Year: 2003

“For some reason or another, a series of enormously important issues – the future of the Middle East, the credibility of the United States as both a strong and a moral power, the war against the Islamic fundamentalists, the future of the U.N. and NATO, our own politics here at home – now hinge on America’s efforts at creating a democracy out of chaos in Iraq. That is why so many politicians – in the U.N., the EU, Germany, France, the corrupt Middle East governments, and a host of others – are so strident in their criticism, so terrified that in a postmodern world the United States can still recognize evil, express moral outrage, and then sacrifice money and lives to eliminate something like Saddam Hussein and leave things far better after the fire and smoke clear. People, much less states, are not supposed to do that anymore in a world where good is a relative construct, force is a thing of the past, and the easy life is too precious to be even momentarily interrupted. We may expect that, a year from now, the last desperate card in the hands of the anti-Americanists will be not that Iraq is democratic, but that it is democratic solely through the agency of the United States – a fate worse than remaining indigenously murderous and totalitarian.” – Victor Davis Hanson, on a roll.

Get your Ann Coulter doll now. And a few pins.

Two oddities leaped out at me this morning, reading the (much improved) New York Times. The first was the Machiavellian assertion that Donald Rumsfeld leaked his own memo. here’s the editorial:

Mr. Rumsfeld is a canny player who knows exactly what he is doing when he drafts internal memos and makes them public.

This would be big news. So what evidence does the NYT have for it? The original leak was to USA Today. Does the NYT know something about USA Today’s source? Or is this just made up? Then there was this nugget in Alessandra Stanley’s review of the pro-Stalin BBC miniseries romanticizing the treachery of various British Communist spies in the 1930s and after:

The script barely mentions what was really happening in Stalin’s Soviet Union at that time. (The one heads-up: the K.G.B. handler Otto is recalled to Moscow and lets Philby know it is a death sentence.) But given the fact that during the purges of the 1930’s neither they nor almost anyone else in the West really knew, or wanted to know, it is perhaps understandable.

This is absurd. Several honest reporters revealed the extent of Stalin’s butchery at the time; Walter Duranty knew about it but lied; the brilliant Cambridge traitors have no excuse whatever for supporting totalitarian despotism when it was right in front of their eyes. Stanley also has a throw-away line that awareness of the horrors of mass starvation, gulags and millions of deaths is somehow a function of mere “neocon indignation,” and that fashion now countenances anti-anti-Stalin nostalgia. The glibness is sickening. Can you imagine a New York Times reviewer being so sanguine about a movie that romanticized spies for Nazi Germany? Or explained horror at the Holocaust as a function of “neocon indignation”? How about human indignation? How about human horror?

Nelson Ascher takes on Tony Judt.

Lightning hits Mel Gibson’s movie about the Passion – again. Hmmm.

THE SEARCH FOR THE LEAKER: It’s getting serious, according to the Onion.

AN ANSWER: Here’s a genuine response to the question I asked in my Wall Street Journal piece. A leading Catholic bishop endorses some civil benefits to protect the children of gay couples. Not enough, in my view, but a humane and civil alternative. So David Frum is now more anti-gay than a Catholic bishop.

GALLOWAY EXPELLED: The traitor and dictator-lover finally gets the boot from the Labour Party.

Two Tory takes on the centenary of Evelyn Waugh. One from Geoffrey Wheatcroft and one from Bill Deedes.

FEMALE HELL: The awful and apparently growing phenomenon of gang-rape in France’s immigrant enclaves.

KRUGMAN RE-GROUPS: You can tell he’s worried that the economy is picking up and that his predictions of complete catastrophe might seem a little extreme in retrospect. So he’s spinning the future. I guess it’s better than distorting the past.

Slate’s Fred Kaplan has sadly become the Krugman of the anti-war brigade. His weirdest claim is that Rummy’s memo puts the lie to the notion of progress in Iraq. Huh? The memo was designed to look as critically as possible at general progress in the war on terror. In no way does it deny progress in Iraq toward stabilization and democratization. In classic Rummy fashion, it simply tries to prod his bureaucracy out of complacency. That’s his style. You only have to spend a few minutes debating him to see that. To argue that the memo

reads eerily like some internal mid-’60s document from The Pentagon Papers that spelled out how badly things were going in Vietnam (just as President Lyndon B. Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, were publicly proclaiming tunnel light and victories).

gets it exactly the wrong way round. It’s this kind of tough self-questioning that makes this unlike Vietnam. And the notion that this is the first time that Rumsfeld has asked such questions strikes me as fantasy. Rumsfeld has been asking questions from the day he became secretary of defense. And his assessment, after invading two countries, that “we have not yet made truly bold moves” against terrorism is extremely encouraging. He knows we have to find many, many more of these thugs and kill them. In Iraq, we’re finally getting a chance. (There’s a great email on the Letters Page making a similar point today. Don’t miss it.)

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “At Cambridge University, where I attended law school in England, the Jews exist in a state of perpetual vigilance and, often, fear of personal harm. As an American Jew I was used to wearing a kipa (yarmulke, beanie, skullcap, bowl-o’-soup, whatever) walking around town. Wearing a kipa in public anywhere is mentally exhausting; one is always conscious of people watching you, treating you like a stranger, making jokes as soon as they think you are out of earshot. Even in New York, where Jews of all kinds are everywhere, you feel people look at you and treating you differently than, for instance, if you wear a baseball hat.
But in Cambridge it was like I had a bullseye on my head. Not a week went by that something didn’t happen – curses from a group of Middle-Eastern looking “blokes” on the street, laughing references about the “cross you have to bear” from other students, white hot abuse about being a “Zionist Nazi” from a middle-aged white woman boycotting Sainsbury’s. Once, memorably, I got hit with a piece of raw potato and turned just in time to hear the sniggers of “shalom!” as the window of a restaurant kitchen banged shut.
At first I thought it must just be the townies, local “yobs” who resent the privileged, snooty University students and would often try to make themselves as unpleasant as possible. But, as more and more of these little happenings piled up, it became clear that Jew harrassment was one of the few entertainments in Cambridge that was not defined by class or educational background. When I discussed this with my friends in the Jewish Society (JSOC), they were completely nonchalant. I was stunned to hear that every single one had, at one time or another in their youth, been chased, threatened or beaten for being Jewish in the towns where they grew up. In one memorable case, a kid had been stabbed with a butcher knife, when he was 15 years old, by a man on a bus in Manchester.” Can you imagine what they have to deal with in France? More feedback on the Letters Page.

This one-liner from her Washington Post online chat:

Brooklyn, N.Y.: Tina: Could you please explain the difference between “hot” and “v-hot?” Do you think that in this current phase of your career you’re v-hot or hot, or are you always v-hot?
Tina Brown: Steaming, darling.

Brown and steaming? Darling? I liked this exchange as well:

New York, N.Y.: Hi Tina: Congratulations and best of luck with the new endeavours. Q: In a recent interview President Bush said something like he doesn’t read newspapers or watch TV news because he has people do that and report to him. Do you think it’s a little dangerous to have the man in charge having his news put through the only-good-news-for-the-president filter?
Tina Brown: Maybe he spends his day reading bloggs

And maybe he doesn’t.

Guess what? I just got an email from Priceline! Here it is:

Dear ANDREW SULLIVAN,
A refund has been placed on the credit card you provided to us upon submitting your request.
Your refund for a total of 4 out of 5 night(s) will be posted by your credit card company within the next 15 business days.
Please remember, this refund has been a one-time exception and priceline reservations cannot be cancelled, changed or refunded in the future.
Thank you,
priceline.com Customer Service

To all of you who may have written about this or sent an email or generally kicked up a fuss, I’m most grateful. And Priceline gets points as well.

A sharp little piece by Katie Roiphe in Slate both skewers Susan Estrich and praises her. The journey from the Anita Hill hearings to the Schwarzenegger election is indeed a revealing one for feminism in America. During that period, and especially during the Clinton wars, I gradually realized that my early support for sexual harassment laws was too crude, and that the consequences of such laws – the legal asault on privacy – were far worse than the evil they were trying to prevent or ameliorate. By that time, of course, I loathed Clinton, but I realized a limited defense of his sexual privacy (if not his perjury) was actually a truly conservative position. We all learned something in that decade, I think. Roiphe’s best point, however, is her last:

What the evolution of Estrich’s views does tell us though, is that the kind of burning melodrama that surrounds sexual issues vanishes as quickly as it appears; that a woman who can write passionately about “women’s silence” one minute can later take a man’s side. It is precisely the opinions that seem the most rigid, absolute, and emotional that are subject to the whims of fashion.

Ah, yes. But only if they haven’t been thought through. Sometimes, absolute and emotional responses are legitimate and right, as long as they are also intelligent. If they’re not, they’re just a secular form of fundamentalism.

THE RUMMY MEMO: It’s the most reassuring statement on the terror war I’ve yet read. The important thing about any administration in its third year is that it not be complacent, that it not be in denial, and that it ask tough questions of itself. Rumsfeld sure is no McNamara. And if I were a terrorist, I’d be alarmed at how earnest the U.S. government now is about tackling the threat. Of course, a MoDo column ridiculing this is now inevitable. Which is more indication that it’s an encouraging sign.

ANTI-SEMITISM WATCH: Right here, in the U.S. This story alarmed me, I have to say:

One of my friends is a guy I met in grad school a few years ago. He’s a lawyer that practices IP law and was pursuing a MS in Computer Science to further his knowledge of programming. He is brilliant. Went to U of Chicago undergrad, then Northwestern University Law. He works for one of the biggest law firms in the world…

And, according to this blog, at least, he has Mahathir-like views. For the rest of the story, click here.