SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Georges Danton, falling himself victim to the Terror, said “la révolution dévore ses enfants” – the revolution is eating its own children. The Neoconservative enterprise has been a catastrophe of epic proportions, but the Neocons, a tenacious bunch, haven’t yet suffered much. Indeed, Bill Kristol, a man whose false prognoses could fill a yearly planner, has recently been installed as an op-ed writer for the New York Times on the basis of a number of false assumptions. First, that he is a conservative. Second, that he can write. Third, that as the son of Irving Kristol, he was a safe bet for the slot (though given who made the choice, that nepotistic impulse is understandable).
But are we not now witnessing some cracks in the house? The Bush Administration’s UN ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is a charter member of the Neocon club, and he spouts their rhetoric incessantly. Word has been about for some time that John Bolton loathes him. Why? It’s certainly not because they have differences on policy or philosophy. I’d say it’s something staggeringly petty. Perhaps it’s because Bolton couldn’t get confirmed for the position that Khalilzad now holds. Indeed, he couldn’t get confirmed even when the G.O.P. controlled the senate, because several Republican senators felt he was hot-tempered, manipulative and couldn’t be trusted with a position as sensitive as the UN post. Khalilzad differs from Bolton in that he’s undeniably competent, and has an engaging, even charming personality. Which makes him exactly what Bolton could never be: an effective diplomat.
Bolton’s vendetta against Khalilzad has included a whispering campaign accusing him of disloyalty. It appears that Bolton has even been closely tracking all of Khalilzad’s movements—probably through a mole in Khalilzad’s office. Fancy that: a private citizen spying on a government official who holds a cabinet-equivalent post. The inner party has its doubts, apparently, about the loyalty of comrade Zal. Only in the Bizarro World of the Bush Administration could it happen.
The latest attacks that Bolton has promoted make for hysterical reading. It seems that the UN ambassador has committed an unforgivable mistake. He actually spoke on a stage on which Iranian government officials were present! Imagine that, the UN ambassador being present in a building in which Iranians were present. Why, it only happens just about every day. But what did he say? It turns out that he tenaciously defended every consummately irrational aspect of the Bush Administration’s Iran policy, refuting and challenging the contentions that the Iranians put to a high-powered gathering of the world’s political and business leaders. That, of course, is a large part of his generally thankless task as head of the U.S. mission to the United Nations.
No, Bolton threw a fit because former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans introduced Khalilzad with the statement that he had the “really formidable advantage of having a name that is not John Bolton,” producing chuckles from the crowd. Now two Neocon blogs close to Bolton, Powerline and Captain’s Quarters take their best shots at Khalilzad. And it’s evident from them that Khalilzad has committed the unforgivable sin. He may share all of their ideas, but he’s competent, and it makes the rest of them look bad.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”