TO MY READERS, I apologize for the infrequent postings. As I mentioned a while ago, I have a new job that prohibits me from commenting directly about politics -- which once was the bread-and-butter of the site. I'm headed to London in the spring (mid-January to mid-May) and I may be transforming "All about Josh" into some extended essays/commentaries about London, and their politics and culture. (This, provided I have a laptop and Internet access.)
Until then, I'll be pointing out some quality articles and maybe an extended blurb here and there.
GREAT COLUMN by Fred Hiatt (the Wash Post's editorial page editor -- further proof the Post is a pretty damn centrist paper) about how international law is being skewed by human rights organizations to, in essence, overlook Saddam's sadistic methods of torture and repression towards his people. Here's the money line:
And yet, given that they have taken on Saddam Hussein as their client, you have to wonder whether, if their reading of the law is right, there isn't something peculiar, something out of whack, about international law itself. Yes, national borders should be respected. But why should a gangster who has maintained power only by violating every norm of morality and law -- including international law -- be permitted the sanctuary of those borders? Why should his regime be entitled to the same protection as a government that represents its people?
This follows up a dead-on column by Hiatt's deputy editor, Colbert King on Saturday, which comprehensively dismisses the "root causes" theory of Bin Ladenism.
Frankly, the Washington Post editorial page is pretty damn balanced -- relatively intelligent commentary from liberals whom I often disagree with (E.J Dionne, David Broder), some consistent quality work on foreign policy (Jim Hoagland, Fred Hiatt), quality contributors (Anne Applebaum, Fareed Zakaria), and the top conservative commentators (Krauthammer, Kelly, Will). Kudos to Hiatt on a great piece and a damn underappreciated op-ed page.