Moammar Qaddafi: what got into him?

National Review, Jan 26, 2004 by Roman Genn

* "Today we celebrate the possible in our state," said New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey as he signed the bill. What is now possible in his state is to create a human embryo through cloning, to pay a woman to allow it to be implanted in her womb, to let the clone develop for eight months, and then to sell the cloned fetus or its parts to be used in research--all with the authorization of the state. The bill was not advertised as allowing such monstrosities, of course. It was presented as a way to promote stem-cell research. But the text of the new law clearly allows much more than that. Its proponents never bothered to refute the point. Note how far we have expanded the definition of the "possible" in a few short years. In 2001, we were told to allow research on embryos that had been abandoned at fertility clinics. The embryos had already been created, and would never develop into babies. But--supporters of such research insisted--we would never create human embryos for the purpose of doing research on them. So said Sen. Arlen Specter, among others. A year later, Specter was a co-sponsor of a bill to allow cloning in order to create human embryos for research purposes. But even so, we were told, there would be strict limits. No research would be permitted after the embryos were 14 days old, and it would be illegal to implant the embryo in a womb. Sen. Orrin Hatch, one of Specter's co-sponsors, made much of these restrictions. Now, in 2004, a state has passed a law that authorizes research when the embryo has become an eight-month-old fetus in the womb. None of the people who told us that they took the moral objections very seriously, and wanted strict limits, and would never tolerate fetal harvesting, has said a word in rebuke of the law. At the bill signing, Christopher Reeve said, "Whenever something truly great is accomplished, its birth is always attended by controversy and antagonism and naysayers. And then, years later, we look back and wonder what all the fuss was about." His prediction may be right: Years from now, we may wonder what all the fuss was about. If so, it will be because our moral sensibilities have been dulled. Yet more.

* According to a few deep thinkers, President Bush's triumph in Libya--getting Moammar Qaddafi to agree to a verified end to his nuclear-arms program--is actually a triumph for Bush's opponents. How do you figure? Because it was a victory for the "discreet diplomacy and engagement which has been the European Commission's consistent approach," says the commission's president, Romano Prodi. Because President Bush had to abandon his penchant for the unilateral use of force and go to the negotiating table, says John Kerry. You may recall when the president swore off diplomacy and negotiation. No? The real difference between Bush and his critics is that he gives due weight to the fact that negotiation is not always possible, and understands that it matters from what position the negotiating begins. The invasion of Iraq was the crucial backdrop to our diplomacy. We held the better hand. A Smith & Wesson always beats four aces.