Month: December 2003

Is there a link? The Telegraph claims it has a new document proving it. Money quote:

“We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam’s involvement with al-Qaeda,” said [Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq’s ruling seven-man Presidential Committee]. “But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks.”

One of the most significant aspects of capturing Saddam will be the removal of fear of his personal reprisal. We could begin to have a breakthrough in intelligence. Who knows what we will eventually find? I predict: evidence that will make this war seem even more justified than ever. Maureen Dowd must be relieved she’s on vacation.

Some photos of joy. This is their day – not ours. But they and we know who made this happen – and who tried to stop it.

The capture of Saddam is, of course, a transformative event. The hole in which he was discovered – and those bedraggled, hobo-like photos – re-emphasize his humiliation, and can only discourage his erstwhile allies trying to restore his gang of thugs to power. But this is a moment not merely for jubilation. Take a moment to recall the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children murdered, tortured, or sent to certain deaths by this monster. Take a moment to consider those who also lost their lives deposing him. In the end, even Chirac and Schroder and Putin couldn’t save him. And the renewed focus on the single most important Iraqi weapon of mass destruction – Saddam himself – will help remind the world of the great, moral achievement of this war; and the unprecedented humanitarian effort that is now underway. No time for hubris. But plenty of time to remember what this war was about; and why it is still eminently worth winning. Congratulations, Mr President and Mr Prime Minister. In the end, this war will be viewed as your greatest achievement.

SADDAMFREUDE WATCH: Readers are invited to send in the most strained and mealy-mouthed statements from the devastated press and anti-war politicians and activists following the capture of Saddam. First up: Saddam’s paid-up British anti-war activist, George Galloway:

“This will not stop the Iraqi resistance. if anything, it may set the resistance free, if you like, from the cloud of Saddam Hussein, and transform it into a purely national resistance movement without the charge that it’s being controlled from behind by the deposed president.”

Galloway must be worried sick about what Saddam might tell the coalition. So must Chirac.

The plucky Spanish and Poles stick to their guns and help derail a new constitution for the EU. Good news for the U.S. But the process isn’t over. Old Europe will try to put it back together again. Instant analysis: the 25 state EU is unmanageable. It either has to become a far more integrated political and economic unit or it will fracture. Given the fact that even France and Germany cannot abide by the fiscal rules they themselves insisted upon only a few years ago, the chances of a real unraveling are not as low as they once were. Here’s hoping.

HOMOSEXUALITY AND CIVILIZATION: Nice Ed Rothstein review of Louis Crompton’s excellent new book, “Homosexuality and Civilization.” Crompton is not a pomo polemicist, so you don’t have to wade through yet another man’s attempt to understand Michel Foucault to read some actual history. Crompton’s critical insight is the same as John Boswell’s: Foucault’s notion that homosexuality only really emerged as such in the late nineteenth century is either semantics or idiocy. Same-sex love – yes love – has been around since the dawn of time. Pauline Christianity (not Jesus) is mainly responsible for treating it as the equivalent of murder. Reading through Crompton’s book this week, I was reminded of a passage from Montaigne (which is corroborated elsewhere) of gay marriages in Renaissance Italy. It would be flattering to believe that a few neocon homos (ahem) were the first to come up with this idea in the late 1980s, but it’s untrue. Here’s what was going on in the late 16th century:

On my return from Saint Peter’s I met a man who informed me humorously of two things: that the Portuguese made their obeisance to the Pope in Passion week; and then, that on this same day the station was at San Giovanni Porta Latina, in which church a few years before certain Portuguese had entered into a strange brotherhood. They married one another, male to male, at Mass, with the same ceremonies with which we perform our marriage services, the same marriage gospel service, and then went to bed and lived together. The Roman wits said that because in the other conjunction, of male with female, this circumstance alone makes it legitimate, it had seemed to these sharp folk that this other action would become equally legitimate if they authorized it with ceremonies and mysteries of the Church. Eight or nine Portuguese of this fine sect were burned.

These were the first martyrs that we know of to the movement for same-sex marriage – in the 1570s. Of course, they were regarded as absurd and wicked. But notice how Montaigne – whose love for another man is celebrated in his extraordinay essay, ‘De L’Amitie,” – describes the sect of gay husbands as “fine.” If you want to read more about the long, subterranean history of gay marriage, check out my anthology on the subject, which has a long, and detailed historical section.

It was no surprise that the big media did all they could to ignore the pro-democracy marches in Baghdad this week. Sure, they can say they weren’t massive; but even a tiny demo in favor of the insurgents would have won front-page coverage. Isn’t this a good first question to ask Dan Okrent, by the way? But another story has been buried for partisan reasons. Bush’s latest environmental move – reducing emissions from Midwest power plants by a hefty amount – has received the usual cold shoulder from the NYT and WaPo. Over to Gregg Easterbrook, who has built up a great record of dealing with the actual facts of environmental policy:

All in all, Bush’s announcement sounds progressive and important. So how did the media play it? The New York Times, which has had the incredible, super-ultra menace of Midwest power plants on page one perhaps a dozen times since Bush took office, put the plan to end the problem on page A24. The Times story was a small box cryptically headlined. “E.P.A. Drafts New Rules for Emissions From Power Plants.” The Washington Post put the story on page two but under the headline, “E.P.A. Aims to Change Pollution Rules,” suggesting something ominous, adding the subhead, “Utilities Could Buy Credits From Cleaner-Operating Power Plants,” neglecting to add that credits could be purchased only if the result was an overall decline in pollution.
The proper placement for this story was page one–where the anti-Bush environmental stories always run–and the proper headline was, BUSH ORDERS DRAMATIC POLLUTION REDUCTION. But you didn’t see that, did you?

No, we didn’t, Gregg. But did you really expect fairness on the environmental issue? For a swathe of reporters, this is not a matter of empirical reporting; it’s a matter of faith. Bush cannot be pro-environment because he’s Bush. (By the way, you can buy Gregg’s new book, “The Progress Paradox,” here.)

ONE LAST PITCH: This is my last plea for funding for 2004. You know the spiel by now. The only source of funding for this site is you. When you add up the growing expenses of a blog that reaches well over 400,000 people a month and the time and energy spent putting it all together, it’s not cheap. In fact, it has largely displaced a large amount of my paid work. If you care about the site, the viability of blogging as a professional enterprise, and want to be a part of it, please throw a little change into the tip-jar. I’m immensely grateful to all of you who have helped so far – especially those of you who have been along for the ride from the very beginning. If you’ve thought about giving but have put it off so far, please don’t put it off any longer. It takes a minute. And it will keep the site alive for another year. Click here for more info. And thanks again.

ANOTHER ‘ANGELS’ REVIEW: “I turned it off after the first hour. As a socially progressive Republican from a Catholic background, I was looking forward to what promised to be a nice mix of spirituality and commentary on one of our most pressing cultural issues. It wasn’t the leftist propaganda that turned me off – although that certainly didn’t help – but the biggest problem I had with the film was that it was just a bad movie. The scenes of the movie that supposedly brought spirituality into the mix were a convoluted mess that reminded me of a cheesy play. The characters weren’t written poorly, but the screenplay wasn’t written well as a whole. Pacino, of course, carried the movie as much as he could. And the one thing that could have redeemed the film, its attempt at humor, failed miserably – even the supposedly humorous scenes seemed to turn their nose up at the audience. More than anything, it was just a long, drawn out, poorly written film that exuded a holier-than-thou leftist elitism. I just wish critics would have the guts to say so.”

What a relief to hear the president forthrightly defend his decision to bar Germany, France and Russia from competing on Iraq reconstruction contracts. There is a difference between being magnanimous and being a patsy. Germany, France and Russia are completely free to donate money and troops to help Iraq’s transition away from a dictatorship they defended and bankrolled. (They have, of course, delivered nothing.) But, after doing everything they could to undermine the U.S. at the U.N. and elsewhere in order to protect their own favored dictator, they have absolutely no claim on the tax-payers of the United States. The idea that we should reward them for their obstructionism out of our own coffers on the same terms that we are rewarding countries that gave money and lives to help the liberation is a preposterous one. It’s tantamount to inviting exactly the same kind of intransigence and betrayal in the future. France in particular went much further earlier this year and last than simply opposing the U.S. on Iraq. The French government did all it could to rally world opinion, lobby foreign governments, and delay the war to Saddam’s benefit in order to isolate and humiliate the U.S. They didn’t just object; they opposed, plotted and lied to our faces. Forgetting this is absurd. Rewarding it is obscene. The president is right. Let the real allies of the U.S. benefit from the alliance. Let France, Germany and Russia live with the consequences of their own moral bankruptcy and strategic error. The alliance is indeed not what it was. Nor can it be. And the responsibility lies squarely in Paris, Berlin and Moscow.

The Baathist Broadcasting Corporation is going to be subjected to an almost unprecedented national review. About time.

You know that the emperor is sparsely clad when even some of the contributors to the New York Times forums concede they fell asleep in the middle of “Angels in America.” The NYT has devoted week after week and page after page to the most glowing hype about this production I can remember. So did almost every other major outlet. I read nothing but raves. (No, I haven’t watched it yet. I just got cable two days ago. But I will try and slog through it this Sunday, as I did with the original, interminable stage production.) But the ratings were execrable, despite the massive hype. Hmmm. Could it be that Frank Rich is wrong, and that this pretentious left-wing screed is, er, just a pretentious left-wing screed?

BEYOND RED AND BLUE: Here’s a map that tries to make sense of American regional politics without the red-and-blue dichotomy. Worth a gander.

I missed this priceless exchange about Howard Dean’s faith, until prodded by Jay Nordlinger:

WOODRUFF: Was it just over a bike path that you left the Episcopal Church?

DEAN: Yes, as a matter of fact it was. I was fighting to have public access to the waterfront, and we were fighting very hard in the citizens group to allow the public to use it. And this particular diocese decided to join a property rights suit to close it down. I didn’t think that was very public spirited. One thing I feel about religion, you have to be very careful not to be a hypocrite if you’re a religious person. It is really tough to preach one thing and do something else. And I don’t think you can do that.

WOODRUFF: And you don’t believe, Governor, the Republicans are going to have a field day with comments like these?

DEAN: The Republicans always have a field day with things like this. That’s the reason Democrats lose, is because they’re so afraid of the Republicans having a field day with comments like this or like that, that they never make any comments.

But what strikes me about this is not Dean’s godlessness. I don’t think that kind of thing should be a factor in presidential politics. What strikes me is how Waspy this whole thing is. A certain type of Episcopalian is precisely likely to decide his denomination on the basis of a bike path. If we have a contest between Dean and Bush, we’ll have a choice between a WASP who’s unashamed of his origins and a WASP who has abandoned them. Take it away, Tom Wolfe.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “For 50 years, Iraq went without freedom and democracy. You can’t make it happen in three weeks, three months or three years. It takes time.” – young Iraqi, Atheed Al-Naimy, quoted in an interesting report from Iraq yesterday by Bill Johnson. One simple question: after six months, why are there still gas lines in Iraq?

A paleo-con comes out and says that same-sex marriage should be banned entirely for Biblical reasons. Since the Bible is the source of all moral truth, no human “reason” should stand in its way. Here’s a fisking of the article. I, for one, am delighted to see the real reasons for some opposition to civil marriage rights for gay citizens. For some on the far right, the notion of a separation of church and state is anathema. And they are the prime movers behind amending the Constitution on theocratic lines.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I don’t think you’ve addressed the issue, but I felt a need to comment on current ramblings of various writers (read: Bob Novak) denigrating Howard Dean for his raising the theory that GWB knew about 9/11 before it occurred. Both Howard Dean and I think the allegation is ridiculous, and Dean wasn’t saying he thought it was true. He was just suggesting we could avoid a JFK assassination-like conspiracy-theory-for-the-ages if the Bush Administration was a little more forthcoming. However, that is not the reason for this missive. Instead, I find it amazing that people are so horrified that Dean would raise the issue. Some of these people are the same ones who demanded Vince Foster’s death be investigated five times, because they were sure the Clinton’s were involved. In fact, the Supreme Court is deciding whether photos of Mr. foster’s dead body should be released to an attorney who still claims there was a massive coverup. I am still waiting for the outrage at the implied accusation that the President of the United States was complicit in a murder. Or how about the continued claims that Clinton put Americans and others at risk in the Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq for political cover? Where is the disgust at accusing the President of the United States of a potentially treasonous act? I think we all know what Dean was really trying to say. But even if he was making a veiled accusation, there aren’t many on the right with the moral authority and consistency of outrage to convincingly make it an issue.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

MILITARY BLOGS: A place where they all come together.