Month: January 2005

Defending Summers, knocking the prince: my take at TNR. (Subscription required.)

An interesting take on the bloggers-for-hire issue. Trippi paid the bloggers for the Dean campaign. He ought to know what went on.

MICKEY BAITS: And I nibble! I’m afraid I don’t see his point. I have never said I don’t agree with Bush’s decision to go to war with Saddam. I’ve merely said the obvious – that we now know that, given Saddam’s lack of WMD stockpiles, the urgency, with hindsight, was misplaced. Does that mean I have to apologize to Howard Dean? Sure, if Howard Dean had argued that there were no WMDs and that was why we shouldn’t go to war, and I had trashed him for it. To Hans Blix? Sure, if he had said the same thing. But they didn’t. And I didn’t. Almost no one argued against the war on the basis that the WMD stockpiles didn’t exist (except, hilariously, Baghdad Bob). So Bush was right to go to war when he did on the evidence in front of him. The only apology I owe is to those, like Jim Falllows, who correctly foresaw the immense difficulties after the liberation. But my apology must merely be for not taking his argument seriously enough. I never attacked it. As for Mickey’s previous championing of Heather Mac Donald’s exoneration of the Bush administration on torture, he seems to have retreated. He acknowledges that Mac Donald is simply repeating the official Bush line, which has been torn to shreds by the evidence. And he’s right to say I have no memo from Bush saying “torture these guys”. But does he think that Bush would be dumb enough to do such a thing? Far smarter to sign a memo saying that our detainees are scum, deserve to be treated as such, but, er, be nice, except when you need to be nasty. And then to exempt the CIA from even these milque-toast restrictions. The case against Bush and Rumsfeld is so far about the terrible consequences of dumb decisions – and the need to take responsibility for them. But we do know from Gonzales’ documents released yesterday that the Bush administration wants to reserve the right to torture detainees for the CIA. Rice has also confirmed this. They refuse to specify what “coercive interrogation techniques” they are sanctioning for security reasons. They say they don’t want to tip off al Qaeda. So we don’t have a right to know if the government is practising torture as policy? I guess not. We have now crossed a line where the CIA can torture anyone they deem to be an enemy combatant, with no one outside the inner circle knowing, in places no one knows about. Isn’t that worth debating?

Among the more bizarre notions gaining traction in the blogosphere is that there can only be two positions on the Iraq war: a) that it’s all good and that the critics are spineless anti-Americans (or, worse, reporters for mainstream media) or b) that it’s a calamity from Day One and will surely end in disaster. So those of us who have been critics of aspects of the occupation – from insufficient troop members to deployment of illegal torture, for example – are accused of being fair-weather pro-warriors. Or, because we still back the goals of the original invasion and want Iraq to shift toward democracy, we’re deemed Bush lackeys. The problem with this way of looking at things is that the stakes are far higher, it seems to me, than the question of whether you are pro-Bush or anti-Bush. The truth, it seems to me, is that Bush is a very mixed blessing. On the one hand, he gets the fundamental issue – the war for survival against Islamist fascism, and the critical importance of establishing some democratic space in the Arab world to undermine it from within. I’ve criticized this president for many things. But never for these two vital objectives, which I share and have always shared. But – again – it’s perfectly legit to criticize the methods of the war, while supporting its goals. In fact, it’s unavoidable if you’re being more than a cheer-leader for one side or the other. You can, of course, dismiss the mistakes, ignore them or say they’re not a big deal. Or you can argue genuinely that they aren’t mistakes. Or you can say that you disagree, say, with the troop level critique but agree with those who want accountability (and not just an “accountability moment”) for the use of torture by some American troops. But the notion that our debates have to be about whose side are you on in terms of domestic politics strikes me as depressing. I understand that partisanship isn’t always bad, and indeed inevitable. But the way in which the blogosphere has become more partisan over the last few years, rather than less, strikes me as a disappointment.

WHAT BLOGS CAN DO: Why? Because part of the point of blogging as a medium is that it empowers the individual. In big media, the pressures of conformity can be as great as they are subtle. At the Boston Globe or the Washington Times, you know what you’re getting. How many columnists in the mainstream media can be described as unpredictable in partisan terms? How many “liberal” columnists ever praise the president occasionally? How many conservative ones tear him a new one from time to time? (This is a moment to thank God for Tom Friedman, by the way.) The reason is subtle pressure from suits and colleagues and readers. But the point of blogging is that it can liberate you from such pressures. A political hybrid has a secure outlet at last – his or her own. So why, then, the preponderance of the partisans? I know that’s what happens more generally in a polarized polity. But the blogosphere had the potential to be a solvent of this rigidity. Instead, it has become yet another reflection of it (with a few honorable exceptions). Or have I missed some blogs in this regard that deserve more exposure?

Fascinating piece about Mosul in the Washington Post yesterday. There’s a big threat to the election in that city, which has been rocked by insurgents for quite a while now. So what has the military done to try and ensure the possibility of a fair vote? They’ve increased troop strength! Imagine that. Money quote:

Commanders have raised U.S. troop levels here by 50 percent since Jan. 1, from 8,000 to 12,000, doubling the number of battalions from three to six, according to officers involved in the buildup. The growing force includes light infantry battalions that conduct foot patrols in the heart of the city and the first tank companies seen in Mosul in over a year. The military has also called in 4,500 additional Iraqi troops, among them a freshly minted brigade known as the Iraqi Intervention Force. The buildup has dramatically altered the face of Iraq’s third-largest city, 220 miles north of Baghdad. Mosul has been convulsed by violence since Nov. 10, when insurgents launched an offensive in an apparent response to the U.S. assault on Fallujah. In a persistent show of force, F-16 fighter jets roar across the sky each day, Apache helicopters circle menacingly above the downtown traffic and 33-ton Bradley Fighting Vehicles patrol the city streets.

Has Rummy been informed? Someone better tell him order has broken out in Iraq. Well, stuff happens.

I have to say that the early “American Idol” shows are some of the most consistently entertaining and unbearably cruel programs in America. Last night gave us that tender line between delusions of talent and borderline personality disorder – and smudged it. Are those people for real or very clever plants? I’m hoping the latter.

How do you stop people snorting cocaine off toilet seats in bars? Spray the seats with WD40. No, I’m not kidding.

VIRGINIA IS FOR HATERS: Here’s an interesting piece on Virginia’s fierce campaign against gay relationships. When I wrote recently that even with a will, in Virginia, one spouse of a gay couple could still be denied any legal inheritance, many of you wrote to question whether I had lost my marbles. But that is indeed the potential impact of Virginia’s vile “Marriage Affirmation Act.” With any luck, the law will be ruled unconstitutional before it does too much damage. But it’s already working in one sense:

Another example is that of Fredericksburg-area couple Barbara and Tibby. Barbara, a therapist, and Tibby, a retired schoolteacher, have been together for 40-years and lived in Virginia for more than three decades. According to the Free Lance Star, in 2001, Barbara had a brain aneurysm. While she is still able to function, her long-term future is uncertain. Thanks to Del. Marshall’s Marriage Affirmation Act, the couple can’t be sure that the legal contracts they once drew up will sufficiently protect Tibby if Barbara passes away. Although they would much rather stay in Virginia, they are moving to Maryland. “The whole thing has been a nightmare,” Barbara, told the Star. “The law has already accomplished what it set out to do – to squash us and to hurt us.”

Sadly, it has also accomplished another objective: to help cleanse Virginia of gay people.

Several of you have urged me to link to this column by Richard Cohen. It’s a great one. Cohen has championed sanity wth regard to gay people for a long time. He’s a model of empathy and reason. His passion on the complete insanity that requires the military to fire twenty Arab linguists for being gay is well-taken. (Here’s one way to tell a conservative homophobe: he’d rather fire gay linguists than win the war.) And his observation of the callow dismissiveness toward the truth about Abraham Lincoln is also right on the money. Cohen shows me how many straight people are indeed capable of understanding and seeing through the artful casuistry that sadly tarts up so much prejudice on the right. (Speaking of which, Philip Nobile will be on O’Reilly tonight. Can you imagine the derision of Tripp’s thesis that will ensue? Let’s just see if Nobile says what he once wrote: that he believes that most Lincoln historians have been homophobes and that Lincoln was certainly bisexual. And let’s see whether he discloses – as he didn’t in the Standard – that after he quit the Tripp project, he tried to sell a rival book making the same case.)

As soon as I read that Joel Achenbach is now blogging, I felt a tiny bit better about Dave Barry’s retirement. He’s a natural. And perhaps the beginning of a merger between smart old media and new media methods. Now, if only someone could persuade Michael Lewis …

Germany’s Stern goes for the racist angle in profiling Condi Rice.

IS HE A BIGOT? Jonah Goldberg notes that Martin Luther King Jr III (unlike his mother, Coretta) hasn’t endorsed equality in civil marriage. Jonah cracks: “I guess he’s a bigot.” What King actually said was: “I think we need to find a way to honor partnerships, but I don’t think that marriage needs to be redefined.” I don’t know anyone who would describe that position – which is John Kerry’s – as a bigot. Now, opposing any recognition or protection for gay couples is a wholly different matter. Sorry, Jonah, but young King is not on the side of NRO in this.

The Pentagon is angrily denying reports that they’ve been sizing up Iran’s * nuke facilities for possible military action. I hope they’re bluffing. Isn’t that exactly what we need contingency plans for? Sy Hersh’s report says that

the United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets… The secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites. Bush has already ‘signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia.’

All of this is good news, it seems to me, exactly the kind of thing the government should be doing to protect us from the designs and aspirations of the mullahs in Iran. Whether we will ever be able militarily to disarm Iran is another matter. But if we can hobble them in any way, then we should be preparing to do so. Due diligence. If diplomacy fails. And, of course, it helps diplomacy work as well. (*I originally wrote “Iraq’s”. Brain fart. Sorry.)

“AN ACCOUNTABILITY MOMENT”: This quote might help clear up some misunderstandings about president Bush. It certainly helped me see the world as he sees it. For Bush, accountability in government is a total, once-every-four-years thing. Individual mis-steps or mistakes are not subject to accountability – whether in war-planning or fiscal matters or anything else. When someone fucks up, the most important thing is to extend loyalty, not reprimand. There’s only one moment of accountability for a president and that’s the election, which encompasses everything the president and anyone in his administration have done. So re-election logically means that the public waives its right to hold any individual in government accountable for anything for the next four years:

Well, we had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I’m grateful.

So our job as people not in the administration is now to sit back and hope for the best. We had our chance. We lost. As Mel Brooks almost observed, it’s good to be the president.

RE-THINKING GONZALES: This Washington Post editorial is a must-read.