In his battle with the Weekly Standard, the pious, publicly-funded leftist starts to lose it.
THE ANTI-WAR LEFT IN ACTION: A useful first-hand account from FrontPage magazine. My favorite Begala-ism: “Now we know that [Bush] has a problem with Saddam Hussein. We know that. We know that he’s got to take revenge for what Saddam did to his daddy.” Maxine Waters, of course.
WHY I’M WRONG ABOUT CFR: Your letters will follow. Here’s Wally Olson’s take.
The disgusting murder of Daniel Pearl is another reminder of the barbarism we are now fighting. Its grotesque brutality, its shameless spectacle and its media manipulation are straight out of the pagan warrior handbook, as Robert Kaplan would describe it. We have every reason to be outraged, as well as saddened. But we have to remind ourselves that these are the risks of war against such an enemy. So far, the United States has survived this conflict with amazingly few casualties in the foreign arena. One is too many, of course. But I feel worried by the idea, buried in today’s Washington Post story that the administration might be considering a “new policy to take action to help free any American held hostage overseas, instead of just those who are U.S. officials. Options could include military strikes or direct contact with kidnappers, but not negotiations over demands, officials said.” This strikes me as unwise. Responding to every kidnapping of a U.S. citizen could become a permanent endeavor. Such a zero-tolerance policy, however laudable in principle, might even encourage such kidnappings, if they are seen as a way to distract and manipulate American public opinion and to yank the chain of the American government. We shouldn’t rise to this bait. The Pearl murder is surely a moment for anger but also for steady nerves. I can’t imagine the much-liked reporter would have wanted his legacy to be anything else.
POSEUR ALERT: “I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement,” – former president Jimmy Carter, on president Bush’s “axis of evil” phrase. What is Carter thinking? For a former president to criticize a current president so harshly while the country is at war is breath-taking enough. But who on earth does Jimmy Carter mean by “we” in that sentence? “We” as in craven appeasers of dictatorships, pathetic ditherers in international affairs, and sanctimonious prigs, perhaps? OK, I take his point.
SWIFT’S ABDICATION: The Boston Herald’s Margery Eagan masterfully dismembers the arrogance and illogic of the Massachusetts governor.
CLASSIC NOONAN: “As a communicator [Rumsfeld is] clear as clean water. He seems ingenuous. He talks with his hands. He’s thought it through and knows a lot and tells you what he knows. At first you sense his candor and clarity and enjoy it without realizing it. Then you realize you must be enjoying it because you’re still listening. Then you sense that his candor and clarity are in the service of intelligence and clean intentions. You find yourself following what he says, following the logic and the argument. Which makes you ultimately lean toward following him.” – Peggy Noonan, getting under Rummy’s skin, Wall Street Journal, today.
BOOK CLUB: Bob Kaplan recommends further reading; you keep at him. Later today: my take on Chapters III – VII.
“They’re one of the most dedicated couples in the penguin enclosure,” said Angie Pelekedis, a spokesman for the New York Aquarium, on Coney Island. “They sleep in the same nest. They even have sex, though I don’t know how successful that is.” This from the Telegraph’s story on the emergence of a gay penguin couple in New York. What’s interesting is that it seems to be far more than mere opportunistic homosexuality – which is so common in the animal kingdom. It’s actual coupling – and another nail in the coffin of the natural law argument that homosexuality is somehow unnatural. Only if you define nature as unnatural does the argument make any sense, given what we now know about humans and animals in the 21st century.
Why does the veep keep on lying about the GAO’s requests? Cheney continues saying they want the details of his notes. But the GAO has long since abandoned such a demand. The always-resourceful Byron York rightly sees danger ahead for the administration.
Frank Gaffney roughly sums up my position on disinformation campaigns in National Review Online. We need them – sparingly. And it may be that Rummy has conceded too much to the forces determined to neuter the war on terrorism.
“The most arresting statistic that Lomborg produces is this. It is well known that meeting the Kyoto treaty on carbon-dioxide reduction will delay global warming by six years at most by 2100. Yet the annual cost of that treaty, in each year of the century, will be the same as the cost – once – of installing clean drinking water and sanitation for every human being on the planet. Priorities, anyone?” – Matt Ridley, in an excellent summary of the environmental movement’s over-reaction to Bjorn Lomborg’s book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist.”
I don’t take the red-blooded conservative line on campaign finance reform – that it’s a terrible attack on free speech, party politics, apple pie, and so on. In fact, the more hysterical editorials like this one from National Review I read, the less worried I am. What anti-reform conservatives need to understand is that the current system – so beloved of their nemesis Bill Clinton – has led to a profound cynicism about government. People understandably believe – and the legislative process lends credence to the notion – that their representatives are bought and paid for. Not literally, in every case. I don’t buy the idea that every corporate donation corrupts everyone who receives it. But structurally, the corruption is clear, and loaded against ordinary citizens and in favor of unions and corporations. This cannot be good for the polity. I’m not exactly thrilled by the bill. I don’t like the ban on independent advertising in the last 60 days of a campaign. The prospect of more independent or free-lance campaigns funded from dubious sources is equally unlikely to elevate the republic. It could be God’s gift to groups like the NAACP, as this piece from The Hill points out. But I second Mickey Kaus’s belief that change itself is good thing – it disorients settled patterns of corruption; it blocks fixed channels of sleaze; it will make our political parties less like extensions of corporate lobbying budgets; it will make a Denise Rich or a David Geffen less influential in national party politics. It also makes complete political sense for Bush. The unconstitutional parts of the bill will almost certainly be voided by the Court; Bush himself is adept at raising hard-money; and his move to the center will be solidified. He should hold firm, ignore Rush and NRO, and sign a bill if one reaches him.
WEIRDNESS IN BEIJING: “Bush will stay in a hotel, and administration officials plan to follow measures similar to those they used at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Shanghai during the president’s trip in October, setting up tents in the hotel rooms to keep paperwork out of the range of cameras and playing country music during sensitive conversations.” – Washington Post today. Tents and country music? What is this – a jamboree?
TYSON IN D.C.: Yes, Mike Tyson is a clearly unhinged individual. And yes, in my view, boxing is simply unwatchable – a barbaric and almost indefensible phenomenon. But it’s a free country; and there’s no good reason why the D.C. city government should attempt to stop an event lots of people clearly enjoy and that the local boxing commission has approved. Besides, as the Washington Post shrewdly points out, Mayor Anthony Williams has a great deal to gain by supporting the brawl. It shores up his cred in the black male electorate, and it may bring badly needed revenue into the city. I’m bullish on D.C. generally these days. The huge increases in defense spending and continuing buoyancy of NIH funding will doubtless spill over in the coming years into a booming Washington economy. And before too long, the Tyson embarrassment will recede from memory.
SLOBO’S FANS: Guess who’s on the committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic? Just that old Ramsey Clark and Harold Pinter. So clarifying, isn’t it?
BOOK CLUB:Bob Kaplan defends undemocratic regimes and his record on the Balkans; you weigh in again.
HE’S BACK! The Germans see another Rambo on the horizon.
LETTERS: A grandmother grapples with Rosie; in defense of Scalia; a pro-choice NRA member writes in; and the trouble with Dick Riordan.
As of today, I’ll be changing the format slightly for the Book Club. Until now, I’ve been posting my thoughts and your thoughts and Bob Kaplan’s responses as they come in – just like the Dish – in reverse chronological order. If you’re following closely, it all makes sense, but if you’re just dropping by, it can seem a little confusing. So from now on, each day’s postings will be posted in chronological order – with the first posts of the morning staying at the top of the day’s page and the responses following below. It makes more sense for this kind of discussion. Sorry it took a couple of days to realize this, but, hey, we’re making it up as we go along. And thanks for the remarkable emails. At this level of debate, both Bob and I have our hands full. Keep reading, and keep ’em coming.
Your take on Winston’s pagan virtues – in the Book Club.
The Dish 