Month: December 2003

Wesley Clark congratulates the president on Gaddafi’s climbdown. President Clinton, that is.

How a homeless transvestite has just become a national hero in Italy – for being a real man. His name? Natale.

For truly pleasurable reading, you can’t beat the French press right now. My trusty Parisian correspondent (via cyberspace) relays the following information. Le Figaro wails:

French diplomacy finishes the year on a morose note. Not only must it watch American trains passing, in Iraq as in Libya, but it must also applaud. The success obtained by George W. Bush in his fight against ‘rogue states,’ with the arrest of Saddam Hussein and then Qaddafi’s renouncing of weapons of mass destruction, have placed Paris in a delicate position.

“Delicate.” Heh. Then there’s Le Parisien: “If a glorious solitude is the price of greatness, no one can doubt that France lives the highest hours of its civilization.” Glorious solitude. I thought we were the unilateralists. Merry Christmas.

As the president cruises back toward 60 percent approval, Dean streaks ahead of his nearest competitor. Dean is now at 31 percent support – and no one else is in double digits. Someone will emerge, of course. My bet is Clark. But the odds are now overwhelmingly in favor of a Bush-Dean match-up in the fall. One interesting nugget:

The Post-ABC poll suggests that Dean’s recent surge has come disproportionately from Democrats who do not closely identify with their party. In mid-October, Dean claimed the support of one in six Democratic-leaning independents and an equal proportion of party rank and file. Today, he gets significantly more support from independent Democrats (35 percent) than he does from party faithful (26 percent).

Dean is remaking the Democrats. And it’s hard to see how the establishment stops him without tearing their party apart.

NEXT, SYRIA: The Blair government tries to build on its diplomatic success with Libya to put new pressure on Syria. Good luck talking France into it. Meanwhile, de Villepin is trying hard to spin his country’s complete marginalization with regard to Libya:

M de Villepin rejected suggestions that France lost face by being kept out of the diplomatic loop, arguing that it was a perfect example of his vision of an interdependent, multi-polar world at work. “It is only natural that those who are best placed at a given moment to use their capabilities to the common good do so, as long as their action is of an unquestionably multilateral nature.”… Even the normally pro-government Le Figaro described the Libyan deal as a “semi-failure” for France, which has been against tough action against rogue states. Annick Lepetit, the Socialist party spokesman, said it signified “the isolation of France and French diplomacy in an area where it is traditionally influential”.

as Glenn would say: Heh.

A CLASS ACT: More news about my hero of the year from 2002, Pat Tillman.

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD: The American “Family” Association, a virulent anti-gay group, decided to hold an online poll in order to prve to members of Congress that the public was appalled at the idea that gay couples should have the right to marry the person they love. Then word got out and lots of people began to participate. Guess which side is winning …

SOUTH PARK REPUBLICANS: A lovely email I just received about boomer idiocy:

While having a beer at a neighborhood bar/restaurant in NYC’s West Village last weekend, I was party to a situation that I think you’ll find directly on point.
Three mid-50’s liberals were going on about the capture of Saddam; how it was a conspiracy, that the president knew where he was at all times and picked a politically opportune moment to capture him, it was all about the oil, etc.
The mid-20’s girl sitting next to them broke from her conversation to chime in with the following, “I wish 60’s sensibilities had stayed there. Someone points a gun in your face and you think ‘My Fault’, when you should be thinking ‘You just picked the wrong fight’. Get your heads out of your asses”.
They responded with dismissive claims about Republicans and tourists from the midwest.
She replied with, “One, I’ve grew up in Brooklyn. Two, I voted for Gore — but I’ll sure as hell take W. over someone who thinks the French are the height of moral authority and without ulterior motive.”
I asked her out on the spot, and have a date for this Friday. Foxy, Cunning, and Fearless — wish me luck!

Er, good luck!

Lovely detail from their miserable editorial on the Gaddafi reversal:

We can also question why France was absent from Libya’s aggiornamento [modernization; becoming current]. The dawn of a new strategic reality in the Middle East is accompanied by a considerable and dangerous division between Europe and the United States.”

Translation: you screwed up and now you’re left out. How hard is that to understand?

From the Guardian today:

This was not achieved by military power, by invasion, by shredding inter national law, by enforced regime change or by large-scale bloodshed. Nor, in fact, despite Mr Bush’s eagerness for plaudits, was it primarily achieved by his administration at all. It was achieved by discussion – by endless talk, mostly in London, latterly in Libya, and finally in a London gentlemen’s club. Boring perhaps, but effective; and here, with shock and awe, is a lesson for the Pentagon to absorb. Here is a measure of the true worth of the diplomacy espoused by Mr Cook and others. It bore fruit in Iran last week, another country which Britain refuses to join the US in ostracising. It could yet produce results in Syria, another low-grade WMD state, and in North Korea, if only senior US officials would stop threatening them.

That poor Assad and that needy victim, Kim Jong-Il. They’d be ready for membership of the EU if only Washington would stop threatening them. But my favorite detail is the Guardian’s deployment of the phrase “war of terror.” I wish it were a Freudian slip.

IN DENIAL II: Hmmm. The New York Times runs a big story on the journalistic friends of Conrad Black, media mogul in ethical rapids. They detail how some leading conservatives have been paid handsomely on Black’s “advisory boards” while not disclosing their payments. Who does that remind you of? Two years ago, it was revealed that Enron – yes, Enron – had been lavishing huge sums on friendly journalists, including the New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman. The NYT – despite devoting enormous resources to the Enron story – deliberately ignored the journalism angle. Krugman still hasn’t disclosed the tens of thousands of thinly-veiled bribes he got from Enron, while he postures absurdly as a foe of the powerful. The New York Times never ran a stand-alone story about the affair, despite the fact that the majority of the journalists coopted by Enron were on the right. They cannot now say that this was a non-story. They have treated the Black friendships and “payments” as a real story. The disparate treatment is yet another example of how the NYT under Howell Raines wasn’t just biased and slightly nuts. It was corrupt.

I loved this quote from Clare Short, former Blair minister, now bitter old lefty:

“Any pretence that this means that the tactics of their so-called war on terror are succeeding is sadly false. Obviously the news about Gadaffi is welcome, but it has been a long process, and any suggestion that events in Libya are linked to the war in Iraq is unfounded. The co-ordination of the Blair-Bush press conferences claiming a big success in the war on terror has a pathetic tone that reflects Blair’s desperation and the two men’s continuing belief that they can prosecute their war with half-truths and deceptions.”

Did you crack a smile? Even the NYT had to give some credit to the Bush-Blair leadership that got us here. Add in the capture of Saddam – and the comparative calm in Iraq since – and we may have reached a mile-stone in the war on terror. It’s a good moment to re-state that much criticism of the Bush-Blair policy has distorted it. Neither London nor Washington has eschewed diplomacy these past three years. Both leaders tried manfully to get the United Nations to sanction the much-needed liberation of Iraq. Both have cooperated in keeping pressure on Iran and North Korea without resort to arms. Both have engaged diplomatically in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan has made their diplomacy far, far more credible. Hence the slow climb-down of the French, Germans and Russians over Iraqi debt. Hence Iran’s reluctant acceptance of nuke inspectors. Hence Gaddafi’s volte-face. Hence, the cracking of the Iraqi Baathist thugs who were not amenable to the softly-softly approach during Ramadan. What Bush and Blair realize is that you need to talk but you also need to show strength – especially in the Arab world. Theirs’ is neither a crazed unilateralism nor a shoot-first diplomacy. It’s a pragmatic but determined combination of talk and walk – with the goal of keeping terror and WMDs at arms length from us. So far, so good. There’s a long, long way ahead. But I feel more confident about the war now than at any time since that awful day. I’m not saying we’re past the worst. I don’t know. But I do know we’re making headway. That wasn’t inevitable. And I know who deserves praise for getting us here; and who tried hardest to stop it.

An astonishingly bad piece in the New York Times yesterday on marriage and the proposed constitutional amendment. At its heart was the following assertion:

President Bush had been noncommittal about a constitutional amendment immediately after the Massachusetts ruling, with the administration worried that support for a ban on gay marriage would alienate moderate voters. But last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, “I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that.” The statement signals the White House’s increasing confidence that it can exploit the matter in the presidential campaign, both to energize its evangelical supporters and to discredit the eventual Democratic nominee.

One small problem: the president did not say that. He said: “If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment…” In the context of religious right demands for immediate support for the FMA, that’s a big difference. He also went on to support states’ rights in the matter of codifying relationships. That isn’t just my spin; anti-gay marriage conservatives voiced disappointment with the president’s statement. Even the gay press focused on Bush’s deliberate ambiguity, putting the critical words “if necessary” in the headlines. To ignore all that context and then to lop off two critical words from a presidential sentence is to commit what amounts to a lie about Bush’s position. Why?

THE NYT COCOON: A good question. If you reported the actual quote, you’d have to explain Bush’s nuanced and obfuscatory position. If you did that, you couldn’t run a simple Bush-is-evil-and-the-hicks-out-there-are-all-bigots story. You couldn’t claim that the White House was exploiting this issue (with no evidence and not even a blind quote to back it up). But this anti-Bush line is more important to the NYT than the truth. That’s why seven out of ten quotes are anti-marriage equality; and the piece doesn’t mention the enormous age polarization – with the young favoring marriage equality and seniors being horrified by it. That’s also why Elder and Seelye can describe 55 percent support for an amendment as “strong.” Huh? It’s worth recalling that the flag-burning amendment was supported by around 80 percent of the public, and the balanced budget amendment by around 85 percent – and yet both failed. Isn’t 55 percent support therefore actually weak for an amendment to the Constitution? Isn’t the fact that a third of Republicans oppose the amendment significant? What’s almost funny about the piece is that it takes five paragraphs until we get to the 55 percent number. And the language gets weaker as it goes along. Support goes from “strong” in the headline to “widespread” later and then the data shows that in the Northeast and West, the amendment barely makes the 50 percent mark or slips below it. Strong? Dan Drezner isn’t the only one who takes exception. I know it’s Christmas, and editors are away or hung-over from the office party. But this degree of shoddy journalism is inexcusable. It’s a good test for the new ombudsman. Email Dan Okrent at public@nytimes.com and demand a correction but more importantly an explanation for the doctored quote. Someone somewhere at the Times looked at the original statement and consciously truncated it to alter its meaning – in the lead story on the front page of the Sunday New York Times. Then they spun and distorted the rest of the piece to fit. Who will be held accountable?

Will they now try and sue him?

An interesting position from Wesley Clark:

And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we’ll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have. We’ll bring you in.

The right of first refusal. I’m with Clark on consultation and on building the U.S. alliance in Europe. But first refusal? That’s tantamount to Howard Dean’s view that we should seek the “permission” of the United Nations before military action. Permission? But my deeper problem is that Clark doesn’t seem to have moved beyond the Europe of the Cold War. Things were different then. France and Germany had the Soviet Union breathing down their necks. The EU was far smaller than it is today and will be tomorrow. The truth is: Rummy was right. There are now two Europes – the core Europe of France, Germany and the Benelux countries, and the periphery that is growing faster and is far more comfortable with the U.S alliance. Draw a circle: Britain, Poland, Italy, Spain are the big ones. Throw in the Baltics and Turkey and you have a real alliance. So let’s keep our contacts with the core but let’s also reach out to the new Europe. Clark is stuck in the past. Bush has dragged us into the future.

THE TRULY NOBLE: An amazing scoop from the Sunday Times of London (whose website is pay-only for non-Brits, alas). It’s a list of notable Brits who have turned down royal honors – either medals or knighthoods. They include: the cook Nigella Lawson, actors Honor Blackman and Alastair Sim, writers JB Priestley, Graham Greene and Roald Dahl, as well as David Bowie, Isaiah Berlin, Helen Mirren and Lucian Freud. I’m impressed. the British honors system, whereby ordinary people of extraordinary ability or achievement are turned into pseudo-lords and ladies or given some medal of honor by the “British Empire” is a horrifying instance of the hold that class snobbery still has on Britain. In my view, the whole system should be abolished. But how immeasurably cool to have turned down the chance to become a “lord”. And even cooler to have kept quiet about it until a leak revealed it. The refuseniks are the true British heroes; not the establishment toadies.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “The Wise Woman had words that she muttered to herself, so that you couldn’t hear what they were, and if she tied a bit of red thread round the child’s toe the while, it would keep off the water in the head. There were women in Raveloe, at that present time, who had worn one of the Wise Woman’s little bags round their necks, and, in consequence, had never had an idiot child, as Ann Coulter had.” – George Eliot, ahead of her time, in “Silas Marner,” Chapter 2, 1861.