Month: July 2003

Paul Cella puts his finger on something about this president: for a privileged scion, his instincts are quite democratic. I liked this insight:

And thus the democracy is happy; indeed it is grimly amused and even heartened. It hears, “bring ’em on,” followed by a predictable round of hand-wringing and fatuous commentary, and it thinks, “He’s one of us”; or at least, and perhaps equally appealing, “He’s not one of them.” And I think it is this naturally democratic camaraderie (and it is important to note that it is quite natural) conveyed by President Bush, which immunizes him to charges of aristocratic irresponsibility by his opponents. The charges are too discordant with reality. To believe that Mr. Bush is a foolish aristocrat, men have to almost believe that they themselves are foolish aristocrats; and if Mr. Bush is indeed irresponsible, which he may well be, it is far nearer to the truth to say that he is a foolish democrat.

It’s also smart strategy as well – fighting terrorists on our terms, not theirs’. Tommy Franks gets it, of course.

MULLAHS’ JITTERS: The Iranian dictators begin to get nervous. Jeff Jarvis, as usual, is on the case. The Iranian has a piece on the vast wealth being accumulated by the theocrats. And the regime’s elites keep testing missiles that threaten Israel and the region. Their only hope of survival is a nuclear capacity. Our only hope for stability in that part of the world is to stop them getting it.

THE SAVAGE TRUTH: Every small thing I heard about Michael Savage deterred me from inquiring further. But it was perfectly clear that he was a lout, a loudmouth, a bigot for hire, and a significant part of what is wrong with the far right. The amazing thing is not that he no longer has a big job at MSNBC. The amazing thing is that he ever had a job in the first place.

COULTER’S LAW ARTICLE: It’s been retrieved from the archives – a close look at Ann Coulter circa 1987. And, of course, it’s been blogged.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “A vinegar toast to Ann Coulter and Michael Savage for supporting the worst stereotypes of conservatives. I’m a religious person, and I believe that sodomy is a sin. I also believe that fornication and adultery are sins, but I don’t believe that a society that no longer punishes heterosexual sins has any moral claim left for punishing homosexual ones.” – more insightful feedback on the Letters Page.

Some insiders are predicting Pinch will undo his error of two years ago and pick the man he should have picked then.

She’s the Maureen Dowd of the right. Ouch.

“UK Parliament Clears Govt of Misleading on Iraq” – Reuters/Washington Post.
–
“Campbell cleared by MPs over Iraq dossier” – Daily Telegraph.

“Dossier report clears Campbell” – The Guardian.

“Iraq weapons claims criticised” – BBC headline today.

David Warren seconds my interpretation of president Bush’s “bring them on” taunt:

While engaged in the very difficult business of building a democracy in Iraq — the first democracy, should it succeed, in the entire history of the Arabs — President Bush has also, quite consciously to my information, created a new playground for the enemy, away from Israel, and even farther away from the United States itself. By the very act of proving this lower ground, he drains terrorist resources from other swamps.

This is the meaning of Mr. Bush’s “bring ’em on” taunt from the Roosevelt Room on Wednesday, when he was quizzed about the “growing threat to U.S. forces” on the ground in Iraq. It should have been obvious that no U.S. President actually relishes having his soldiers take casualties. What the media, and U.S. Democrats affect not to grasp, is that the soldiers are now replacing targets that otherwise would be provided by defenceless civilians, both in Iraq and at large. The sore thumb of the U.S. occupation — and it is a sore thumb equally to Baathists and Islamists, compelling their response — is not a mistake. It is carefully hung flypaper.

Is this unconscionable? Yes, if we’re not fighting a real war with real and dangerous enemies. No, if we mean to win. Under this president, we mean to win. To my mind, that’s the surpassing political truth of the current administration and the standard by which any Democrat must be judged.

SUPPORT JULY 9: Oxblog has a guide to rallies in support of Iranian democracy around the country and the world. Do what you can.

LOVED TO LOVE YOU, BABY: The best sex music ever. Then the best Gen-X “sex music” ever. A meeting with the late, great Barry White.

The battle to reform the BBC is now in full swing. Could it be another Raines-like casualty of the Iraq war? Here are Blair’s “no-surrender” comments:

‘It is untrue. That statement is untrue,’ Blair said of the claim that the original weapons dossier published last September had been deliberately interfered with against the wishes of the intelligence services. ‘The idea that I or anyone else in my position would start altering intelligence evidence or saying to the intelligence services “I am going to insert this” is absurd. ‘There couldn’t be a more serious charge, that I ordered our troops into conflict on the basis of intelligence evidence that I falsified. ‘You could not make a more serious charge against a Prime Minister. The charge happens to be wrong. I think everyone now accepts that that charge is wrong.’

But you’re dealing with left-wing ideologues, Tony. This isn’t about the truth. It’s about discrediting a war that discredited them. Meanwhile, the Beeb responds: “The BBC did not have an agenda in its war coverage, nor does it now have any agenda which questions the integrity of the Prime Minister.” Try not to laugh too hard.

COULTERKAMPF: My take, having read (or tried to read) Ann Coulter’s appallingly bad new book. For good measure, my fisking of John Derbyshire’s recent anti-gay rant. A nice and dyspeptic start to the new week.

The unassuming, now-celibate gay Anglican bishop has withdrawn his acceptance of his position, avoiding a looming schism in the Church of England. It’s hard to know how to interpret this. Both the Anglicans and the Catholics,in the next few years, will have to deal with how many Western Christians feel about the dignity of gay people, while seeing their ranks boom among intermittently polygamous but rampantly homophobic Africans. It’s an irresolvable conflict. My prediction: eventual Anglican schism.

NEW IRANIAN CURRENCY? An intriguing possibility.

I’m in the hammock. See you Monday.

No, I don’t think it’s merely rhetoric. One of the many layers of the arguments for invading Iraq focused on the difficulties of waging a serious war on terror from a distant remove. Being based in Iraq helpsus notonly because of actual bases; but because the American presence there diverts terrorist attention away from elsewhere. By confronting them directly in Iraq, we get to engage them in a military setting that plays to our strengths rather than to theirs’. Continued conflict in Iraq, in other words, needn’t always be bad news. It may be a sign that we are drawing the terrorists out of the woodwork and tackling them in the open.

THE BBC AND IRAQ: A new and comprehensive summary of fantastic media bias.

CONCEDING DEFEAT: “You’re absolutely right; many in the press have all but conceded defeat. Having spent a year (1967-68) in the Mekong Delta, and having made three other deployments to the Tonkin Gulf in the 1960’s, I am appalled by suggestions that there are parallels between the two conflicts. Just for perspective: We were in Vietnam for over a decade; we have been in Iraq for less than four months. There was no clear national interest at stake in Vietnam; in Iraq we either make this thing work — and create a chance for a peaceful and stable Middle East — or we will have failed catastrophically. It seems that few remember that at the peak of the fighting in Vietnam, and for a sustained period of time, we were losing about 500 killed — not killed and wounded, 500 killed — per week. In Iraq we have lost 22 dead to hostile fire in the two months since “major combat” was declared over. And yet the hand-wringing has bedome quite frantic.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

A devastating little piece by Brendan Nyhan. Part of me likes Coulter’s iconoclasm, panache, smarts. But you still have to draw the line somewhere; and, in my view, she damages conservatism as much as Michael Moore damages liberalism. It’s one thing in spirited debates to lose civility at times; it’s another thing to make a lack of civility your fundamental modus operandi.