Friends, this is an “old” news item — May 24 — but I wanted to share it with you, because it is extraordinary: It shows how al-Qaeda is being defeated in Iraq, and, with al-Qaeda, insanity:

Coffee shops and restaurants, as well as other favorite meeting spots like the corniche overlooking the Tigris River in downtown Mosul, have . . . buzzed with activity since the anti-al-Qaeda operation got under way.

All across the city, residents have taken on a new lease on life.

Streets are thronged with pedestrians, and market stalls brim anew with fruit and vegetables — including tomatoes and cucumbers displayed side by side in clear defiance to the Islamists who had banned this as sexually provocative.

The local Iraqi bread known as “sammoun” — also prohibited by the militants, who argued that it did not exist in the time of the Prophet Mohammed — can now be found again in bakeries.

And so on. The complete article may be found here. And it quotes a schoolteacher, Zakia Abdullah al-Badrani, who says that his is “a land of civilizations that should not be soiled by obscurantists” such as al-Qaeda.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I was struck by that word “obscurantists,” because that is exactly the word I have heard Pervez Musharraf use, more than once. He uses it to describe people who try to tell other people that Islam is what it isn’t.

This is an “old” item, too: President Bush’s speech before the Knesset, delivered on May 15. This was in celebration of Israel’s 60th anniversary. It was a great speech: a wise, humane, moral, and stirring speech. I’m sorry this fact was obscured by the news coverage of it: which focused on a political controversy.

Bush spoke about the dangers of appeasement: and Barack Obama thought he was alluding to him. Actually, Bush was talking about a mindset that’s shared by millions. Apparently, Obama thought that the shoe fit . . .

I was reminded of a line that I believe Chevy Chase uttered in a movie: “I resemble that remark.”

Personally, I had one objection to Bush’s speech — or rather, reservation. He did what all presidents do, and what they should do, I’m sure: He spoke for “America” and “Americans.” Give you a few examples:

“The prayers of the American people are with Ariel Sharon.”

“America is proud to be Israel’s closest ally and best friend in the world.”

“When Americans look at Israel, we see a pioneer spirit that worked an agricultural miracle and now leads a high-tech revolution . . .”

“Masada shall never fall again, and America will be at your side.”

“Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.”

“. . . you have built a mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on the United States of America to be at your side.”

Great, great. George W. Bush understands, appreciates, and supports Israel. He would never let Israel fall, if he could do anything about it. And this is true of lots of other Americans too. But is it true of all of us? Of course not. And can anyone today make guarantees about American leadership tomorrow? Almost certainly not.

Think about Jimmy Carter’s second term — a term that never came about. Cyrus Vance, the former secretary of state, remarked in private that Carter was prepared to sell Israel down the river, in a second term.

At any rate . . . a magnificent and memorable speech. (To read it in its entirety, go here.) It’s a shame that it did not receive the coverage and commentary it deserved.

And, as I noted in my journal from Sharm El Sheikh (found in this column’s archive), that speech rankled a whole lot of people. Bush really touched a nerve, in his 60th-anniversary Israel speech. It reminded me of when he spoke about the consequences of our abandoning Vietnam: The whole of the American press corps howled in pain, indignation, and outrage.

Unsurprisingly, these speeches — the Israel one and the Vietnam one — are just about my two favorites!

I thought of something, the other day: A few years ago, I was present when a young person was asked, “What do you think about the Iraq War?” And he said, sort of clearing his throat, “Well, I want us to win.” And then he went on with a fuller answer.

I want us to win. This fellow was not trying to be cute, or to utter a “line.” He was just saying what he thought. And his words struck me as fairly profound: “I want us to win.”

A question might be put to Senator Obama: Do you want us to win? Or, like Howard Dean and many others — on both left and right — do you think winning is impossible, or meaningless? Furthermore, you say you want to end the war: Is there a difference between ending it and losing it?

But how can I ask candidates questions if I’m sitting on my booty in New York writing breezy lil’ columns like this?

A little language: In “booty,” do you prefer “y” or “ie”? It is “fielder’s choice,” as our friend John Derbyshire says.

Like lots of others, no doubt, I read Todd Purdum’s piece for Vanity Fair as soon as it hit Drudge. This is the piece in which the author asks, “What’s the matter with him?” — “him” being Bill Clinton, the Big Him. (Monica, of course, referred to the “Big He.”)

I wish to make just a couple of points. And I should say that I’m scribbling these notes on Sunday night — so if these points are utterly commonplace by now, forgive me.