The New York Times today publishes an op-ed piece by President Clinton. The article is about race relations in America and is timely because of Martin Luther King Day, which is tomorrow.
Mr. Clinton writes that there is "unfinished business" on the topic of race relations. "We can begin by ending the practice of racial profiling," he says. "We know racial profiling exists. We know it is wrong. And it should be illegal, everywhere. As we continue our efforts to document the extent of the problem, we should pass a federal law banning the practice of racial profiling."
This is just a bizarre call by Mr. Clinton. He is, after all, the president of America, and he has been for eight years. He is in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Customs Service. If he really believes racial profiling exists and that it is wrong, then that is not an indication of the need for a new "federal law," but an indictment of Mr. Clinton's own management skill. There are already constitutional protections in place for due process and equal protection. Those protections make the most egregious cases of racial profiling already illegal.
Emerson: A long article in today's New York Times about Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network quotes "Steven Emerson, a terrorism expert." The article quotes Mr. Emerson asserting that "the men who blew up the World Trade Center and Mr. bin Laden's group were linked." Funny how, when Mr. Emerson is useful to the point the Times is trying to make, the newspaper identifies him neutrally and respectfully as a "terrorism expert."
Back on October 26, 2000, in an article on ties between the Hillary Clinton campaign and American supporters of Islamic terrorist groups, the Times referred to "Steven Emerson, who identified himself as a freelance journalist preparing a magazine article on terrorism; he became well known when he initially strongly suggested that the Oklahoma City bombing was the work of Arab terrorists."
In other words, when Mr. Emerson worked with New York Daily News reporters to break a story that was unflattering to Mrs. Clinton, the New York Times follow-up story referred to him in a skeptical, even dismissive manner. But now that Mr. Emerson is helping the New York Times with its big front-page series on "Holy Warriors: A Network of Terror," Mr. Emerson's suggestion "that the Oklahoma City bombing was the work of Arab terrorists" seems to be a bit of information that the Times finds irrelevant.
Smartertimes.com isn't suggesting that the October 26 reference is more appropriate than today's, just noting the glaring inconsistency. As for Mr. Emerson's suggestion to the Times that Osama bin Laden had a hand in the World Trade Center bombing, Smartertimes.com finds Laurie Mylroie's suggestion that the government of Iraq played a role to be at least as credible.