Why We're Not in Government

WHY WE'RE NOT IN GOVERNMENT

If you watched any of General David Petraeus's testimony before a variety of congressional committees last week, THE SCRAPBOOK thought you might enjoy seeing "the rest of the picture" (as Paul Harvey might put it). Spend enough time in Washington, and someone back home will inevitably ask if you ever thought of going into public service. We've always said no and joked that there's a two-word reason for that: breakfast meetings. But there's another two-word reason: congressional hearings.

Our friend Mackubin T. Owens had the best reaction to the spectacle. Watching Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker field questions from the blowdried blowhards, Owens wrote at National Review Online that he was reminded of an Army captain who taught at U.S. Field Artillery School. During one session with "a class of brand new lieutenants .  .  . , one of the students asked him a question. I'll never forget [the captain's] reply. 'Lieutenant, we all know that there's no such thing as a stupid question, but I want you to know that yours is the closest to one I have ever heard.'"

CARTER. JAMES CARTER.

THE SCRAPBOOK felt a twinge--just a twinge, but a twinge nonetheless--of nostalgia when we read Fidel Castro's recent editorial comments in Granma, the newspaper of the Cuban Communist party. Whether the essay was actually written by Dr. Castro, who is 81 years old, evidently dying, and has not been seen in public for the past year, we may never know. But as connoisseurs of the old tyrant's rhetorical style, we think it has the ring of authenticity.

First is the revelation, if that's the word for it, that of all American presidents since 1959, his favorite is Jimmy Carter. (Or, as he calls him, "James Carter.") And not because of Carter's snarky comments about George W. Bush, or his indefatigable hammering on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. No, because the Man from Plains "was not an accomplice to the brutal terrorism against Cuba," and concluded a maritime agreement with Castro's regime nearly 30 years ago.

Well, of course: Of all 10 presidents in the White House since Castro's seizure of power, Jimmy ("Inordinate Fear of Communism") Carter was the most easily manipulated by Cuba--and, as anyone who remembers the Mariel Boat Lift will attest, humiliated as well. Like Leonid Brezhnev, Omar Torrijos of Panama, and the Ayatollah Khomeini, Fidel Castro has good reason to think nice thoughts about Jimmy Carter.

But we mentioned nostalgia, and here's why. It's been awhile since anyone referred to Carter publicly by his given name, and Castro's usage reminded us of the old Soviet style in the pages of Pravda, circa 1977, where he was always "U.S. President James Carter."

Then there was Castro's insightful observation that a Democratic ticket of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would be "invincible" in 2008. THE SCRAPBOOK would like to think that the two senators might be mildly embarrassed by this unsolicited endorsement from Havana; but so far, only silence from the invincible team. This, in turn, reminded us of the good old days when the Ku Klux Klan would endorse a presidential candidate who, in turn, would feel obligated to reject the endorsement.

So, here's the Question of the Week. Are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama mortified to learn Castro is betting on their candidacy, or do they welcome this as a sign of improving relations between Washington and Havana? Or put another way: Would they approach Cuba in the manner of one Democratic predecessor (John F. Kennedy) or in the footsteps of another (James Carter)?

KINGDOM COME

A few weeks ago, we quoted Entertainment Weekly, which described director Peter Berg's fear that his upcoming terrorist drama, The Kingdom, would be seen as jingoistic. During a screening, audiences cheered loudly when the Americans took down a group of terrorists, prompting Berg to agonize, "Am I experiencing American bloodlust?"

Now it seems Variety's John Anderson has similar concerns. "Shouldn't terrorism be treated as crime--that is, as a civil rather than military matter?" he asks. (We presume his answer is yes.) "It's a question that's at the heart of the Iraq War debate, and it's one raised loudly and clearly by The Kingdom, a realist thriller that mixes crowd-pleasing mayhem with provocative politics. Although burdened by far more procedure than plot, this Jamie Foxx vehicle .  .  . is quietly jingoistic, in a way guaranteed to sell auds on the idea that what's truly American is about more than disputed foreign policy."

Anderson does enjoy parts of the film while other scenes get bogged down in the bureaucracy. Fair enough. But, the critic complains, "Where pic goes astray is in turning anonymous, indigenous peoples into ducks at a shooting gallery. In Black Hawk Down, the alleged good guys mowed down hundreds of faceless Africans; here, it's Arabs, in what seem like comparable numbers. The sense of vicarious sport is the same; anyone in a caftan or a kepi is fair game."

"Alleged" good guys? Anderson must have forgotten that those American soldiers were responding to Somali rebels, affiliated with Osama bin Laden, who shot down a helicopter and killed 18 American soldiers, dragging their corpses through the streets of Mogadishu. THE SCRAPBOOK is now really looking forward to The Kingdom, no matter what this alleged movie critic says.