Month: November 2006

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 3 pm.

Several readers have argued I have misunderstood Charles Krauthammer’s recent column. Here’s a succinct summary of the main critique:

I do not believe Krauthammer is attempting to re-write history or that he is even trying to sway discussion. His comments are about objectives, not reasons.  I see it as the difference between goals and motivations. They are intrinsically linked, but not the same thing. Would you not agree that the reason we invaded Iraq was the belief that Saddam had WMD’s while the objective was, as Krauthammer states, to "depose Saddam Hussein and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government"?

Another reader makes a similar distinction between "rationales" and "objectives." I wrote that this might just be an oversight by Charles, but I don’t buy these readers’ argument for a second.

Take them on their own terms: let’s say "disarming Saddam" was a "reason" but not an "objective" of the war. It would surely follow nonetheless that if the rationale was a real, rather than invented, one, it would necessitate that a main objective of the invasion would be to find and secure those WMD sites as quickly as possible. In the weeks before Saddam could be deposed, surely these sites and weapons posed a serious risk. So securing them would have to be an "objective" of the war. At the very least, an objective would be to prevent the looting of such sites. And yet, as Woodward’s book reveals, and as many other sources now confirm, there was no serious plan for this, and many such sites were indeed looted while the coalition looked on and did nothing.

The objective evidence makes it more plausible now that the WMD argument was not sincerely held by the people planning the military invasion. Or if it was sincerely believed, the incompetence in execution was beyond belief. I say this reluctantly, and it’s not something I orginally even considered, let alone believed. But the empirical evidence for the unseriousness of the attempt to find WMDs in the invasion period is overwhelming. And that is why I wonder if Charles is guilty merely of a Freudian slip. Did he never believe the WMD argument either? Was it all a ruse for something else? Was it a "rationale" in the sense that it was not a real reason?

Here’s one of a kind: a bunch of Los Gatos High School students, c. 1989, making their own video for their own band. What makes it different is the lead singer. It’s Mark Bingham, the 9/11 hero, who helped bring down United Flight 93, and save Washington DC from another catastrophe. One of his bandmates sent it to me. And yes, it appears they are lipsyncing to "Revolution Calling" by Queensryche. Let’s just say: I’m glad Mark lost the mullet.

"If you mean by ‘military victory’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible," – Henry Kissinger, speaking the bleeding obvious.

To see why it’s obvious, check out this report in the NYT about an American captain trying to "stand up" a local Iraqi police force. In the current security climate, created by Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney, it’s like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Even the Federalist Society is now divided:

As to the contentious issue of the reach of presidential authority, the Federalist Society membership is not united. Professor Yoo, who wrote several memorandums while in the Justice Department arguing that the president’s power is expanded during a war on terrorism, represents one wing of the conservatives, while many in the group are smaller-government libertarians.

At a spirited panel discussion Friday with Professor Yoo, one of the revered figures of the group, Prof. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School, branded as dangerous the notion of expanded powers for the executive branch because of the continuing fight against terrorism.

"This is an issue which splits this group right down the middle," Professor Epstein said.

It appears to be crumbling. Money quote:

After he was arrested in 2002, Jose Padilla was considered so dangerous that he was held without charges in a military prison for more than three years – accused first of plotting a radiological "dirty bomb" attack and later of conspiring with al-Qaeda to blow up apartment buildings with natural gas.

But now, nearly a year after his abrupt transfer into a regular criminal court, the Justice Department’s prosecution of the former Chicago gang member is running into trouble.

A Republican-appointed federal judge in Miami has already dumped the most serious conspiracy count against Padilla, removing for now the possibility of a life sentence. The same judge has also disparaged the government’s case as "light on facts," while defense lawyers have made detailed allegations that Padilla was illegally tortured, threatened and perhaps even drugged during his detention at a Navy brig in South Carolina.

The Justice Department denied the allegations of torture last week and is pursuing an appeal of the conspiracy ruling in hopes that the charge will be reinstated.

So an American citizen, detained without due process for three years, accused of terribly serious crimes, and allegedly tortured, may not be found guilty, after all. And people wonder why many of us have concerns about the way the Bush administration has handled military detainees.

Hewitt leads the hysterics, as usual.

Brendan Nyhan pores over the record. Charles’ recent statement was that

Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and always simple: Depose Saddam Hussein and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government.

But he once cited WMDs as the core reason. What happened? Or was this merely an oversight?

Why did Tori Amos not find a way to burn every copy of this? Heh:

Click here to see the other entries…

The NYT runs a very curious article today about Italian humor about the current Pope. None of the jokes cited seem to me to be very risque or even funny. The entire argument of the piece is undermined by lack of any real evidence that this pope is subject to any more ridicule than has historically been the case. Except of course for that photograph (see above). It shows the source of the actual jokes circulating in the Vatican and elsewhere about this Prada-preferring, Gucci-wearing, high-drama German intellectual. The actual jokes – which the NYT won’t print – are about how good looking so many of the men are who surround Benedict, especially his personal assistant, Msgr. Georg G√§nswein, shown holding the large phallic microphone in front of Benedict’s face. The Vatican gossip merchants call Georg "Gay-Org." He is inseparable from Benedict. And he surely is easy on the eyes. There is no evidence that Benedict has ever broken his vows of chastity; but there is no evidence that he is heterosexual either. Hence the gossip; hence the jokes. When you’re a Pope who declares that even closeted, chaste gay men cannot be priests, it’s pushing your luck to clothe yourself in Prada, bedeck your Pope-mobile with luxurious Natuzzi Italian white leather, and surround yourself with assistants who look like they strayed from the pages of "L’Uomo Vogue."

Butch it up, sister. Or the jokes will only get louder.

(Photo of pontiff and Georg by Franco Origlia/Getty.)