The Washington Times

So, this is what a liberal constitution in an ethnically diverse, Islamic Middle Eastern country looks like, this draft constitution of Iraq.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Washington Times

Is U.S. policy “a recruiting poster for al Qaeda”? Did the Iraq invasion itself, as well as the occupation and now the ongoing U.S. presence, only serve to make terrorists out of a larger number (albeit still a tiny fraction) of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims – and perhaps more worrying, terrorist sympathizers out of some significant multiple of that? Are we, accordingly, only playing into the terrorists’ hands? Last week in this space, we considered the question of whether the U.S. presence in Iraq was having the perverse effect of creating more terrorists. I argued that the question seems to be connected with the question of the affinity of al Qaeda for the Saddam regime. Although most opponents of the war tend to answer that the current situation is indeed creating more terrorists, they also tend to dismiss the notion of any affinity between Islamism and the secular Baathist regime of Saddam. Supporters of the war tend to answer each question the opposite way.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Washington Times

In American politics, sometimes questions emerge as Rorschach tests of what people think about big political events. What makes for a political Rorschach test is that the answer to the question posed is unknowable but not recognized as such: Like the random image presented by the inkblot, the scenario posed by the question actually signifies nothing. The only thing “there” is what people bring to it themselves. They may think their assessment is a product of the facts – what the inkblot portrays – but in truth the “facts” constitute a tabula rasa on which people inscribe their preexisting prejudices, preferences and hopes.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Washington Times

As revelations go, the one contained in an op-ed piece by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley in the Los Angeles Times July 25 was a blockbuster. Mr. Turley, citing sources who had attended, described an exchange at an informal meeting with Supreme Court nominee John Roberts the week before: “Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral. Roberts is a devout Catholic and is married to an ardent pro-life activist. The Catholic Church considers abortion to be a sin, and various church leaders have stated that government officials supporting abortion should be denied religious rites such as communion … Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.” Mr. Turley continued, “It was the first unscripted answer in the most carefully scripted nomination in history. It was also the wrong answer.” Mr. Turley went on, quite correctly, to explain why it would be unacceptable to have a Supreme Court justice who routinely recused himself on matters related to the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law when the latter might be in contradiction with Roman Catholic doctrine.

Read the rest of this entry »