Month: July 2004

Bush and Kerry do a duet.

To my mind, the war to depose Saddam is still justifiable, morally important, and will, if we stay the course, eventually be regarded as an important milestone in the war against terror. But at the same time, it seems to me that there’s no denying that the actual case made by the Bush administration for war was built on false information. Listen to what Republican Senator Pat Roberts said on “Meet The Press” yesterday. He was asked if the Senate would have voted for war if Senators knew then what we know now, in terms of the WMD intelligence fiasco:

“I think the whole premise would have changed, I think the whole debate would have changed, and I think that the response would have changed in terms of any kind of military plans. Very difficult to look in the rear-view mirror, 20/20 hindsight and say what you would have done under those circumstances.- Jay [Rockefeller] has indicated he wouldn’t have voted for it.- Jay has also indicated that there probably wouldn’t have been the votes to go to war.- I think if we went back to the no-fly zones and the resolutions by the U.N. and an awful lot of talk, I doubt if the votes would have been there.”

So if we had had accurate intelligence, the war would not have taken place. I reiterate: I’m still glad we fought it. But this remains one of the biggest government screw-ups in recent history. It has made future pre-emption based on intelligence close to impossible. And President Bush is ultimately responsible for this. Tenet has taken the fall, but it will take years and years before the U.S. regains the reputation for credibility that this president has destroyed. Even if you believe that Bush is still the best man to fight this war, you also have to concede that his record includes at least one massive error, and one that will cripple our ability to fight the war in the future.

AUSTIN VERSUS DR EVIL: My take on the fascinating Edwards-Cheney contrast.

STONEWALLING ON TORTURE: I’ve let up on the administration on the Abu Ghraib and torture issues because I found their released memos to be persuasive evidence that they did not condone such tactics. But that does not mean they should release no more data or be as resistant to investigation as they have become. The Washington Post yesterday kept up the pressure. They should. So should Senator Warner. The question of whether someone high up in the administration condoned illegal torture is not a minor one; and scapegoating of minions, if that is what is going on, is unconscionable.

Thanks, Lynne. The vice-president’s wife is sticking, mercifully, to federalist principle and opposes the religious right amendment to the Constitution. But I think it’s incorrect to say that she necessarily differs from her husband. Dick Cheney has never said he disavows his belief that marriage should remain a matter for the states. He has merely said he’ll abide by George Bush’s decision to prevent any state from enacting marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay citizens through a federal amendment. Mrs Cheney, of course, has a lesbian daughter and so it is hard for her to see gay people as some sort of “threat” to the family. After all, a gay person is her family. I’m heartened and grateful that there are some decent people still left in the Republican leadership. Meanwhile, there’s only one thing you really need to know about this week’s Senate vote on the amendment. And that is its backers would rather lose votes than propose a simple one-line amendment reserving marriage for heterosexuals. More tolerant alternatives – that would have simply said “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman,” or that would have constitutionalized DOMA, or that would have merely restricted courts – all these have been ruled out in favor of an amendment whose second sentence reads:

Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. (My italics)

If you removed the italicized phrase, you’d ahve a reiteration of the first sentence. But that phrase is critical to the religious right. On its face, it would ban any court-prompted civil unions, domestic partnerships or indeed any protections or “legal incidents” for gay couples short of marriage. That means the end of civil unions in Massachusetts and Vermont, for starters. This is not, and never has been, about “protecting” marriage. If it were, the amendment would need just one sentence, and would stand a far better chance of passing. The amendment is about ensuring the second class citizenship of an entire minority. The timing is designed to exploit fear of that unmentionable minority into a winning strategy for president Bush’s re-election. Because of those two things, it is one of the most disgusting measures ever introduced into the U.S. Senate.

Another betrayal of the forces for good in Iraq.

WILSON LIED TO MARSHALL: Yep, it’s right there in the Talking Points Memo interview, unearthed by Greg Djerejian:

For those who would assert that somehow she was involved in this, it just defies logic. At the time, she was the mother of two-year-old twins. Therefore, sort of sending her husband off on an eight-day trip leaves her with full responsbility for taking care of two screaming two year old kids without help, anybody who is parent would understand what that means. Anybody who is a mother would understand it even far better. Secondly, I mean, the notion somehow that this was some nepotism, that I was being sent on an eight-day, all-expense paid–no salary, mind you–trip to the Sahara desert. This is not Nassau we were talking about. This is not the Bahamas. It wasn’t Maui. This was the Sahara desert. And then, the only other thing I can think of is the assertion that she wanted me out of the way for eight days because she, you know, had a lover or something, which is, you don’t take lovers when you have two year old kids at home. So there’s no logic in it.

Perhaps no logic. Just a whole lot of truth.

MOORE AGAIN: Here’s another indictment from a Lebanese paper, befuddled by Moore’s insistence that the Saudis were behind the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (even though they publicly opposed both interventions):

At the heart of Moore’s film lies the malevolent influence of “the Saudis,” a phrase that in the US is increasingly spat out with utter contempt, reminiscent of the tone reserved for “the Jews” in anti-Semitic discourse, ascribing to millions of otherwise heterogeneous people the same menacing and hostile essence. In a great deal of contemporary American discourse, any group of Saudis – including the government, security services, and any collection of citizens, not to mention Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the hijackers of Sept. 11, 2001 – all represent “the Saudis.”

At some point, the loony left is going to have decide between its demons: are the Jews and neocons the evil ones or are the Saudis? (On a related note, F9/11 has now officially surpassed the entire take of “Jackass.” My joke didn’t pan out.)

On the Wilson affair. Here’s Josh. Here’s Jonah. I’m with the latter. Make your own mind up.

KERRY ON AIDS DISCRIMINATION: My hat is off to John Kerry for taking the obvious and long-overdue position that people with HIV should not be barred from entering the United States and they should not be barred from becoming citizens. These days, it’s all but impossible for the U.S. to even host an international conference on AIDS because it would have to refuse entry to anyone with HIV. And the notion that HIV is a bar to citizenship is one of the most noxious and discriminatory laws in this country – perpetuating stigma and HIV-phobia. I wonder what Bush’s response will be. Does he favor lifting the ban on HIV-positive immigrants? His own AIDS advisory council is. Is there some “compassion” in compassionate conservatism that isn’t some kind of sop to the religious right? We’ll see.

One good sign that the targeted moderates in the GOP are beginning to fight back against the Santorum-Dobson wing:

Moderate Republican senators grumble that some longtime contributors are refusing their usual contribution to the Republican presidential campaign. Their biggest grievance: Bush’s endorsement of the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.

At least that’s what Novak is reporting.

“Andrew, like all of us you deserve a national party that represents faithfully at least most of your political philosophy. Right now that may not be either major party, but it could be the GOP after it is forced to engage in a real internal debate about its future and direction. In other words, a Kerry-Edwards win in 2004 might force the GOP to decide what it wants to be–the party of Pat Tillman, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, and Arnold or the party of Rick Santorum and Ralph Reed. Only faced with a loss in November will the GOP have the opportunity to have this dialogue. Imagine how engaged you will be, and how exhilirating that New Hampshire primary will be in 2008? But if Bush wins there is no chance that anyone will stop to ask the hard questions. The contradictions and the fissures will simply be papered over and the Santorums will continue their triumphal march, smug and unchecked. If nothing else, a Kerry-Edwards win in November does two positive things for this country: first, it gives the GOP a chance to pause and make intelligent choices, a chance to improve itself into something that Sullivan and Kaus and Simon might all feel comfortable in. Second, a Kerry-Edwards win puts a roadblock in front of Hillary Rodham Clinton for good. Win win, I say.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

His radio talk this morning could have been written by Gary Bauer. No mention of the actual people affected by the amendment – gay couples merely trying to live lives of commitment and love. No understanding of the real Constitutional issues involved – just an hysterical screed against “activist” courts. No mention of the fact that 38 states have already banned equality for gays in marriage. No explanation of why the Defense of Marriage Act is obviously unconstitutional or why a court will soon strike it down. No mention of civil unions. And, again, no actual use of the words “gay”, “lesbian” or “homosexual.” This really is a revealing silence. Think what he could have said: let’s keep marriage for heterosexuals, but let’s find a way to protect the relationships of our gay and lesbian fellow-citizens. That would be a “uniter” not a “divider.” But Bush is a tool of the fundamentalist right – a movement that seeks not simply to keep marriage for straights, but to strip gay people of dignity, rights, protections and equality. If he were to call us by name, he would violate the fundamentalists’ belief: that gay people don’t exist, that we’re sick heterosexuals, that we need to be put in therapy or jail. Yesterday, Bush decided to show he was a moderate by arguing that people should be allowed privacy in their own bedrooms (a policy he opposed when supporting Texas’ disgusting gays-only sodomy law as governor). That’s it. That’s what he thinks the place of gay people is in society. We’re lucky not to be arrested in our own homes.

The line-up at the Republican convention – full of social moderates and liberals, in direct contrast to the hard-right social policies of the Bush administration – is beginning to anger the fundamentalists. Here’s a passage from the Family Research Council’s latest email bulletin:

The party seems poised to keep some of its most articulate spokesmen such as Senators Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum and Representatives Henry Hyde and Mike Pence and other leaders on life and family issues behind the scenes. By keeping them on the sidelines they have missed a chance to emphasize the real heart of the party and the sharp contrast between the Republican Party and Democratic Party. By treating the vast majority of the GOP faithful like “fly over” country, the convention organizers douse the enthusiasm of pro-family voters – meanwhile they may show up to vote, they may not bring two or three friends along with them to the polls. Note to Republican Party organizers: Find a primetime spot for a speaker who the pro-family community knows and trusts and who will speak to the issues that have driven so many voters to pull the lever for the GOP in the past.

They’re right. The current line-up is so out of line with what the GOP now stands for it ranks as an act of outright deception. I’m told I’d complain either way. Nope. I’d love Arnold and McCain and Pataki and Giuliani to speak out and represent an inclusive party – if that were the case. But since the GOP is now at its core a Christian fundamentalist party – and non-fundamentalists are suspect members – the line-up should reflect that fact. Put Brownback and Santorum up there. Have them explain their views about abortion (always illegal) and homosexuality (potentially a criminal offense). And let the voters decide.

Oh joy. One of the most pompous self-serving “victims” yet to emerge from the debate on the Iraq war now turns out to have some serious ‘splaining to do. It turns out his wife did indeed help get him the job to explore Sadddam’s contacts in Africa. Then there’s this:

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”
“Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong’ when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have “misspoken” to reporters. The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

On the face of it, Wilson is a complete, partisan fraud.