Month: December 2009

I'll just leave it to TNC. "I was born of a whore and bred to be an assassin" is a pretty good hook-up line.

Douthat wonders if the sexually puritanical and authoritarian nature of Irish Catholicism fostered sex abuse in the Church:

[Y]ou can see how it could all go bad — how a culture so intense clerical, so politically high-handed, and so embarrassed (beyond the requirements of Christian doctrine) by human sexuality could magnify the horror of priestly pedophilia, and expand the pool of victims, by producing bishops inclined to strong-arm the problem out of public sight instead of dealing with it as Christian leaders should.

(In The Faithful Departed, his account of the scandal, Philip Lawler claims that while less than five percent of priests were involved in actual abuse, over two-thirds of bishops were involved in covering it up.) I suspect it isn’t a coincidence that the worst of the priest-abuse scandals have been concentrated in Ireland and America — and indeed, in Boston, the most Irish of American cities — rather than, say, in Italy or Poland or Latin America or Asia. There will always be priests who become predators; the question is how the Church as an institution deals with it. It hasn’t been handled all that well anywhere, I’m afraid. But the particular qualities of Irish Catholicism — qualities which were once a source of immense vitality — seem to have led to a particularly horrifying outcome.

Ezra Klein gives the data another look:

[A]s the CBO explains on page five, part of the increase in the type of insurance being purchased is the result of "people’s decisions to purchase more extensive coverage in response to the structure of subsidies." In other words, the change is driven by the subsidies, not offset by them…Premiums for the same policy in the individual market fall by 14 to 20 percent. But people in the individual market, who are largely low-income, will now have the opportunity to purchase better policies that cover more expenses and provide more security.

DiA makes the same basic point.

Ambers, along with a gaggle of other reporters, had lunch with the president yesterday. One quote:

The strategy that I'm pursuing is designed to say let's see if we can change the conditions on the ground in a time certain period. There are risks associated with that, but in the absence of that push, we are in a situation that doesn't change, and there are big costs associated to troop presence, to casualties, to a slowly deteriorating situation over a course of years that are at least comparable and probably worse than us going ahead and making this big push now.

Today on the Dish we focused on the president's big speech at West Point. Andrew live-blogged the address and recorded his early thoughts here and here. We also rounded up a blogger reax and noted the Dem response. Reader reactions here, here, and here.

In pre-speech discussion, we revisited the president's strategic outlook, Goldblog recalled candidate Obama's assertiveness on Afghanistan, Jean MacKenzie reminded us of Karzai's hold on the US, Steve Coll downplayed the importance of a central government, Steinglass weighed the costs of occupation, and Ackerman called out the WSJ for skewed reporting. Andrew tore into Cheney's trash-talking of the president and knocked Politico for delivering it unchecked. Ambinder also scrutinized the paper, and Fallows praised Bush for what Cheney isn't – "honorable."

In other coverage, Andrew reiterated his conservative take on conservation, Dreher uncomfortably supported gay adoption, TNC sympathized with Huckabee, and a soldier dissented with Andrew over the surge. Sully also recognized World AIDS Day and took a long look at the defection of one of the most prominent bloggers on the right.  A reader responded to the latter.  And more reaction to the minarets here and here.

Finally, this window is particularly fantastic.

— C.B.

A reader writes:

This is the most salient thing you've written in some time.

The way our politics of fear is now constructed, there is no limit to the costs involved in nation-building in every conceivable failed state that could be a safe harbor for Jihadists. We cannot have the adult conversation about how much terrorist damage the US should tolerate compared with the costs of trying to control this phenomenon at its source. We are not mature enough as a country to have that conversation. And Obama has decided it isn't worth confronting that question now.

This is indeed what this is all about. To avoid a potential terrorist attack we are willing to invade countries and conduct wars to the end of time, if necessary. We are a country of cowards. And we're not too bright, either.

Not a good combination of traits. And soon enough we'll be bankrupt.  But it all goes to the point that we'd rather ravage the armed forces and bankrupt the nation than risk a bomb going off in a rail station in Philadelphia. We no longer are in a state where we can guarantee 100% that we can't get hit by a terrorist. That world doesn't exist anymore. The sooner we wrap our tiny little heads and hearts around that notion the better off we'll all be. Instead, i had to forfeit my bottle of Wisconsin horseradish mustard at the airport cause it contained more than 3 oz. of a condiment used to flavor links of compressed pig guts. I remember thinking back after 9-11 that things would, indeed, never be the same. It's a shame we were all stuck with the leadership of Bush, Cheney and Rove after 9-11.

A reader writes:

I love the time line that Obama has proposed for withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan.  Crafty.  The neocons (McCain for one) are already saying that it gives comfort to the enemy, that they will just wait until we leave and then attack again.  And the reason this is bad is what?

I think the hope of the White House is that the Taliban will lay low.  If the Taliban want to wait until we leave, perhaps there is time for the Afghans to train and begin to defend themselves.  If the Taliban attacks, there are enough troops to counter their attacks and weaken them by attrition.  A win/win for us.

Obama is also telling the Afghans in the street that we are leaving, which hopefully will say to them that we are not their enemy, not their occupiers, and hopefully keep ordinary patriotic Afghans from joining the Taliban.

Very cool.

Another adds:

For what it's worth, the Liberals I follow on Twitter are all howling about the speech.  And, right now, Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove are trashing the tone, the lack of detail, the focus on domestic policy, etc.

 

In short, he pissed off everyone.  And given the bag of garbage he was handed by the last Administration, that means he hit a home run.

And she's onto something:

I think his message was very clear – to the military. They wanted more – they got it – faster than they asked for. He has now placed the full burden of victory or defeat at the hands of McChrystal and Petraeus, for he has set a timeline within his term of deciding their fates regarding success or failure – something that is rarely done in presidential politics. Bravo!

As for the perpetual war complex – he's now given them their termination papers and boy do they not like it! Look at our conservative war hawks. Scowling.  Look at the blowhard "former military commanders" on TV – boy they don't like it!  Deadlines!  Oooh – scary – send wrong message.  Even Cheney thinks it's "weakness". 

Legacy is at stake!  Divert attention!  And the media – Politico in particular – follows like the good microphone Zombies they are!

Well, I get it. And the President gets it. He's outta there, but he's going for the Hail Mary. If the military doesn't deliver, he's got the political cover to say "game over".

And if the military does deliver, if his first term ends with a stabler Afghanistan and the capture or death of bin Laden and the successful prosecution of KSM in a civilian court of law … well Cheney really will have something to worry about. And his political shield against a war crimes prosecution will be gone. 

See? I haven't lost all hope after all. I've just gained an awful lot of chastening.

(Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty.)

And in the end, why I will support him in this policy whatever my doubts and reservations:

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue — nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.