Month: March 2010

Tom Ricks:

The line I am getting from Thiessen’s defenders is that, Well, he criticized her, too, in his book. Let’s see: One person is a reporter who worked alongside me the Wall Street Journal. The other was a flack for Jesse Helms and Rumsfeld. Who am I more likely to trust? It puzzles me that my old newspaper, The Washington Post, would hire Thiessen to write for its op-ed page. How many former Bush speechwriters does one newspaper need?

One nugget Tom dug out of Mayer’s must-read demolition job:

Thiessen’s account of the foiled Heathrow plot, for example, is “completely and utterly wrong,” according to Peter Clarke, who was the head of Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorism branch in 2006.

“The deduction that what was being planned was an attack against airliners was entirely based upon intelligence gathered in the U.K.,” Clarke said, adding that Thiessen’s “version of events is simply not recognized by those who were intimately involved in the airlines investigation in 2006.” Nor did Scotland Yard need to be told about the perils of terrorists using liquid explosives. The bombers who attacked London’s public-transportation system in 2005, Clarke pointed out, “used exactly the same materials.”

Btw, congrats, Tom, on winning the National Magazine Award for Best Blog. We still love you at the Dish.

Contra my column this week, Walt is confident that Obama's HCR victory will not boost his clout abroad:

To begin with, Obama’s No. 1 concern still has to be the U.S. economy. The Democrats are going to lose seats in the midterm elections, which will make pushing domestic reform efforts much harder. It might be tempting to focus on foreign policy, therefore, except that everyone knows Obama’s re-election hinges largely on getting Americans back to work. If the economy and especially employment turn around by 2011 he’s golden; if it doesn’t, he’s in trouble.

More importantly, there isn’t a lot of low-hanging fruit in foreign policy.

He might get an arms-control agreement with Russia, but there aren’t a lot of votes in that and there’s no way he’ll get a comprehensive test-ban treaty through the post-2010 Senate. Passing health care at home won’t make Iran more cooperative, make sanctions more effective, or make preventive war more appealing, so that issue will continue to fester. Yesterday’s vote doesn’t change anything in Iraq; it is their domestic politics that matters, not ours. I’d say much the same thing about Afghanistan, though Obama will face another hard choice when the 18-month deadline for his “surge” is up in the summer of 2011.

"When I get messages from people who want to be a part of this I ask back: what are you willing to sacrifice? … I'm giving up my military rank, my unit—which to me is a family—my veterans' benefits, my health care, so what are you willing to sacrifice? They say freedom is not free, but it doesn't have to cost anything either. Jesus up on the cross did not have a party with all his major donors to raise money for his cause, his cross was free. Ghandi did not need three-course dinners and a cocktail party to get his message out. These are people who sacrificed their lives. For them it was hemlock, a cross, the bullet that shot Harvey Milk … it was not the size of their distribution list, but their message that endured…

When I heard Kathy Griffin was going to be a spokeswoman for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I wondered about that. I have great respect for her as an advocate. But if [the Human Rights Campaign] thinks that having a rally at Freedom Plaza with a comedienne is the right approach, I have to wonder. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not a joking matter to me. To be at Freedom Plaza and not at the White House or Congress? Who are they trying to influence? I felt like they were just trying to speak to themselves. If that's the best the lobbying groups and HRC can do, then I don't know how these powerful groups are supposed to represent our community." – Dan Choi, after a short stint in jail.

He gets it. HRC never will.

Theocon George Weigel – surprise! -  insists that Benedict's letter demonstrates his "utter seriousness" in confronting abuse:

The Pope is quite aware of two facts of the global crisis: that it is far worse in other parts of society than it is in the Catholic Church today, and that the Catholic Church must nonetheless hold itself to a higher standard than others. Indeed, as one of the bright spots in this dark picture, Benedict’s letter notes that the Church’s efforts to come to grips with these problems within the household of faith — which have been more far-reaching than in any other institution or sector of society — have led others to look to the Catholic Church for guidance on how to address what is, in fact, a global plague.

Those who see in these scandals an opportunity to cripple the Catholic Church and its moral teaching have long had the card of “cover-up” to play in the global media. That card has now been taken away by Benedict XVI. Those who care for the Church, on the other hand, must now hope and pray that the follow-up from the Vatican is as vigorous and unsparing as the Pope’s letter.

One should recall that George Weigel was for a very long time, a prominent defender of cult-leader, sexual abuser and secret husband and father, Father Marcial Maciel – until his abuses became so public, so horendous and so shameless that even Weigel couldn't keep up the charade. (Only when there was no option, Weigel called for a full outside investigation into Maciel's sex-and-power cult. He has yet to suggest the same for the current papacy.)

Weigel, in other words, is spinning for the current hierarchy here. Heather Horn compiles more commentary. Meanwhile, the scandal in Germany has widened and now includes nuns.

Josh Green admits that he underestimated her:

In hindsight, my mistake is clear. I made the common media error of placing too much weight on public relations, and too little on legislative skill. Obama took care of the salesmanship, and Pelosi's underappreciated experience as whip has proved instrumental to her success. […] Pelosi didn't strike me as an effective opposition leader, and I wouldn't have imagined that she'd be an effective Speaker. But she's adapted handily to the way Congress operates today. It isn't always pretty and it doesn't resemble the bipartisan days of yore. But after last night's vote, it's much harder to argue that it can't be effective. And it's impossible to argue that Pelosi herself can't be either.

Chait concurs, and points to a profile of Pelosi by Michelle Cottle – a piece that "really helps explain how [Pelosi] pulled this off."  Meanwhile, Jonathan Bernstein gives props to Harry Reid.

Sprung pivots off Klein:

Ezra Klein on the strange beast that is the health care reform bill:

It is a comprehensive reform with an incremental soul.

Reverse that formula, and you have Barack Obama: an incremental reformer with a comprehensive soul.

Mark Shea considers whether the pope will remove any bishops:

T'aint gonna happen. (Not that I don't wish it would some days. I long for the expulsion of toads like Mahony from their sees.) But the reality is that this Pope appears to be pursuing almost exactly the same course as JPII when it comes to dealing with idiot bishops. To be sure, he is far more zealous in seeing to it that pervert priests get the bum's rush. But as far as bishops go, he is as reluctant as JPII to treat them like middle management who work for him. […T]he Pope is not the Supreme Maximum Leader who can run about treating brother bishops as mere underlings who work for him. If I'm right (and I'm pretty certain I am), the Pope feels himself very hindered by the Church's teaching on collegiality. […] What's that? says John Q Public, "collegiality?".. And that, right there, is the source of the disconnect (since most people perceive the Pope as the CEO of Catholicism, Inc.)

Henry Farrell mocks pundits who exaggerate public approval or opposition.