U.S. says it’s prepared to fight harder for victory against terrorists; Sharon ups the ante against Palestinian terror; Cheney takes on Daschle; chastity hip again in L.A.; London’s emailers meanest in Britain.
THE TEST FOR DASCHLE: Several of you have emailed to say that my suspicion of Tom Daschle’s anti-war murmurings is unfounded. Bryan Keefer has a similar argument in Salon. It goes roughly like this: Daschle is simply voicing loyal criticism designed to ensure that this war is conducted effectively. He should be defended, not quashed. Effective questioning of the war is essential to its success. In theory, I agree with the emailers. As a matter of principle, it seems to me that constructive war-criticism is not only defensible but vital. It’s one advantage a democracy has against a tyranny in any war. Such questions are how Churchill replaced Chamberlain months after the war against Hitler was initiated. But Daschle’s statements, when you peruse them, simply don’t add up to that. Upon close inspection, he has nothing substantive to say. If he said, say, that we need to go easy on Iraq, or that North Korea is a side-show, or that Iran should be engaged not confronted, then I might disagree with him strongly, but I certainly wouldn’t question the appropriateness of his comments. But he didn’t say anything that specific. He made no positive proposals. He simply whined about the vagueness of war aims (which are anything but vague), complained of the lack of exit strategies (Guess what? In a war on terrorism, there are no exit strategies) and generally tested the anti-war waters. I respect a good opposition raising important, concrete questions about tactics and strategy in a war. But I suspect whiners who are angling for political advantage at the possible expense of this country’s security, and our troops’ safety. That’s what Daschle now is. He should make real arguments, advance substantive criticisms, or shut up. But he’s too cowardly to do the former and too opportunistic to do the latter.
DASCHLE AND VIETNAM: “The point people miss when talking about Daschle’s comments isn’t what he said (which was a pretty timid opposition to the anti-terrorism policies of the Bush administration) but what he will say if we let him get away with it. Remember, the original anti-Vietnam voices were just as timid as Daschle is now.” For more of this debate, see the letters page.
FUMBLING IRAN AND TORA BORA: So you want real criticism of the conduct of the war? Try Michael Ledeen’s bracing concern that the state of the union speech is in danger of sounding hollow if we don’t back it up with real action on Iran. Also try reading this useful account of how Osama bin Laden got away from Tora Bora in the Christian Science Monitor. We need more of this and less of Daschle.
CIVILIAN CASUALTIES: A useful round-up of the sad truth that there have probably been around 1000 civilian casualties in the Afghanistan war so far. That’s one quarter of the number cited by some anti-war activists. But obviously a grim reminder that no war spares the innocent and an important spur to attempting to keep those numbers as low as possible.
BOOK CLUB UPDATE: A bumper start to the new book club discussion – and a couple of points. Some of you are dismayed that I’ve picked a book critical of president Bush by a New York Times reporter. But this is not Oprah. Picking a book to read and argue about is not an endorsement or a promotional love-fest. It’s an opportunity for debate. And Frank Bruni has agreed to answer your questions and join in the fun. Give him your worst! I know he can take it. It’s also not a book of theory, like the last one. That’s deliberate. We’ll have future books that are more intellectual, but this one opens up real questions about presidential character and history as well as the role of the press. For what it’s worth, it’s also highly readable and I’m enjoying it immensely so far. We’ll also be doubling the number of reader contributions this time, and I’ll be taking a more aggressive role in steering the debate. So join the experiment. And support the site at the same time. For basic info on how the club works, click here.
IT’S TWUE! IT’S TWUE!: Does Slate’s usually sassy ad reviewer Rob Walker really have to ask why a black actor is featured in a sketch where he pulls down his pants to make a “big impression?” I’m beginning to think we should start a clueless white straight guy award in his honor.
MY KIND OF REPUBLICAN: Dude, this guy deserves an award. It’s a free country.
THE CHURCH’S PRIORITIES: “Last week there was an editorial cartoon in the Times-Picayune that depicted a priest going to confession. He said “Bless me father, I like to touch little boys.” The confessor said “Oh thank God, I thought you were going to say you wanted to ordain women!” It would have been funny had it not been so close to the truth.” More of this debate on the letters page.
PRAYING FOR RECESSION: In Chicago last weekend, it was amusing to watch the weather anchors prepare for a major snow-storm. They’ve mastered a very difficult maneuver – which is saying that they’re dreading the storm, that it could be terrible, that everyone should stay inside, that it could get really brutal, while they’re obviously enjoying every minute of it. 18 inches of snow! Woohoo! Or at least that’s what their facial expressions say. The reverse syndrome can be observed among liberal economists and pundits writing about the recession ending. They’re obliged to sound cheerful, but, deep inside, they’re clearly hating it. Paul Krugman’s recent column was a classic of the genre. It will kill him to see people getting jobs, earning money, buying stocks, while Bush is president. Similarly, the New York Times buried the big news last week of revised GDP numbers in the fourth quarter on the second page of the business section. Yes, I know this recovery could well be anemic. But there’s still something wonderful about the way some people just can’t bear to hear the good news. If you find any other great examples of lib
eral pundits failing to sound cheerful about the recovery, please send them my way.
RALL’S NEW LOW: Just when you thought this America-hating sicko couldn’t sink any lower, he goes and produces a cartoon like this.
LABOUR VERSUS BLAIR AND THE WAR: Some 86 percent of Labour Party members of parliament oppose extending the war to Iraq. Tony Blair deserves even more credit for getting off the fence on this one and taking a stand. Maybe if some of those MPs could read the intelligence briefings Blair reads, they might just change their minds.
QUOTE OF THE DAY: “A lifetime of politics was coming to an end; yet a newspaper strike made it certain that Churchill’s resignation would receive little public coverage. On April 4 he and his wife gave a farewell dinner at No. 10 to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. At noon on the following day he held his last Cabinet meeting, wishing his colleagues ‘all good fortune in the difficult, but hopeful, situation which they had to face.’ He next saw the Ministers not in the Cabinet telling them. ‘Man is spirit’, and leaving them with one piece of advice, ‘Never be separated from the Americans.'” -from Martin Gilbert’s “Churchill: A Life.”
The Dish 