Month: February 2007

A mixed bunch of impressions from Mohammed – some encouraging, some less so. But his bottom line is that the "surge" should continue for a while:

Calling for halting the operation isn’t realistic and is of no good to us, I think asking for more judges and a bigger role for the judiciary in supervising the work of the military would’ve been a better demand; one that can really help the people.

I admire his optimism. But I see no evidence from his account that the surge isn’t cosmetic, almost impossible to do right, or aimed primarily at Sunni insurgents, while allowing the Shiite militias free rein, and a chill-zone in Iran while the U.S. helps Maliki fight Sunni terrorists. Don’t get me wrong: fighting these Sunni/al Qaeda forces is important and worthwhile. But it doesn’t solve the fundamental political problem that is the root of all the violence.

Ths time in Detroit. The victim was 72 and died yesterday.

All I can say is: very confusing. Not so long ago, we were told that Cheney favored a pro-Shiite solution in Iraq and the region. Now, we’re told he’s decided to vest American interests and young American lives into supporting the Sunni side of a growing regional war, even if that means that the Saudis are funding terror groups that have close ties to al Qaeda. Blowback, anyone? I have no idea if Hersh is reporting the truth, although I do believe that the military sources for yesterday’s scoop in the Sunday Times are legit. If Cheney decides to bomb Iran without Congressional approval, then we’re not just headed for a massive increase in violence in the Middle East and the U.S., we’re also facing a constitutional crisis and a military revolt. Sane hands would never begin to countenance such a gambit. But Cheney’s going down. And people who know they’re doomed can do crazy things.

They know how to grill a politician in Britain. You can listen to the interview here. Blair makes an articulate case defending the war. I’m afraid at this point, it’s unpersuasive. But he’s a lot more persuasive than anyone in the Bush administration.

I think we overwhelmed the poor thing.

A reader writes:

In response to your reader’s query about Hillary, I would advise that he read Maureen Dowd’s interview with David Geffen, which encapsulates perfectly why so many people dislike the woman. I also think her pathetic response to the criticism is another illustration of her problems. As Nora Ephron wrote on Arianna’s site:

"Here’s what Hillary Clinton should have said in response to Geffen’s remarks: ‘I love David Geffen. He supported me in the past and I hope that after I win the Democratic nomination he will support me again.’"

But what she instead did was to issue a statement demanding that Barack Obama (whom Geffen supports) distance himself from Geffen’s remarks. Then she sent her political adviser Howard Wolfson, who seems to have been groomed by the same people who restyled Chuck Shumer, onto Hardball. The Clinton campaign even suggested that Obama return the $1.3 million that Geffen and his partners Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg raised at a Hollywood fund-raiser this week. I love that suggestion. As far as I can tell, there is not a morsel of food that has crossed the Clintons’ lips in the last twelve years that people have not paid $2300 a person to witness, and the only circumstance I can recall where they ever returned money was an instance where it could be traced to someone who was a distant cousin of a distant cousin of a person who might have been (but probably wasn’t) a member of Al Qaeda."

The woman lacks grace. People can intuitively sense that she is a phoney. This is why she attracts such visceral dislike.

Another reader – a woman – adds:

I am a liberal New Yorker who voted for Bill twice for president and also voted for Hillary to be my Senator. And yet (and yet!) I find Hillary deeply unsuited to the rhetorical demands of a national campaign for president. When she tries to inspire large crowds with a high-energy stem-winding speech she comes across as hectoring. It is cringeworthy. There is a pitch and tone she reaches when she needs to raise her voice that is totally harsh and off-key. She is better in small venues talking face to face. But in the January snows of Iowa and New Hampshire where she will have to conjure huge crowds and deliver a level of energy she is unaccustomed to, Barack Obama and John Edwards will easily outperform her on stage. Do Democrats really want to go into the general election with the hectoring voice or with one of the inspiring voices?

And another:

She reflects the most cynical aspect of politics, politics stripped of even the hint of vision. She is the sum total of her calculations, and a prickly and defensive sum total at that. I don’t doubt that she is competent in the narrowest sense of the word. But she isn’t a leader. We are desperate in our need for leaders right now.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Ah, the joy of the web. Conservapedia has been so over-run by parodists it has become completely impossible to tell what was originally there and what has been added by people mocking the crackpot religious ideology that now passes for mainstream conservatism. I think the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus, for example, is probably a joke. Also this definition of gravity:

"The considerable disagreement between scientists about the theory of gravity suggests that, like evolution, the theory will eventually be replaced with a model which acknowledges God as the source of all things, the Prime Mover, and the only real fundamental force in the universe."

Heh. But this description of the Second Estate looks legit – or is it?

The Second Estate was a social level in pre-revolutionary France. It consisted of the nobility, about 2% of the population, yet it controlled 20% of the land and paid very little taxes, much like welfare mothers in modern America.

Ditto this definition of "liberal," allegedly taken from the American Heritage Dictionary:

‘8. Obsolete political system; Morally unrestrained; licentious.’

The original AHD entry, a reader tells me, did not contain the words "political system". The entry on the King James Bible is great. It refers to James as a "confirmed bachelor," which might come as a surprise to his wife and eight children, one of whom became king. 

I’m going to anoint the tree-loving octopus from Oregon as the winner, because at this point it’s like shooting invertebrates – created 6,000 years ago from scratch! – in a barrel. I haven’t seen a comment from JPod an all this yet. Or Steyn. Have they lost their famous sense of humor? Or are they scared of Phyllis Schlalfy, whose son (the straight one) helped compile this masterpiece of truthiness?

It’s an endorsement – with a caveat:

[Rudy] is going to have to go through some learning/repositioning exercises on several topics if he’s going to get conservative Republican voters out in sufficient numbers.

What a disappointment. Derb has actually been a sane voice against the theocon chorus at NRO. And no he’s backing Christianist re-education camp for Rudy?

Here’s a snarky review of her performance as Oscar host last night. The general point is: she got out of the way. I didn’t watch the entire thing – I wandered in and out while working – but isn’t that a good thing? In an endless festival of egos, who wants the host to be throwing shade? I’m in awe of Ellen – and not for being an out lesbian. (Being out is simply a matter of basic human integrity; it’s not an achievement of some kind, worthy of celebration. It’s a matter of self-respect.)  Ellen has something much more valuable and it’s as mysterious as the sources of Hillary’s irritation. She is simply likable, what we used to call "agreeable." She brings people together. Her edge is no edge. God knows I couldn’t be less like her. I’m more like Hillary. But I know charm and skill when I see it. If she had nerves last night, they were invisible. Whatever Adam Buckman says, Ellen wasn’t.