doodledee

I found an interesting commentary by Camille Paglia where she discusses how her take on the crisis in the Middle East have changed in the post-9/11 world. Before the attacks, she wrote a piece for Salon - where she's a frequent columnist - which was decidedly pro-Pal. After the attacks, she's clearly reconsidered many of her original positions and has more or less committed to supporting Israel as much as is needed.

That's all interesting, to be sure, but what really caught my eye was this:

When the Lewinsky scandal broke, Democrat big wigs should have muscled Clinton out the door and let Al Gore assume the presidency. [...] Had Gore taken power, he would have grown in office and, with his military background, probably paid far more attention to geopolitical tensions. I believe that, had Gore replaced a dethroned Clinton in 1998, this nation might well have avoided the unspeakable horror of last year's attack on the World Trade Center.

I've read a lot of stuff over the last year about if so-and-so would have been in such-and-such a position, that 9/11 would never have happened, but his was a first for me. If you can get past the reference to Gore's [questionable] military experience, it's neat to think about the basis of her argument, which is that the media is partially to blame for focusing on the stupid Lewinsky scandal instead of more important global issues.