Month: November 2006

A reader writes:

The abolitionists certainly did accuse Lincoln of moral equivalence. Even the less radical anti-slavery men, like Horace Greeley, accused Lincoln of not taking the moral cause of slavery seriously enough as a component of the war. Consider Greeley’s famous letter to Lincoln pleading with him to make the war a moral cause. Lincoln’s reply to Greeley is very telling. He specifically separates the idea of personal conviction of morality (his "often expressed wish that all men, everywhere, could be free") with his offical morality as to his position as President. In his offical capacity, Lincoln is, of course, famously concerned not with slavery, but preserving the union ("If I could save the union by freeing some…"). But more telling is his attitude of doubt and his desire to change course when the facts merit:

"I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

That, to me, is the heart of Lincoln’s anti-fundamentalism: his willingness to consider opposing viewpoints and to adjust when times call for it. And it was what separated him from both the abolitionists and the southerners.

And it is what made him a conservative genius – on a par with Elizabeth I, James Madison and Benjamin Disraeli. You can read more about the Lincoln-Greeley relationship here.

San Francisco, California, 3 pm.

A reader writes:

I love your blog, but I think the Burke quote you used Friday is spurious. Here’s a quick and dirty analysis of its appearances online and its provenance. I know this essay isn’t the last word on the subject, and if you have better information I’d be very interested in hearing about it. In the past I’ve used the quote and this essay to start a conversation about evaluating sources with my freshman writing students. (The really bright ones pick up on the fact that this essay isn’t peer reviewed, either.)

Thanks for the info. Whoever coined it, it still makes sense to me.

There I was, naively wondering if it would be an option for the Bush administration. Now we find out the Baker Commission has been chatting with the Mini-Axis-Of-Evil power for quite a while. Money quote:

"What would it take Syria to help on Iraq?" the Syrian ambassador, Imad Moustapha, recalled Mr. Baker asking Syria’s foreign minister, Walid Muallem, during a meeting in New York at the Waldorf-Astoria in September. Mr. Moustapha described the session as "very promising."

Funny how we never found out about this before the election, isn’t it?

(Photo: Gerald Herbert/AP.)

"At this point, it seems almost beside the point to say this: The New Republic deeply regrets its early support for this war. The past three years have complicated our idealism and reminded us of the limits of American power and our own wisdom. But, as we pore over the lessons of this misadventure, we do not conclude that our past misjudgments warrant a rush into the cold arms of "realism." Realism, yes; but not "realism." American power may not be capable of transforming ancient cultures or deep hatreds, but that fact does not absolve us of the duty to conduct a foreign policy that takes its moral obligations seriously. As we attempt to undo the damage from a war that we never should have started, our moral obligations will not vanish, and neither will our strategic needs," – the editors of the New Republic.

(For contrast, you can read the cri de couer by Lawrence Kaplan. I’m not sure what he’s trying to say, except that he’s been to Iraq and some of us haven’t. Or does he think we’re winning?)

Here’s a fascinating dialogue with Ed Meese on his view of the interrogation techniques initiated by this White House. It’s fascinating because it reveals wilfull ignorance of what’s going on and a relentless incuriosity about it. I think this has typified many Republican partisan responses to the question of torture.

Wil S. Hylton: Another outcry lately has been over the uses of interrogation techniques that involve sleep deprivation and uncomfortable positions. Do you think that the Bush administration has pushed the boundaries on that?

Ed Meese: I don’t know. A lot of this has been classified. There have been a lot of accusations, but I haven‚Äôt seem much evidence, so I really don‚Äôt know enough to render a judgment. But my own belief is that the administration is committed not to engage in anything that we would call torture. They‚Äôre committed to humane treatment.

WH:  It seems like some of these techniques, like waterboarding, are a long way from humane.

EM:  Well, again, I have a great deal of confidence that the administration would not engage in torture.

WH:  Would you call that torture?

EM:  I don’t know. I don’t know about waterboarding.

WH:  It’s putting a wet rag over someone’s mouth and making them think that they‚Äôre going to drown.

EM:  Yeah, I don’t know. As I said, I don’t know enough about it to give a firm determination.

WH:  That doesn’t necessarily sound like torture to you?

EM:  I don’t know whether they’re doing that.

WH:  And if they are?

EM:  I don’t know, because I don’t know enough about it.

WH:  I’m asking, if that is what they’re doing, does that sound like torture?

EM:  Well, I’d have to find out how long they do it and whether it does create the impression of drowning. I’ve never heard of this using a washcloth in their mouth before.

As Edmund Burke once remarked, "The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." And nothing they have done.

This really is one for the books. It’s an email sent by Republican candidate, Rae Hart Anderson, who lost his race for a seat in the Minnesota Senate to a Democratic Hindu. Money quote:

The race of your life is more important than this one–and it is my sincere wish that you’ll get to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He died for the sins of the world, yours and mine–and especially for those who accept His forgiveness. His kingdom will come and His will be done–on earth as it is in heaven. There’s more….I love belonging to the family of God. Jesus is the way, the truth and offers His life to you and each human being. Pay attention…this is very important, Satveer. Have you noticed Jesus for yourself…at some moment in time, yet??? …

Jesus Christ lives in His earth family by His Spirit. He said He’d be back, and He said it first. You could invite Him to make the race of your life ‘eternal’. God waits to be gracious to each person that knows they need to be forgiven. Do you? I think you do.

And some Republicans are still asking why they lost. The denial continues.

You wonder why the British smile can be a little gruesome? You haven’t met the British National Health Service, the one part of the Soviet Union that still survives.

First, they came for the homos, then the near-dead, then the pregnant women. But you know who their ultimate target will be:

I am a breeder. Not just a breeder, but a breeder who has bred. I treasure my children, and regard them as the greatest among many gifts my union with my wife has brought me. I know as well as anyone else that conceiving children can be one of the great joys of having sex.

But I deeply resent the suggestion, the assertion that by taking steps to avoid an unplanned pregnancy, or engaging in intimate acts that could never result in pregnancy that we have somehow degraded our love for one another, or debased the intimate time we spend together. I resent it when someone says that about my wearing a condom or my wife using contraceptives, and I resent it when someone says that about two men loving one another or two women loving one another. However it’s said, it’s an outright assault on the most precious, personal aspect of the relationship between me and my wife.

I didn’t demand my wife prove her fertility before we were wed, nor did she ask the same of me. We became lovers, and then became husband and wife in large measure because of the sexual desire we felt for one another. And I deeply resent the assertion that the way I feel about my wife can only be justified by the possibility of conception.

Well, that’s what the Pope believes; and it’s therefore what Kathryn-Jean Lopez believes should be reflected in American social policy. I’m glad more and more heterosexuals are waking up to the theocon agenda.

Charles Krauthammer writes today:

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

What’s missing from this assessment? No mention of weapons of mass destruction. Is this central argument made by the president and by the secretary of state at the U.N. now to be airbrushed from history? Is this a mere oversight on Charles’ part? Or is he now revealing that he never believed the WMD rationale in the first place? If so, a little clarification might be in order. For a leading neocon to say he never believed the WMD casus belli before the war would be news, wouldn’t it? And it would raise the question of whether others within the administration never believed it as well. Which raises the question of whether they were knowingly lying to us. Which seems to me to be a big deal.

[Update: here’s president Bush’s assessment of why we invaded Iraq from last summer:

"The main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction."]