THE WANDERER, MAY 10, 2007
JOSEPH SOBRAN'S
WASHINGTON WATCH
A Slam Dunk -- Or Was It?
By the end of a long war, it may be hard to remember
how it began or what it was all about. The Trojan War --
let's see -- something about Helen, Menelaus's queen,
wasn't it? World War II -- Germany's invasion of Poland?
(Oh yes, the Soviets invaded too! Nearly forgot!) World
War I? Who knows?
Now we are arguing about how the Iraq war started.
Did it have something to do with George Tenet, then
director of the Central Intelligence Agency, assuring
George W. Bush that Iraq had nuclear weapons and ties to
al-Qaeda, posing an imminent threat to the United States
and its allies? ("Slam dunk, Mr. President," Tenet
reportedly said.)
In his new book AT THE CENTER OF THE STORM: MY YEARS
AT THE CIA, Tenet disputes this legend, though he admits
he used the term "slam dunk" and was misled. Still, he
insists that he meant something rather different from
what it sounded like in the retelling, and he blames Vice
President Dick Cheney for propagating the distorted
account. (He lets President Bush off more leniently.)
Tenet has already given several major interviews
about the book, including one on 60 MINUTES, contending
that the neocons in the administration were intent on
attacking Iraq long before the 9/11 attacks. He quotes
Richard Perle as saying Iraq must be punished for those
attacks the day after they occurred! Tenet says the CIA
already had information pointing to al-Qaeda; and
al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein hated each other. Casting
Saddam as the ally of Muslim fanatics was one of the
administration's most implausible sleights. How did the
public ever fall for that one?
Some of Tenet's assertions are already being
challenged, but I don't see how these, at least, can be
doubted. If the neocons had anything to say about it, a
war on Iraq was bound to happen. I seem to recall saying
that this was obvious over 20 years ago. (Not that I've
gotten much credit for it, then or now.)
After all that has happened, Bush seems to have
learned nothing. He persists in warning us that unless we
stop our enemies in Iraq, we'll have to stop them here.
But who are "they" these days? And how are they going to
get here? Are they training camels to swim across oceans?
What, exactly, is Bush imagining?
You can only pity men like Tenet who have had to
please and placate rulers so dishonest and irrational.
Beyond that, though, it gets confusing. Why did he wait
so long to tell us something so important? Was he saving
it all for his book?
All the people in positions of power seem to know
more than they are saying in public. If democracy
requires an informed citizenry, what was the point of
"slam dunk," anyway? "Good enough for government work"?
We seem to be getting further and further away from the
original reasons for this war, whatever they were.
I didn't think the Iraq war debate could get any
more confusing and bitter than it already was. I stand
corrected. All that is clear is that nobody in Washington
is eager to hog all the credit for this war.
Now please don't ask me to explain what set off the
Wars of the Roses.
Democrats on Parade
The Democratic presidential candidates have now had
their first televised debate, to call it that, and better
men than I seem to agree that Hillary Rodham Clinton
bested her rivals, especially Barack Hussein Obama and
John Reid Edwards. She spoke of "retaliating" against
attacks on this country, while the others tried to pander
to those who just want peace.
So why did my own heart go out to the candidate
nobody favors -- Delaware's Sen. Joe Biden? I've poked
fun at him for years, but suddenly I was listening to him
with respect, affection, and even a little yearning, not
only during the pseudo-debate but also, even more, during
the Sunday talk shows.
First, he made me laugh. Asked whether he could
restrain his notorious garrulity, he shot back with a
grin, "Yes." It was a delightfully humble moment.
But my heart didn't turn over until Sunday, when I
noticed a subtle change in his overall tone. He didn't
talk like the standard liberal
personally-opposed-but-pro-abortion Catholic Democrat I'd
always taken him for. He recalled that he'd spent five
months in the hospital for two brain aneurysms, the top
of his skull removed, an experience that would leave
anyone changed, more reflective and self-critical.
If I'm any judge of people at all, Joe Biden takes
his faith very seriously now. That may explain why he
doesn't seem to take himself very seriously.
Not that I'm endorsing him for president. That would
be taking =myself= much too seriously. Besides, I can't
even endorse the presidency, so what would be the point?
Let me put it this way. The U.S. presidency is a
fantastically powerful office; nobody should hold it,
because in its present form it should not even exist. But
if we are doomed to have a president, the only Democrat
who doesn't frighten me is Joseph R. Biden Jr.
If I'm wrong about him, I'm wildly wrong and I'm
very sorry. He'll be put to the test soon enough.
But our merciful Lord, who brings good out of evil
itself, has glorious surprises in store for us. Surely
some of the greatest of them will come from people we
always thought were our enemies.
Piety and Orthography
Just to show that my power of finding things to
complain about is unimpaired by age, allow me to grumble
about my pet peeve: the modern practice, peculiar to
English, of capitalizing pronouns referring to God and
Jesus Christ.
What does it achieve, beyond cluttering up the page?
No translation of the Bible does it. Is that impious? By
this logic, unknown to any other language I know of,
wouldn't it make much more sense to apply it to divine
attributes ("his Will") or even body parts -- e.g., to
write "his Hands" (or even "his Spittle") than "His
hands"?
If piety is to be expressed this way, then
capitalizing the name of Satan must be a step toward
devil-worship.
Having endured many scoldings from readers on this
score, I've been waiting to say this for years.
+ + +
"Whom did the great Laurence Olivier salute as 'my
favorite actor'? Why, Mickey Rooney! Who else?" REGIME
CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME -- a new selection of my
Confessions of a Reactionary Utopian -- will provoke
thoughts and smiles.If you have not seen my monthly
newsletter, SOBRAN'S, yet, give my office a call at
800-513-5053 and request a free sample, or better yet,
subscribe for two years for just $85. New subscribers get
two gifts with their subscription. More details can be
found at the Subscription page of my website,
www.sobran.com.
Already a subscriber? Consider a gift subscription
for a priest, friend, or relative.
--- Joseph Sobran
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2007/w070510.shtml".
This column copyright (c) 2007 by THE WANDERER, the
National Catholic Weekly founded in 1867,
www.thewandererpress.com. Reprinted with permission.
This column may not be published in print or Internet
publications without express permission of THE WANDERER.
You may forward it to interested individuals if you use
this entire page, including the following disclaimer:
"THE WANDERER is available by subscription. Write
subscription@thewandererpress.com for information.
Subscription price: $50 per year; $30 for six months.
Checks can be sent to The WANDERER, 201 Ohio Street,
Dept. JS, St. Paul, MN 55107.
"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's syndicated columns are
available by e-mail subscription. For details and
samples, see http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."
This page copyright (c) 2007 by THE VERE COMPANY.