Month: June 2004

If you want to see how depraved the far left has become, read this disgusting thread on Democratic Underground. I wish I could be surprised. Meanwhile, at an ANSWER march – the main organization behind the anti-war movement rallies – cheers go up at the news.

I’ll write more tomorrow. He was the greatest president since FDR, a man who did more than restore America’s self-confidence and defeat the great lie of Communism. He re-conjured our understanding of the central, animating role of liberty in human affairs. He saw that what was strangling America was the suffocation of big government and high taxation; he paid respect to religion but never turned Republicanism into what it is today – a repository for sectarian scolding; he saw that the use of military force was sometimes necessary to defeat tyranny; and that the greatest weapon against the creeping march of cynicism was self-confidence and optimism. With Margaret Thatcher and Karol Wojtyla, he changed the course of world history for the better. He was the towering figure of my adolescence, a beacon of hope in what was a brutally debilitating time. I’ll be lucky if I live to see another political leader of his stature, grace or fortitude. May he rest in the peace he brought to so many others, and in the joy he so richly deserves.

REAGAN II: “It takes time to recognize greatness and it sometimes appears in the oddest of forms. A B-actor from Hollywood, a cold fish, a man unknown even to his own children at times, a hack-radio announcer for General Electric, and easily the finest president of the last fifty years. When he dies, this country will go into shock. For Americans know in their hearts that this unlikely man understood the deepest meaning of their country in a way no-one else has done for a generation. He gave them purpose again, and in return they still give him love. For what it’s worth, let me now add my own.” – from my appreciation of the great man in 2001.

“Dear ‘Freak’ (your word not mine):
In response to your rhetorical question ‘what were opponents supposed to do?’
How about this option:
Accept the judges’ decision as good law-abiding citizens and go about their lives. It’s now been several weeks since gays were legally wed in Massachusetts and I have yet to find a single heterosexual marriage that has crumbled because of this historic event. I have yet to find ANY heterosexual whose life has been significantly altered in any way.
Yes, I really don’t need love to sanctify my love for my partner either. In fact, I don’t think any couple needs the sanctity of marriage to tell them what they already know. What I do need are the legal rights that come along with that “sanctity.” It seems to me you are confusing the terms “marriage” and “civil unions.” I could care less about the religious blessing and guess what —- we’re not invading people’s churches and demanding acceptance. This is a pure government, civil argument. So, if you need to separate “marriage” as a church function go right ahead. But please do not concede any civil rights for me and my partner.
One more thing – the following quote of your really irked me:
“If marriage is primarily about a family, then it excludes ALL gays, except those who inseminate and hire surrogates which I believe is drastically wrong when there are needy children who can be adopted.”
So, families with adopted children should not be considered a family? Infertile heterosexuals should be denied marriage? What exactly are you saying? How about infertile heterosexual couples who hire a surrogate to have children?”

The New York Times’ Edward Wong has provided some great reporting from Iraq but occasionally, he writes material that has one scratching one’s head. Here’s a classic:

“Still, there were some who derided this government, just like the old Governing Council, as a puppet of the American occupation. And all the Iraqis who were interviewed said they wanted the interim government to have full sovereign powers, a demand that is being debated at the United Nations. It is irreconcilable with the Bush administration’s position that the new officials be endowed with only very limited powers.”

Funny. I haven’t read anywhere of the Bush administrration severely restricting the ability of various Iraqis to run their own ministries, control their own police forces, use their own revenues, etc. Yes, there’s some delicate negotiation about the Iraqi control of other countries’ armed forces – but tha strikes me as far from the notion that the new rulers “be endowed with only very limited powers.” Wong’s piece is, in fact, very heartening for the Bush administration, which is why, perhaps, Wong felt it incumbent to find some way to spin it as a failure or as a conflict between Iraqis and Washington. So here’s the question: what does Wong mean by “very limited powers?” Could he or the New York Times elaborate?

I came across a very vivid blog by a photographer in Iraq, Stephanie Sinclair. Her despair at the chaos in Baghdad is moving, especially since she is no apologist for Saddam and a lukewarm war-supporter. What I think we may have missed is how the poor security situation made everything so much worse – made coalition soldiers jumpy and trigger-happy, which alienated Iraqis even more, which fed more distrust, and so on. The mistake was early on – when order was not restored after liberation, the borders were left unsealed, and mayhem allowed to unfold. We are still recovering from that early Rumsfeld-designed disaster. Then there is the impact of terrorism in Iraq itself:

I had the misfortune of spending the last two days stepping around pieces of dead bodies after two suicide bombers detonated themselves outside a police station and army recruiting facility in Iskandariyah and then in Baghdad. I can’t really begin to explain what it is like to see this type of pain and suffering and carnage. Even worse, I can’t even imagine what it must be like for the families that had to go to the morgue and sift through decapitated bodies, torsos without limbs, burned bits of clothing to identify their brother or son. I just sat there wondering how I would feel if I had to see someone I loved burnt and in pieces. It hurts to just write that and this was the reality for more than 100 families here in Iraq this week. To say it is sad is an understatement. One young guy in his 20s showed up at the morgue and was so upset he could barely stand because he was shaking so badly, overcome with fear and grief. Another young Iraqi police officer went into convulsions while watching the bodies being moved around, falling into a pile of burnt debris and garbage. This was worse than anything I saw during my experience covering the war. The most frightening part of all this is the local response to the explosions. At each scene Iraqi civilians accused the Americans of staging the attacks. In Iskandariyah hundreds of people were convinced that an American plane shot a missile at people applying for jobs the police station. Then they said that the police were cowards for cooperating with the Americans and started breaking the windows of one of the new police cars. Shortly afterwards a police officer shot about 30 gunshots in the air to disperse the crowd and of course at least one bullet hit a bystander and they had to be taken to the hospital. At the second site, the locals claimed the American soldiers set off the explosion and that is why all the soldiers were behind the concrete barrier when it happened, resulting in Iraqi casualties only. Of course this is crazy Iraqi talk, but it shows the lack to trust the local people have in the coalition forces here. Even Alaa started to wonder if this was as true and he is a college graduate who speaks three languages and has so far loved the Americans. The whole situation here is worrisome.

With any luck, the new government will ease this problem.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY: “The only way we ever found [Saddam] is finally somebody put enough pressure on enough people to find out that somebody had an idea where somebody might know somebody who might know somebody who would know where he might have been,” – Donald Rumsfeld, in classic form.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Here I am, your freak. A proud gay man who votes Republican more than not, and will be voting for Bush. I don’t give a rat’s ass about the Federal Marriage Amendment because gay people suddenly think it’s fine for judges to impose their beliefs as law. They forced this. Instead of letting the American people decide (and there’s a good chance they’d have decided in our favor), they had people imposing their views, forcing people who were against it, feeling powerless, to play the same way. How can you not acknowledge this? I am not saying two wrongs make a right, I am saying this – what were opponents supposed to do? I don’t agree with the FMA (doesn’t seem like reason enough to amend the constitution) but it isn’t illegal and I understand where it’s coming from. And I don’t need marriage to sanctify my love for my partner. I think civil union benefits makes more sense, it isn’t separate but equal, gays and straights ARE different. If marriage is primarily about a family, then it excludes ALL gays, except those who inseminate and hire surrogates which I believe is drastically wrong when there are needy children who can be adopted. You can’t shove gayness down people’s throats. We’ve had to endure the ugly stereotype of trying to convert straights and now it seems to be realized. Instead of trying to convert them, we want to coopt an ancient tradition that really doesn’t fit homosexuals who don’t procreate and we are utterly intolerant of Christians who don’t break laws but think we’re going to Hell (instead of just saying to Hell with them). Just remember Andrew, there are different types of people out there in the world, please stop painting in such broad strokes. I hope you will print my letter so people can know that gays come in more flavors than they can imagine.” Well, I did. There’s more feedback on the Letters Page.

Hugh Hewitt directed me to this marine’s postings from the area around Fallujah. They’re fascinating. And the latest is particularly revealing:

As far as Falluja goes, we have not been allowed to get back in there with any real numbers yet.-Initially, it was confounding.- However, a very interesting dynamic has developed. Since we have stayed out of Falluja and focused elsewhere, the mujahadeen have had their run of the town.-As they have had no one to fight, they have turned their criminal instincts on the citizens.-The clerics who once were whipping these idiots into a suicidal frenzy are now having to issue Fatwas (holy decrees) admonishing the muj for extortion, rape, murder and kidnapping.-It is unfortunate for the “innocent people” of Falluja but the mujahadeen have betrayed themselves as the thugs that they are by brutalizing the civilians. There are, in fact, reports of rape, etc from inside the town. While the muj are thugging away inside the town, we are about 1/2 mile away paying claims, entering into dialogue and contracting jobs.-The citizens come outside the city for work and money and are treated like human beings.-They go back inside and enter a lawless hell. In short, the muj have done more to show the people what hypocrites they are in a few short weeks than we could have hoped for in a year. The result is more and more targetable intelligence.-If we are given the green light, we can really go to town on these guys (no pun intended).- However, as much as we would like to do just that, the optimal solution is to empower the Iraqis to take care of it themselves. That is precisely what we are doing.

Because of men like this – and my gut belief that people anywhere will choose freedom over slavery, given a real chance – I’m still a proud supporter of this war and an optimist about its future.

WHAT ROVE HATH WROUGHT: I’ve known David Catania for years, and count him as a friend and a bit of a hero. He ran as a white gay Republican in Washington D.C. for the city council and has been re-elected, and become something of a legend in the city. He’s an inclusive, tax-cutting, bureaucracy-terrorizing, rising political star. But he won’t be endorsing George W. Bush in November, for the obvious reason. So he’s been barred from being a delegate to the Convention. Here’s a money quote from an interview in Salon:

Whether or not a few [gay] leaders stay with the party until they drop dead isn’t the issue. The fact of the matter is, there ain’t no there there anymore. The constitutional amendment issue is kind of a watershed moment. It reminds me of the 1964 election, and this is why: In 1960 Richard Nixon won 26 percent of the black vote. We forget that it was 44 years ago, but the Republicans were still winning a quarter of the African-American vote. That went from 26 percent in 1960 to 12 percent in 1964. What made that happen? [Nominee Barry] Goldwater was opposed to the 1963 Civil Rights Act, and the African-American community viewed that as a betrayal. For 40 years, we have never as a party recovered from that.
In 2000 George Bush won 25 percent of the gay vote. You see the parallels? The president decided to trot out a constitutional amendment to remind us, even though we are already reminded daily, that we are second-class citizens. In case we harbored any illusions that we were equal, he wants to write this into the Constitution. He’ll be lucky if he gets 12 percent [of the gay vote] in this election.

12 percent? I’d say 5 percent. Not that Rove cares. There isn’t a pretense any more that gay people are even worthy of consultation in the Republican party. Catania exonerates Bush. I think he’s being too kind. I’ve no doubt that Bush wants to believe he’s a tolerant, nice guy; and I’m sure he conducts himself admirably with people of different backgrounds. But he does not even remotely understand the social revolution of the last two decades. He thinks gay people can be treated as they were in the 1950s and that’s a measure of tolerance. It’s this blindness that rankles. Who, for example, did Bush talk to about the constitutional amendment? Richard John Neuhaus. Did the president talk to a single gay person? Nope. Is there a single gay Republican or gay conservative willing to defend the constitutional amendment? I have yet to find one. I think David under-estimates the extent of the damage.

Here’s Clinton’s apparently subtle description of George W. Bush: “If you go back and read what (Bush) said in the campaign, he’s just doing what he’d said he’d do. You’ve got to give him credit for that.” Huh? Isn’t it the most remarkable fact about this president that he will be remembered primarily as a radical interventionist in foreign policy, while he campaigned in favor of moderate, realist isolationism? And wasn’t he supposed to be a “uniter, not a divider,” reaching out to the socially moderate center? Yet he has governed domestically as a member of the hard-core Christian right and polarized the country more deeply than even under Clinton. Sorry, Bill. Try another back-handed compliment.

I feel bad for not writing about it sooner. It was a terrific call to arms. This passage was particularly affecting:

This is the great challenge of our time, the storm in which we fly. History is once again witnessing a great clash. This is not a clash of civilizations. The civilization of Islam, with its humane traditions of learning and tolerance, has no place for this violent sect of killers and aspiring tyrants. This is not a clash of religions. The faith of Islam teaches moral responsibility that enobles men and women, and forbids the shedding of innocent blood. Instead, this is a clash of political visions. In the terrorists’ vision of the world, the Middle East must fall under the rule of radical governments, moderate Arab states must be overthrown, nonbelievers must be expelled from Muslim lands, and the harshest practice of extremist rule must be universally enforced. In this vision, books are burned, terrorists are sheltered, women are whipped, and children are schooled in hatred and murder and suicide. Our vision is completely different. We believe that every person has a right to think and pray and live in obedience to God and conscience, not in frightened submission to despots. (Applause.) We believe that societies find their greatness by encouraging the creative gifts of their people, not in controlling their lives and feeding their resentments. And we have confidence that people share this vision of dignity and freedom in every culture because liberty is not the invention of Western culture, liberty is the deepest need and hope of all humanity.

But I am still left wanting to hear something deeper: that the president understands where he has gone wrong, why he has made mistakes, and how he is going to correct them. Alongside this stirring speech, with which I agree almost completely, was the president’s bizarre, surreal announcement yesterday that George Tenet was resigning. How can you describe Tenet’s record in the glowing terms that Bush used and hope to retain the kind of credibility you need to be an effective war leader? Instead, the president appeared yet again divorced from anything vaguely representing reality. That is not a good thing for a nation at war. Ask yourself: do you trust Bush to deliver bad war news if it’s necessary and if it requires his taking responsibility for his own failures? I don’t any more. The Democrats bear some responsibility: the way they have exploited the few times the Bushies have admitted error has been a case study in politics conducted by people who really do not grasp the threat we face. But Bush’s response – to clam up, admit nothing, and refuse to take any real responsibility – is very damaging to his credibility and therefore to the war effort as a whole. It’s not a pretty cycle.

The anti-Western left has come up with a new term for a terrorist. It’s “commando.” Check out this strange story on Salon. It’s a memoir of a young Palestinian terrorist by a young woman who knew him while he was being protected in the 1980s by Yugoslavia’s Communist regime. The essay attempts to show how the young man came to recognize at one point the humanity of those Israeli civilians he was about to murder. But the euphemisms in the piece are priceless. Take this sentence:

The recent (and bumbling) Achille Lauro assault, during which young Palestinian commandos hijacked a Mediterranean cruiser and killed an elderly, wheelchair-bound American tourist, coupled with those ghastly shootouts at the Rome and Vienna airports, had made a mockery of the Titoist soft spot for resistance groups and rendered dinner chats with Western diplomats unbearably awkward …

The problem with the Achille Lauro hijacking was that it was “bumbling“? If only they’d killed more Jews more effectively! Notice also that it was somehow “during” the “assault” that a murder took place. Hmmm. Wouldn’t it be more, er, accurate to say that the hijacking occurred in order to murder civilians? Notice also here the unequivocal use of the term “commando” for “terrorist.” One reader emailed me to say he thought that “commandos” were more plausibly viewed as those who try to rescue hostages, not those who try to kill them. Such silly distinctions! Elsewhere in the piece, the terrorists are called “operatives.” Like Valerie Plame. The author knew that her friend was about to kill innocent civilians but glosses over this ugly fact by saying:

Looking back now on that snowy afternoon at Abu Moses’ place, the last time I would see him, it took longer than one might expect for me to comprehend what the trip to Cyprus meant. Indeed, months of denial and doubt.

It appears those months of denial and doubt are now indeed years. And denial has morphed into excuse. And excuse into euphemism. Who is the author? We are told: “D.N. Rosina is the pseudonym of a Bay Area writer now reporting from the Middle East.” So there’s a reporter out there who thinks that terrorists are commandos. Who is she reporting for? Why has she decided to remain anonymous? And why have the editors of Salon decided to grant her that anonymity?

Here’s a revealing sentence from National Review’s profile of Roger Simon, ex-lefty blogger: “[When] it comes to social policy, he continues to lean hard to the left. ‘I’m very liberal on social issues: pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, separation of church and state,’ he says. ‘I think racism and sexism are the greatest evils in the world.'” So allowing women to choose to seek an abortion is now a “hard left” position? And encouraging gay couples to have stable relationships is “hard left”? And being deeply concerned about racism and sexism is “hard left”? I won’t even touch “separation of church and state.” But I will notice that this assertion comes at a time when Karl Rove is deliberately trying to involve church congregations directly in Bush’s re-election effort. Disturbing.

COUNTRY FOLK AND ABU GHRAIB: Two contrasting responses to my hunch that rural voters were affected by Abu Ghraib:

I don’t know how you knew it but you nailed it. Rural voters are DEEPLY ashamed of Abu Gahraib. I just visited my rock-ribbed Republican former farm wife Mom, now living in suburban Kansas City. If there’s an echt American heartlander ‘don’t try to help me, Mr. Roosevelt’ Republican species of genus Americanus, it’s Mom. Civil War on.
I was amazed how deeply ashamed she was of Abu Gahraib. It just wasn’t like her to be so moved. I asked her why and she said “that’s not American, what we did there.”
My theory? Mom has never seen the Jerry Springer show, and didn’t really realize the extent to which the gleeful embrace of vulgarity by what she would never actually vocally call white trash has coarsened the traditional military-serving American working class.
America has tolerated the vulgarization of its yeoman class on TV. It’s quite another to see it in a military uniform. (I guess we sophisticates know it was always there, but that doesn’t cut any ice with Mom.)
You nailed it, Andrew.

Then there’s this view:

Country folk in general could care less about Iraqis and their plight really. They don’t know them and don’t feel that our boys should be dying over there helping them build anything. They are very, very isolationist. As long as the military is blowing things up they are supportive, that’s what the military does and they understand that mission. But as soon as it becomes a humanitarian focused mission, support will begin to erode. Especially when what they perceive are Iraqis who don’t seem to appreciate what has been done for them anyway. They look like a bunch of whiners.
The mission itself is nuanced and hard to understand. Saving the world from terrorism is too obtuse, not focused enough. They would be much more supportive of a proxy war and not direct US involvement. As long as its a proxy war, it would have support.
A long-term strategy would be to finish up Iraq and use special forces and more clandestine methods that aren’t so publicised. They would support that for the long-term, but if troops have to be involved in police work for a long time (in our culture that’s about 6 months) then support will not be solid.

There’s more diverse feedback on the Letters Page.