|
April 06, 2007
Good cop, bad cop
"Don't fear the terrorists. They're mothers and fathers."When the Inquirer is good, it is very, very good! And I was absolutely delighted to see that yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer featured guest editorials from Claudia Rosett and James Lileks. The latter wrote about a chocolate Jesus (and a modern artist who seems willing to do anything for attention, but hey, at least he stopped short of crucifying the Easter Bunny), while the latter wrote about the Pelosi trip to Syria. Linking the Rosett piece, Glenn Reynolds said simply, "Nuts in Damascus." It certainly looks that way: Having done her shopping, Pelosi went on, against the express wishes of the White House, to talk with President Bashar Assad. Perched on pillowed armchairs, chatting away, they provided yet another photo-op - a tableau implying that Assad is no monster, but in many ways a reasonable fellow, just like the rest of us.Yes, and the whole process resembles what ought to be called "Good cop, bad cop." (A classic example of which was the "nice" Ahmadinejad releasing the British hostages as a "gift.') I think Pelosi and company are being played for suckers, and I'm glad to see such a ringing indictment appearing in the Inquirer. What I think is going on with the terrorists (a name Pelosi and the Dems don't seem to want the government to use, BTW) is that one group does the suicide bombing, while the other gently nags and whines, almost seeming to apologize, knowing all the while that the bad cop lurks in the background with his suicide bomb. The bad cop can't do it alone. The idea being, if you understand the strategy, don't fall for the good cop routine! You'd think the leaders of both parties would have learned this simple lesson by now. I'm so cynical though, that I think the main reason for the Pelosi trip was to underscore the impotence of the lame-duck Bush administration by demonstrating contempt, and dropping a not-so-subtle hint as to who might be in charge (in the near future, of course). I'd feel a bit more comfortable if I thought they understood what strikes me as basic human psychology. UPDATE: According to this analysis in today's Wall Street Journal, Pelosi may well have committed a felony under the Logan Act, which provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."And just think about the unindicted coconspirators! Ahem. This calls for a famous line from Fred Thompson. What did they know and when did they know it? MORE: Glenn Reynolds comments on the Pelosi trip: I think that the more Pelosi acts like a wannabe President, the worse it is for Hillary. And I think that Pelosi knows that.Pelosi sabotaging Hillary? This would seem to confirm what Real Clear Politics said in December: Hillary Clinton has a problem. Its name is Nancy Pelosi. Clinton's run for the White House is being built - as was her husband's - on the idea of a "new democrat" who accurately triangulated between liberal and conservative well enough to shroud liberal policy with a cloak of moderation. The cloak was so tightly-woven and the media so compliant that no matter what Clinton did - from his first presidential act ("don't ask, don't tell") to the "wag the dog" episode in the impeachment days - he escaped scrutiny. But no matter how hard Mrs. Clinton clings to the Clinton Cloak, Speaker-to-be Pelosi's Animal House will be sticking its head out from every fold.There's also been some talk of a Pelosi-Clinton "cat fight": It was just a few years ago that Hillary Clinton seemed destined to possibly become the most powerful woman in the history of American politics. Yesterday, that honor was bestowed upon Nancy Pelosi, becoming the first female House Speaker ever.Might she want to keep it that way? I don't know. I tend to see the Democrats as people who follow the script. But what the hell. They could be following this script. posted by Eric on 04.06.07 at 08:14 AM
Comments
The WSJ has an interesting op-ed about how Pelosi's visit to Syria was not only in appallingly bad taste but possible illegal, as well: Link. S Wisnieski · April 6, 2007 01:39 PM Sorry, the link is http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908. S Wisnieski · April 6, 2007 01:50 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
April 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2007
March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Strategy , Grand Strategy, and Tactics
Happy Easter! How criticizing Clinton's sexism becomes "harassment" Stand up for secularism -- or is it too late? |
|
I am very apolitical in that I trust no politician or political party to do the right thing unless it serves individual's or the party's interest, but it really seems like the Democrats are so eager to make the current administration look bad that they will make a deal with anyone who is opposed, fittingly "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Pelosi's visit might not fit the legal definition of treason, but it surely was an act that will weaken the US, not strengthen it.
This is a great site, keep it up.