Month: January 2009

It is so big it needs to be rebutted tout court:

Obama opposed the war. But the war is all but over. What remains is an Iraq turned from aggressive, hostile power in the heart of the Middle East to an emerging democracy openly allied with the United States. No president would want to be responsible for undoing that success.

The following is not really in dispute by anyone. There are still well over 130,000 American troops occupying Iraq. We have no secure idea what will happen when they leave. We have as yet no reliable integration of Sunnis into the largely Shiite Iraqi military. We have not seen what will transpire after the looming regional elections. Terror attacks continue in ways that remain routine for Iraq but that are unimaginable in any other country. Critical issues like Kirkuk remain unmanaged. The very close alliance between Baghdad and Tehran goes unmentioned by Krauthammer but remains a serious question for the future.

The possibility, in short, that Iraq has lurched, via hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of American dollars, from an unstable, fractious tyranny hostile to Iran to an unstable, fractious, failed state friendly to Iran is a real one. The possibility that we are in a lull before another hot phase of a civil war that goes back centuries is an equally real one. To pretend that all is peachy, that the war is "all but over", and that the practical impossibility of Obama being able to extract himself and us from the catastrophe of the Iraq occupation is proof of vindication for Bush is so cynical it’s jaw-dropping.

It’s an attempt to set up the president-elect so that the disaster Bush created can soon be blamed on the man who thought it was a bad idea in the first place. It’s of a piece with the looming Republican plan to assail Obama for massive spending after the GOP increased government spending for eight years at a pace not seen since the 1930s.

If these people had any shame, they might hold their peace. But we know at this point that the more shame is merited the less these people feel.

Shimon Peres gets candid:

Israel’s aim, he said, was to provide a strong blow to the people of Gaza so that they would lose their appetite for shooting at Israel.

A reader writes:

I thought I’d write you concerning the Prop 8 maps you’ve been discussing over the last couple of days.  I think if you were out here in California instead of on the East Coast you would determine that it is NOT a good idea at this time.  I say this as a progressive who voted against Prop 8 who happens to be Roman-Catholic, so I hear A LOT from both sides of the argument.

Things out here, especially on the Anti-8 side are highly charged.  While the initial flurry of vandalism has died down, the tension has not.  Rhetoric still remains very hot on both sides as if it’s Nov 3rd.  The tension which democratic elections are supposed to release has not been resolved in this case. As a matter of fact it has radicalized the gay rights movement out here to a degree that is alienating mainstream people. 

While I have no statistics to back this up, my guess would be that if Prop 8 were to come up on the ballot today in a special election format, I think it would lose again and this time in an even worse fashion than it lost in November.  Things like the Prop 8 map do not help.  Yes the information is publicly available, and legal, and I wouldn’t legally prevent anyone from doing it.  The question is, is whether or not this is a good idea?

Right now public opinion on this issue is in a dramatic state of flux, but it would really only take one ugly incident from one side or the other to shift it in a radical way how this issue is handled in this state for the next decade. The map only helps that ugly incident to occur in a way that does not help those who want gay rights to be strengthened. As a matter of fact if I were a Pro 8 person, the quickest and dirtiest way to further my cause would be to take that map and vandalize some Pro 8 homes and blame it on the other side.

As you noted in your posting commenting about the George Will column, democratic legitimacy is a far more impressive mandate than judicial fiat. The same argument holds here. Prop 8 by all rights was a legitimate election process. I hated the outcome, but for now it’s legitimate. The proper response to a rebuke from the electorate is to analyze why we were so wrong. Why did that person’s aunt who invited them over for dinner as a homosexual couple then give money to Prop 8? Why was there this seemingly silent but determined movement of people for Prop 8?

These are questions no one is asking, as a matter of fact very few people are even actually reasoning about this issue at all, everyones trying to ‘gut’ their way through it. In such an environment where feeling is outweighing thinking there is little other purpose for such a map at THIS TIME other than targeting and cornering, and likely hardening opposition. If there was a new referendum on the ballot than perhaps such information can positively be used, but right now I cannot think of a benefit to this information that could possibly outweigh the potential risks.

Tipton, Iowa, 5 pm.

"It’s true, I did break bread with Obama. It was amazing. He was carried into the house by cherubs, Bruce Springsteen and Oprah Winfrey spread rose pedals on the carpet where he was about to walk and he very considerately asked me what vintage of wine I wanted my water turned into.

It’s also a sign that Obama can talk to and understand Americans at all social levels. For example, that night with us, he had an elegant dinner filled with sophisticated ideas and complex policy conversation with a bunch of right-leaning commentators. Then the next day, he had a meeting with some liberal commentators where, I presume, he was just as fluid while using much simpler sentences, shorter words and serving Froot Loops and Hostess Twinkies. There are pundits at all levels of cognitive distinction, and Obama has to learn to address all of them," – David Brooks, NYT. 

"What is interesting is the fact that he would want to do this. And you see that since his election he has kind of reached out to people that may not be ideological allies, to Rick Warren, the pastor who will be at his inaugural, to John McCain, whom he has treated with a lot of dignity and respect, and to a bunch of right wing columnists last night, in part, because I think he is a guy who is intellectually curious and wants to exchange ideas, but also in part he wants to co-opt the vast right wing conspiracy.

And I’m here to tell you that, speaking for myself, he has succeeded. I am brainwashed entirely. I’m in the tank, and I am a believer of hope and change and, above all, audacity," – Charles Krauthammer, on Fox.

A reader writes:

Face it, the word "conservative" has been so thoroughly corrupted that it cannot possibly fit you anymore, even in your attempts to carefully re-redefine it back to what it means to you.  It might be time to call yourself something else rather than have to explain that you’re not a Palin-style maniac.

Just remember, Edmund Burke was a Whig.

Will Tory do?

David Rothkopf:

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez seems to have lost a little of his bravura recently with reports in the papers today that as his reserves of fuck you money dwindle due to declining oil prices, he is offering the oil companies he once screwed the chance to come back to Venezuela. Bienvenido a Caracas, mis amigos, all is forgiven… er, please forgive me. Now if only we could harness the power of those oil companies to really deliver a lesson.

Imagine for a moment a different world, in which big multinationals committed to a program of not investing in countries that were not dependable democracies or showed disregard for the rule of law.  Think of the countries that would be squeezed, forced to change. Now that would really be the power to change the world. Meantime watch: slowly but surely Chavez’s chutzpah-laden outreach will bear fruit…as long as there is a safe profit to be made…and he will more than likely be propped up by some of the same people he once abused.

As Putin and Ahmadinejad and Chavez come back to earth, we can take some small pleasure in observing it. But the smartest response is to get our own fiscal and energy house in order. After the last eight years of fiscal insanity and energy inertia, that’s a massive task.

Ross tackles the question of double standards. Larison’s post is pretty powerful, I’d say. His money quote:

The official opprobrium heaped on Palestinian militants, for example, is primarily a matter of condemning the enemies of an allied state; their use of terrorist tactics is secondary to whether or not they are labeled this.

Ross’s quibble:

It’s that "entirely" that I don’t buy.

I must say that whatever reservations I had about the Walt-Mearsheimer book (and I largely share Ross’s assessment), Walt’s counter-factual post on Gaza has generated a lot of great blog debate. It has helped out the deeper debate we need to have. As has the entire Gaza bombardment.

That’s all I have to say about today’s extraordinary confluence of goose and man. The pilot and flight attendants and rescue teams all deserve a trip to the White House and some serious props. Maybe a dinner at George Will’s – some kind of all-encompassing honor like that.

(Photo: Chris McGrath/Getty.)