Month: June 2005

They’re not only traitors, according to Karl Rove, they’re also behind the priest abuse scandal. Here’s Rick Santorum’s analysis of how the church enabled the molestation of minors, abetted, of course, by arch-conservative Cardinal Law, under the papacy of John Paul II:

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning “private” moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

Santorum is the gift that just keeps on giving, isn’t he?

It may or may not be his last crusade, but I have always admired Bill Graham’s passionate but humane evangelicalism, his ability to reach out rather than condemn, his call to overcome our own deficiencies before we point out and excoriate others’. His refusal to meld his religion with a political ideology is now an anachronism, as contemporary Christianism has fused with a political party in condemnatory bitterness. But Graham shows what true Christianity is. And how it has become in danger of being eclipsed by the hubris of Dobson and the expedience of Rove.

The best blog-resource I know of for instant response to the latest batch of Supreme Court decisions is here.

Reuel Marc Gerecht is as concerned about the competence of our terrorist interrogators as much as their morality. Not many know exactly what has been going on in Gitmo and elsewhere, but I suspect he’s right on both counts. He recognizes, as the administration seems unable to, that its haphazard, loop-hole-friendly, ad hoc approach to the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants has become a strategic and political mess; and may well have become a liability in the terror war. The very location of various detention centers – not on American soil – suggests worrying intent:

The administration has so far not convincingly explained why it put a counterterrorist prison in Cuba and why it allowed secret CIA detention facilities to sprout up overseas that are not directly tied to frontline combat operations. It is very hard not to conclude that those facilities are where they are because the Bush administration wanted them located where outside observation, access, and protests could be easily denied or controlled.

My own view, after reading both the directives made in the White House and the extraordinary array of incidents of abuse, torture and murder that subsequently occurred is that it takes stratospheric levels of trust and naivete not to conclude that the two are connected. Gerecht proposes civilian overseers; there will soon be Congressional proposals for greater oversight and clearer guidelines for interrogation. I concur with the general direction. I don’t think we can shut detention centers down. I support the capture of terror suspects in this war for indefinite detention if necessary. I don’t want to see this war watered down into a police operation. But if the administration continues to abuse the power it has, that will be the inevitable result. We have a chance now for transparent oversight, clearer interrogation rules and redeployment of detainees to a new center in America where they can be clearly seen to be covered by U.S. laws against cruel and inhumane treatment. Gerecht’s piece is a good place to continue thinking about what to do now.

WHAT WE DON’T WANT: This is not the image of democratization in Iraq that we want to foster. And I should say it’s not indicative of the real gains in freedom for Iraqis after Saddam, or the democratic promise of the future, despite the profound travails of the moment. But it’s a sign of the p.r. gift we gave to the Jihadists by mistreatment of prisoners, a gift we should be trying to take back.

But he’s not excitable.

When I linked to the Sunday Times’ latest story on Iraq, about U.S. commanders negotiating with some insurgents, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that I disdain such tactics. It seems to me that one key to defeating the insurgency is to exploit the possibly growing rifts between Iraqi Sunni nationalists and foreign Jihadists. In fact, it’s very hard to see how there can be any end to the insurgency without such a split, without coaxing more Sunnis into the political and constitutional process. Rumsfeld yesterday made the obvious distinction; and a pragmatist will have to concur. As for Rumsfeld’s performances, I didn’t watch, but the transcripts are telling. Rummy’s bottom line: we are not going to defeat the insurgents, we’re leaving that to the Iraqis; the whole battle could take up to twelve years. For one, I’m grateful for this outburst of candor. No more Cheney hallucinations about “last throes.” But, as Adam Sandler might have put it, this is something that could have been brought to our attention, say, two years ago. There’s a real danger in low-balling expectations of costs in a war as a way to start it, and then slowly ratcheting up the sacrifice as we go along. The danger is that people will say they were misled and that public support for the war will crumble. Still, that’s what they’ve done and that’s where we are. Rummy’s honesty is far preferable to Cheney’s unhinged blather. I can only hope the president is as forthright and as sober tomorrow night. But words will not be enough. One way to help rebuild confidence would be to dismiss the architect of the war: Rumsfeld himself. He’s proven himself useless in guaging the necessary troop levels, he has presided over the worst p.r. debacle for the military since My Lai, his recruitment targets aren’t being met and he blames the military for decisions that were and are his to make. I love the man personally. But he’s got to go. It’s very hard to have confidence on our strategy with him still in charge of it. My attempt to assess where we are is posted opposite.

Amir Taheri calls the election of the extreme Islamist, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nothing less than an earthquake. Reform is dead, it seems. In some ways, this might be clarifying. It may mean that the Europeans give up on the attempt to engage Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions; it may embolden the domestic opposition still further and make some kind of popular revolution more likely. But it also seems that Ahmadinejad has been able to use economic and populist issues to build some kind of base (in an election that was still, of course, a phony one). My own view is that developments in Iran make our success in Iraq all the more essential – if only to act as a democratic pressure point on the theocracy next door.

FREE SPEECH IN BRITAIN: The repulsively illiberal bill designed “to prevent hatred being stirred up against people targeted because of their religious beliefs” is slowly making its way through Parliament. Here’s a detailed account of why it’s misguided.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “let me put this delicately. some in my circles view your blog as giving aid and comfort to terrorists, which, if treasonous, is not protected under the first amendment… at the very least, you could be shut down, and, in the US at least, I trust you know the consequences of treason if determined by a court of law (other countries have no such compunction… in your travels, I suggest you watch your back). you call yourself a patriot. don’t you know we are at war?” – an emailer at Greg Djerejian’s blog, Belgravia Despatch. Greg’s sin is to be pro-war and anti-torture, making him a member of the fledgling “conscience caucus” of pro-war, right-of-center writers who oppose the Bush administration policy of allowing abuse of prisoners if “military necessity” demands it. Greg asks if I get similar emails. Every day, many times a day, usually accompanied by charming references to my sexual orientation. Hey, it’s hot in the kitchen. I’m not complaining. But the ugliness of some of this – egged on by Rove et al, in a desperate attempt to shore up public support for a war they have badly mismanaged – is saddening. By the way, here’s his first stab at a roster of the conscience caucus: Nat Hentoff, John Cole, Greg Djerejian, John Henke, Tacitus, and Jeff Jacoby. Who else?

My attempt to make sense of where we are in Iraq is now posted opposite.

A fascinating account of a new strategy in Iraq.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “The vacuum is being filled by the U.S. Army, which has been building bridges and schools, securing neighborhoods and power plants and, yes, adjudicating claims between Turkomans and Kurds. It is doing these things because someone has to. Secretary Rumsfeld has long argued that American troops should never engage in nation building, leaving that to locals. But while we waited for Iraqis to do it, chaos broke out and terror reigned. So the Army on the ground has ignored Rumsfeld’s ideology and has simply made things work. (It’s a good rule of thumb for the future.)” – Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek. Heh.

A DSM PRIMER: My British employer, the Sunday Times, provides a helpful guide to all the documents it has published, from the Downing Street memos on. The conservative paper editorializes:

Mr Bush should take a leaf out of his predecessor Franklin D Roosevelt’s book. On February 23, 1942, FDR told his countrymen: “Your government has unmistakable confidence in your ability to hear the worst, without flinching or losing heart. You must, in turn, have complete confidence that your government is keeping nothing from you except information that will help the enemy in his attempt to destroy us.”

Bush, sadly, is no FDR.

ROMENESKO’S BIAS: I don’t begrudge anyone making a good salary from blogging. Good for Jim Romenesko for getting the Poynter Institute to give him a great salary. He’s brought so much attention to Poynter that he deserves every cent. But he is a highly biased, left-wing blogger, who rarely links to blogs who provide media criticism from the right, and omits stories that the left doesn’t like. Again: fair’s fair, and he can blog as he wishes. His journalistic audience is skewed very left, so he’s giving them what they want. But anyone, including Jack Shafer, who thinks this guy’s neutral, is dreaming.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “It seems to me that so much of the political divide boils down to the issue of American exceptionalism. The dominant conservatives have blind faith in American exceptionalism (more and more fueled by religious faith) and have no reservations about the use of American power. The most vociferous liberals categorically reject American exceptionalism and any use of American power (internationally). Independents (as well as independent thinking liberals and conservatives) seem to be tolerate simultaneously seeing that America is great, we do have special role in the world, and that we are capable of intentional and unintentional bad acts. We therefore see the use of American power as sometimes appropriate but approach it cautiously. Too bad that, in the current climate, any politician capable of independent thought gets eviscerated and “disciplined” by their own party.”

I guess some might call me an Independent, in as much as I’ve backed Democrats and Republicans in the past. Backing Reagan and the two Bushes as well as Kerry and Clinton puts me somewhere in the center, I suppose. I’m more of a conservative of doubt in my own mind. Whatever. This new poll contains something interesting to me:

Among Republicans (36% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 84% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 12% disapprove. Among Democrats (38% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 18% approve and 77% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among Independents (26% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 17% approve and 75% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.

The disapproval levels of Independents and Democrats are now indistinguishable, but the Republican bloc is solid. This strikes me as a direct result of the Rove strategy of brutal partisanship, Christianist pandering, and general fiscal and military fecklessness. Some readers have said that my criticism of the administration makes me sound like a liberal these days. Well, from these results, I’m not the only one being pushed by right-wing extremism into opposition.