pursue his allegations concerning the offenses Bill Clinton got impeached for was because a certain Attorney General of the United States authorized Starr to go ahead with his investigations on the issue.

But don't hold your breath for any articles by Johann Hari accusing Janet Reno of having blood on her hands. That just won't do for the crowd Hari panders to with this shoddy and weak editorial.