The Week

National Review, Nov 10, 2003

-- NEWS ITEM: "Washington governor Gary Locke's trip to China bore its first fruit Monday with news that a Kent-based printing-press maker signed a contract worth $11 million a year with the People's Daily newspaper, the Communist Party organ." Hmm . . . well, the People's Daily might be to the right of the Seattle papers.

-- Bill Clinton, settling further into his role as Second-Guesser-in- Chief, said that he warned incoming President Bush about the threat from Osama bin Laden. If Clinton actually did this, it was helpful, although not nearly as helpful as taking serious action against bin Laden's network during his time in office would have been. In early 2001, Bush faced a grave terrorist threat that had become steadily graver because of what the Clinton administration had done and left undone during the 1990s -- the CIA had been prevented from recruiting overseas agents, the FBI had been further hamstrung, immigration policy had been loosened, airport security had remained lax, and bin Laden's terrorist conspiracy had been allowed free and easy sanctuary in Afghanistan. If he had really been trying to help, Bill Clinton would have given Bush another warning: "I've left the nation in great danger."

-- Funny how quickly Wesley Clark changes his mind. On January 22, 2002, addressing an audience at Harding University in Searcy, Ark., Clark had the following to say: "I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander in chief, our president, George Bush." A little more than eight months earlier, speaking in Little Rock, he was even more effusive: "President George Bush had the courage and the vision . . . and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship." Would this be the same President Bush whom Clark now presents as unfit? Clark is, of course, entitled to revise his opinions. Both Bush-praising speeches pre-date the Iraq intervention, and perhaps Clark's view of the president has dimmed -- genuinely. But at the very least, these speeches limit the scope of criticism that Clark can reasonably raise against Bush, and make it appropriate to ask whether Clark is a man of principle or a mere opportunist.

-- It has become fashionable in certain quarters to blame President Bush for causing a kind of fiscal Armageddon with his tax cuts and his defense-spending increases. So it was refreshing to hear Sen. John McCain, appearing on a recent edition of Meet the Press, say, "I think the elephant in the room is Medicare and Social Security, and the first baby boomer is going to retire in 2010." In the same program, McCain argued for spending what is needed to strengthen America's armed forces and stabilize Iraq. Here are priorities as they should be: Before all else, government must defend against foreign threat. Entitlement programs are comparatively a luxury, and now, during wartime, it is more appropriate than ever to seek their reform. Regrettably, Senator McCain also lapsed into cliches about the need for Bush to veto "terrible pork-barrel-spending bills." This observation is true, but not particularly helpful, as pork accounts for a tiny portion of overall spending. On the whole, however, Senator McCain acquitted himself admirably.

-- Perhaps the Bush administration should just admit the error of its ways and turn over Iraqi reconstruction to Rep. Henry Waxman. Come to think of it, that is precisely what Waxman is proposing. For months now, the California Democrat has accused the administration of cronyism and, possibly, corruption in the decision to award some Iraq contracts to Halliburton, the giant services company that used to be run by Vice President Dick Cheney. Now, Waxman has transformed his anti- administration crusade into legislation, the "Clean Contracting in Iraq Act." The bill would essentially throw out the government's contracting practices when it comes to Iraq and would in effect make Henry Waxman a part of the contracting process. Waxman's proposal would require the executive branch to notify the chairman or the ranking member of relevant congressional committees -- that would be Waxman on the House Government Reform Committee -- of contracts or task orders valued at more than $1 million. And it would require the administration to quickly hand over unredacted copies of all documents involved in the contracts upon the request of . . . Henry Waxman. It should be remembered that Waxman has not found any evidence of any improper conduct on the administration's or on Halliburton's part. There is, in fact, good reason to think that Halliburton is the best company for the job and got the contracts by standard and accepted contracting practices (see Byron York's "All Smoke, No Fire," NR, July 14, 2003). Of course, that's never stopped Waxman before.

-- In 1991, Texas Democrats gerrymandered the state's congressional districts without shame or hesitation. In 2001, it was time to redraw the district lines. The legislature failed to do so, and a court stepped in with new lines that left the map mostly the same. As a result, Democrats hold 53 percent of the state's congressional seats even though Republican candidates won 56 percent of the vote last year. Now a Republican state legislature has done some gerrymandering of its own. This looks like the normal political tug-of-war to us, but parts of the national press -- the Washington Post, the New York Times, The New Republic -- have been comically indignant. The line is that there is a time-honored tradition that redistricting happens only once a decade. Fair enough. But there is also a time-honored tradition that the state legislature, and not the courts, does the job. It may suit liberals' definition of democracy for one of the most Republican states in the nation to send a Democratic delegation to Congress year after year. Nobody else should be upset by the Texas Republicans' handiwork.