Category: Old Dish

I would say that yesterday’s market rally is pretty good evidence that the New York Times headline of last Friday was pure spin. Bad spin, Howell. Bad spin.

THE LONELINESS: A non-war post. I came across this moving piece published in the Georgetown University paper. It’s by a very orthodox Catholic student – recently graduated – who, while he was a student, backed the university’s fitful attempts to uphold the Catholic Church’s teaching that gay people must never have any sexual or emotional intimacy with someone of the same gender. Then he came to terms with the fact that he too was gay. Now he recants and explains how it felt to be closeted in a straight world:

The loneliness is hard to describe to straight people. It’s the loneliness of seeing straight couples together, and knowing you’ll never know the love of another human being because it’s forbidden. It’s the loneliness of seeing your best friends pair off with their girlfriends to leave you alone to contemplate your solitude. It’s the loneliness of knowing that, no matter how much fun you may be having with your friends today, you know the day will come when they’ll be married, and you’ll be feeling sorry for yourself because you have no love in your life and never will. I’ll never forget the visit of one of my good friends from high school and his girlfriend to the Hilltop. We took a long walk down to the Lincoln Memorial and were having a great time, ostensibly. But I was really torn to pieces, knowing that my friend and his girlfriend could have a future – love and happiness together, while I was condemned to be alone for all my days. I hurt so badly that I went into the restroom at the Lincoln Memorial and cried. I returned to my friend and his girlfriend and put on my happy face again, fearing to tell the pain I felt inside.

The guy is still a Catholic, bearing witness to a Church hierarchy that still won’t listen and refuses to understand.

Money quote from the man deputed to police NPR’s “objectivity”:

[W]hat seems to be missing from other NPR’s commentaries/interviews is the unabashed and unconditional support (and there is lot of it) for the administration. Whenever that opinion is heard on NPR as it did when NPR interviewed Secretary of State Colin Powell, NPR receives e-mails by the score, all asking: “NPR! How could you?”

And that’s when they’re interviewing Powell! Imagine if they asked James Lileks. But then they never would, would they?

A young Jewish student attends a debate on the Israeli-Palestinian question and sticks up for Israel. Hours later, she is attacked and has a star of David carved into her wrist. Where? Where else?

A candid headline for the latest piece of “Bush = Hitler” polemics from Ted Rall. Please keep your eyes open for similar expressions of hope that the United States lose this war and that the troops should not be supported if a war starts. It’s important to keep a record of exactly how far the anti-American left has traveled. Money quote from Rall:

The thing is, we don’t really have to win. Losing the Vietnam War sucked, but not fighting it in the first place would have been smarter. Losing to Third Worlders in PJs led Americans to decades of relative humility, self-examination and taking the moral high ground in conflicts such as Haiti and Kosovo. Our withdrawal from Nam was mainly the result of antiwar protests and public disapproval that swayed our elected representatives. It also saved a lot of money that would otherwise gone to save more “domino” dictatorships from godless communism. Most Americans who didn’t actively protest the war at least sat on their hands during Vietnam. We should do the same during Bush’s coming unjust war of aggression. Members of our armed forces don’t deserve insults, but their role in this war doesn’t merit support. Cheering them as they leave and holding parades when they return would certainly be misinterpreted by citizens of other countries as popular support for an inglorious enterprise – and it would make it easier for Bush to send them off again, to Iran or Libya or wherever. Let’s keep our flags under wraps.

Rall also comments that “we find ourselves facing the paradox of the ‘good German’ of the ’30s. We’re ruled by an evil, non-elected warlord who ignores both domestic opposition and international condemnation. We don’t want the soldiers fighting his unjustified wars of expansion to win – but we don’t want them to lose either.” Comparing allied soldiers to Nazis is the new level of rhetoric on the anti-war far left. It sickens me.
(Via Bill Herbert.)

The BBC tackles the issue of Libya chairing the U.N.’s Human Rights Commission:

On Monday, the media watchdog group – Reporters Without Borders (RSF) – was suspended after showering the meeting with leaflets criticising Libya’s record. In a statement, RSF said that Libya’s heading of the commission was a “sick joke” that called into question its credibility. Other countries, however, are expected to raise concerns about a possible US violation of human rights over its treatment of prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay. They say the US is holding the prisoners unfairly.

So you see, the issue is really one of parity. If the U.S. is in the U.N., why not Libya?

Why has France ordered its diplomatic staff to leave Israel before Baghdad? Do they know more about what Saddam has in store than we do? Or did they just sell him the means to do it?

If you’re pro-war, there’s only one way to get away with it. David Remnick, the pro-war New Yorker editor, nails it:

Remnick, who’s very soothing on the phone, knows he upset his staff, and takes care to point out that two thirds of the piece was spent “beating up on Bush.”

So if you’re a pro-war liberal, you have to attack the man who’s responsible for carrying this policy out. Or else … no more dinner parties for you. I do think this phenomenon is actually intensifying the demonization of Bush among blue state elites. The one connecting thread is contempt for the president. If you pass that litmus test, you’re allowed some lee-way in your opinions.

The latest polling data show something worth remembering as we head into war. USA Today’s poll shows the highest levels supporting an invasion of Iraq – 64 percent – since November 2001, a jump of five points from two weeks ago. 57 percent say that the Bush administration has made a convincing argument for intervention. This is far higher support for war than before the first Gulf War and a remarkable finding, to my mind, given the relentless anti-war propaganda flooding the airwaves. Americans see the danger; and they want to act. Finally, the determination of this country to defend itself is going to be demonstrated. We can only pray now that the war is as successful as possible and as casualty-free on both sides as any such war can be.

THE HOUSE THAT JACQUES BUILT: And part of the credit for firming support for taking down Saddam must surely go to Jacques Chirac. Over the weekend, perhaps sensing his over-played hand, the president of the French Republic backtracked a little. But the damage has been done. USA Today’s polling of American attitudes toward foreign countries reveals how deep the chasm has become. Only 20 percent now think of France as an ally. 40 percent think of France as either “unfriendly” or an “enemy.” 68 percent of Americans believe that France has behaved unreasonably at the Security Council, and blame France primarily for the diplomatic failure. 68 percent think the Bush administration has diplomatically done the best job possible or a fairly good job; compared with 31 percent that thinks it’s done a fairly bad job or completely mishandled the problem. For Blair, the intransigence of the French has been a particular blessing. His parliamentary supporters are putting out the line that the essential decision Britain has to make is whether British foreign policy will be dictated by Paris – not a popular option in Middle Britain. Everything depends now, of course, on the conduct of the war. But if it is successful, France will be more diplomatically isolated and politically weak than at any time in decades. Or maybe that’s too much to hope for.

Peggy Noonan weighs in today. I had my say yesterday.

SADDAM’S LOVE FOR HIS PEOPLE: “I said a long time ago that the best service Saddam Hussein could give his people – and I’m sure that as a leader he loves his people – was to just disappear from the scene.” – Jacques Chirac, revealing yet another card.

STOPPING THE SUITCASE: Fred Hiatt makes a vital case this morning. The Bush administration should listen.

Sunday’s New York Times was a “flood-the-zone” swamp of anti-war pieces. It’s going to help al Qaeda; it’s going to be conducted incompetently; and on and on. Some of this is worth doing: a newspaper’s job is to point out dangers ahead. But the sheer weight of it was Rainesianism at its least credible. Compare these two stories, for example, from the Times and the Washington Post. They’re both about al Qaeda. The money quote from the Times:

“An American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by Al Qaeda and other groups,” a senior American counterintelligence official said. “And it is a very effective tool.”

There’s not much analysis of what a successful removal of Saddam would do to al Qaeda’s recruitment, nor much insight into the state of the terrorist organization in general. But the anti-war point will surely not have been missed by most readers. Now check out the Post’s al Qaeda story. Money quote:

“I believe the tide has turned in terms of al Qaeda,” said Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House intelligence committee and a former CIA case officer. “We’re at the top of the hill.” Goss’s sentiment was echoed by a dozen other intelligence experts and law enforcement officials with regular access to information about U.S. counterterrorism operations. “For the first time,” Goss said, “they have more to fear from us than we have to fear from them.”

The stories aren’t mutually exclusive. But one is dealing mainly with the past and what we know; and one is dealing mainly with the unknowable future. One is news; the other is thinly veiled editorializing. (One good sign, however, is the Op-Ed page. In the last week, there have been pieces by real, not token, conservatives: Boris Johnson and Reuel Marc Gerecht. Methinks David Shipley, the new editor, is having an effect at opening up the page to new voices. Not a moment too soon.)

THE DEFECTIONS BEGIN: One major Kurdish die-hard Saddamite has switched sides in advance of conflict:

Jowhad Herki is chief of the powerful Herki tribe and since the 1960s has supported successive Baghdad regimes in putting down revolts by fellow Kurds. He arrived in northern Iraq via London after travelling there from Baghdad for medical treatment. He is a former member of the Iraqi parliament. “This is a major development that shows that they are abandoning the sinking ship,” said Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurdish leader in the northern autonomous zone. “It will have a major influence on other tribal leaders to close ranks because they have nothing to hope for from Saddam.”

Just a straw in the wind. Except it isn’t a wind. It’s a hurricane.