I take it back, my approving mention in the preceding post of The Wall Street Journal’s “gracious” op-ed piece lauding Anna Lindh as “Sweden’s conscientious, stylish and intelligent foreign minister.” It turns out that article appeared only in the European editions of the WSJ. If you want to know what the WSJ pitched at its core domestic market, you need to read what their columnist James Taranto posted to the WSJ editorial blog The Best of the Web Today last night:
Terror Attack Kills Terror Apologist
Remember Anna Lindh? She was the Swedish foreign minister dubbed the “Scandinavian Taliban” for her terrorist apologetics. She’s shown up occasionally in this column, first in January 2002 for her quote: “I think this discussion about equating [Yasser] Arafat with terrorists is both inappropriate and stupid. It is a very dangerous policy.”
Then, in November, she denounced America for killing six al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen: “If the U.S.A. is behind this with Yemen’s consent, it is nevertheless a summary execution that violates human rights,” she said. “Even terrorists must be treated according to international law. Otherwise, any country can start executing those whom they consider terrorists.”
Lindh, 46, died this morning. In a horrific irony, she herself may have been the victim of a terrorist attack: “She was knifed in an upscale Stockholm department store Wednesday by an unknown assailant,” reports the AP, which in another dispatch describes her as “an outspoken human rights advocate.” Lindh’s tragic death is proof, as if any were needed, that “understanding” the enemies of civilization will not stop them from killing you if they get a chance.
Trust James Taranto to once again blow past all bounds of decency in writing a sneering, triumphalist take on the Lindh murder. I’ve caught him doing such stuff before. If Lindh’s other ideological sparring partners — such as The Jerusalem Post, Little Green Footballs, Andrew Sullivan and Instapundit — stayed quiet on Lindh’s murder, refusing to speak ill of the dead, or perhaps realizing that there simply is no “I-told-you-so” moral to this tragic story, what compels Taranto to verge on saying that she got what she deserved?
I suspect it’s because Taranto suffers from some sort of psychological imbalace, but maybe that’s letting him off too lightly. He’s certainly known as a loose canon in NYC media circles. Even so, there are plenty of nutcases at the fringes of the blogosphere; the question is, what’s this one doing among the most esteemed opinion leaders of American conservative thought? Do Paul Gigot and Bob Bartley approve of this? Do they know this is being written under the Wall Street Journal banner? Or are they under the impression that because these rants only appear online, they carry less weight? I think they know very well what they’re doing: Putting forward an acceptable face as a newspaper of record by day, but simultaneously catering to a core constituency of right-wing demagogues in the online underworld. Let’s face it: Best of the Web Todayis a very popular blog, and it gives the WSJ street cred.
What are we now supposed to believe is the view of the WSJ editorial board? That Anna Lindh was a true democrat who got what she deserved? A Scandinavian Taliban who was conscientious and intelligent? For clarity’s sake, Paul, can you please either fire your European editorial writers or James Taranto? And if it’s not the latter who goes, surely you’d understand if the Swedish government now ostracizes Wall Street Journal reporters? Ah, but of course, the Swedes are decent people, they would never do such a thing.
Bullets
Polls indicate Estonians will vote yes to EU accession tomorrow. In Sweden, “polls give widely differing indications as to the likely outcome of the referendum.” TheEconomist has a decent primer on our referendum. (Via Crooked Timber) International Her…
yes, he’s a psycho, all right. i’ve very much enjoyed reading him over the past few years, though, he can be hilarious. the best thing was his collection of pro war poetry, aimed at rivalling the anti-war poetry prevalent everywhere else. i commented on it on meme first. i wish i could link to it but i don’t know how. it was really bad poetry, modern mcgonagall.
i wouldn’t be so upset, though. I think he’s like a blogging rush limbaugh. he writes for 2 groups: 1) a specific, self contained and self-reaffirming audience that doesn’t need any convincing of its rectitude (e.g. matthew and kim) but would like to know the current orthodoxy on the news of the day, and 2) people like me who just read it for a laugh, much like I watch televangelists on CATV, which generally reinforces my agnosticism in an atheistic direction.
eurof, you forgot one thing, his pro-israeli tilt blinds his commonsense preventing him from reaching sensible conclusions…
There is much to be said for Taranto’s claim that “The Terror Apologist Was the Victim of a Terrorist Attack”. And let us not forget what many Scandinavian political leader and opinion maker said about 9/11: a terrible tragedy, but “understandable”.
Thus Lindh’s murder is also understandable. Her belief that the social welfare state can provide an environment where baser human conduct could not be encountered was very idealistic. She has paid the ultimate price for her idealism.
Doubtlessly Lindh will be transformed into Saint Anne after this murder, but I will always remember her as a fool who caused much damage on the international stage.
I agree with Eurof: Taranto is a great read because of his sense of humor. He provides a much needed counterweight to the blather of the more equivocal press. He also catches certain currents in the media that deserve to be highlighted. And he is not afraid to sream bloody foul at the conduct of terror apologists. He is a very valuable voice, indeed.
Andican: As it preventing a second Holocaust of the Jews is not commonsense: a statement quite endemic of European anti-Semitic thinking.
at the risk of annoying both of you:
1) a pro israeli tilt doesn’t necessarily mean you’re blind to common sense; I know some very sensible people who tilt that way. i’ve been known to. i don’t know the reason why he’s blind to what you call common sense but i would call balance. it may be a lot, but not quite enough, education, or having studied a non-liberal arts subject like chemical engineering. he could be disturbed, or just not too bright.
2) I would never say that james taranto has a sense of humour. In fact james taranto is a great read precisely because he has no sense of humour, like when you read something and you think ha ha ha what an idiot. I do think he’s funny, but i don’t mean it as a compliment.
I could only believe he had a sense of humour if i imagined that james taranto didn’t actually believe a word he writes, and it was all a huge joke on his readership and the WSJ. This is unlikely, i admit, but still possible and is my preferred solution.