Category: Old Dish

“‘I voted then, for Saddam, of course, because I was afraid,’ said Jabar Ahmed Ismail, 75, living on a $100-a-month pension from a lifetime as an oil pipeline repairman. ‘But this time, I came here by my own choice. I am not afraid anymore. I am a free man.'” – the New York Times today. This, of course, is bigger news than Judy Miller’s pathetic self-defense. If the turnout reaches 65 percent, this will have been a real triumph for the forces of sanity and self-government. More tomorrow, when there’s more data to analyze. But I can see only progress so far.

The comments I’d recommend are Mickey’s and Arianna’s. Funny how the shrewdest journalists on the case are geographically furthest away from D.C. I’ve now read the two NYT articles twice carefully, and all I can say is that, without all the evidence the Grand Jury is hearing, it seems to me some of the most plausible conclusions are

a) Miller is pulling a Clinton when she says she cannot recall who gave her the name “Valerie Flame.” So she is either protecting Libby or someone else entirely or her own reporting. What is she hiding and why?

b) Fitzgerald should never have agreed to restrict his questioning of Miller to the Libby conversations and the Wilson matter. (Score one for Bob Bennett!) The critical and lamest Miller argument is that the reference to “Valerie Flame” was somehow separated in her notebook from the notes she took from a conversation with Libby in the same notebook. The only way to really judge whether the notes back up her assertion of the name being unconnected to Libby – with no sign of whence it came – is to look at the notes. The best people to interpret the notes are other journalists who do the same thing that Miller does. But we find out that “Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes.” It also appears that Miller was at best misleading and at worst lying to her editors when she said no to the question of whether she was one of six reporters leaked to in the case. Wherever her loyalty lies, it is obviously not to the New York Times. Why did her editors not insist on having her turn over the notes? Are they not NYT property? Or is she somehow in a “star-reporter zone” outside of normal editorial control? I thought the Raines era was over.

c) Libby’s cryptic letter to Miller persuades me, at least, that he was trying to influence her testimony. Even Miller cannot wriggle out of that obvious Occam conclusion. But if Libby and Miller were completely innocent of discussing anything illegal and believed so themselves, why would Libby need to influence her testimony at all? In other words, there are two plausible reasons for Miller’s defense of source-confidentiality, even though Libby waivered it. The first is that source confidentiality is sacrosanct, period; and Miller believed Libby was being “pressured” to cooperate. But if neither of them had anything to hide, why was it “pressure”? Why wasn’t it a chance to clear the record for good? And why would she think he would fear her testimony? The second plausible explanation is that Miller and Libby did indeed have something to hide, and were both responsible for spreading discrediting information about Joe Wilson’s wife, because they had become jointly wedded to a cause: exonerating themselves on the WMD fiasco. Whether either of them knew Plame was undercover or whether it will be possible to get an indictment on such grounds, is another matter. But a fair reading of what we know so far certainly suggests to me that protecting a mini-conspiracy of sorts between a reporter and her source is more credible an explanation for Miller’s jail-time than Miller’s histrionic display of First Amendment righteousness.

d) If all of this is true, I still find it hard to believe that Libby would be dumb enough to send Miller a letter of the kind he did. Why not just wait it out till October 28? The only plausible explanation I can think of is that he was genuinely upset that his co-conspirator and friend was stuck in jail, that all the other witnesses had exonerated him, that he had exonerated himself, and so she could go in and cover for him. The coast, in other words, was now clear. Except that Miller’s notes did not exonerate Libby. So Miller had to have a convenient memory loss about the central issue in the whole case.

e) I find it incredible that critical notes from Miller relating a key conversation with Libby were only recently “found”.

As I say, I don’t know what the Grand Jury knows. A lot of what I’ve just surmised might be undone by more evidence elsewhere that we all know nothing about yet. All I’m trying to do is use common sense in reviewing what has now been reported. I haven’t had much interest in this case so far, and have tended to admire Judy Miller’s work in the past. It’s also relevant that the mass of evidence now suggests that Libby and Miller were right: Saddam had long been interested in getting uranium from Niger. But, once again, the follow-up (cover-up?) to the original issue has now become something bigger than the issue itself. And what we now know about that seems pretty stinky to me. It certainly suggests that Miller long ago ceased being anything like a reporter whose first loyalty is to give as much information to her editors and readers as possible, within reason. (There’s a place for people like that, but they are not as news reporters at the New York Times.) And it suggests that there was indeed a coordinated administration strategy to discredit Wilson by slipping into the media ether that his wife was a CIA woman and that he should be discounted on nepotistic grounds. (Forget, for a minute the hilarious idea of anyone in the Bush administration trying to discredit anyone else because of nepotism and cronyism.) Who coordinated that strategy? From reading the NYT report, I’d say that Fitzgerald is very interested in finding out if Cheney is at the heart of it. Uh oh.

ROVE AGONISTES: My Sunday Times column is now up.

YGLESIAS AWARD NOMINEE: “I’m filling out my absentee ballot, and I’ve been trying to find a reason to vote no on 77, Arnold’s effort to create a non-partisan redistricting process in California. And I can’t think of any. I’m not sure why busting the current incumbent-protection racket would be a bad thing, why creating competitive districts and forcing incumbents to be more responsive to their constituents than the current 70-80 percent partisan districts require.” – Markos Moulitsas, putting democracy before party.

As readers know, I don’t believe in forcibly outing other gay men and women. But I do strongly believe that those gay men and women now in powerful positions in the Republican party have a pressing moral responsibility to be out to their bosses and colleagues and public. The head of the Log Cabin Republicans, Patrick Guerrerio, has just written a stirring call for these people to realize that they have a unique responsibility at this point in history:

During this moment in the culture war, we face a fight that will determine how LGBT Americans are treated for decades to come. Those who choose to be missing in action are running from the most critical fight of our generation. During these historic times, the closet is not only a place which suffocates personal dignity, it is also a place which suffocates the powerful force of personal integrity that can change the hearts and minds of even the most conservative Americans and most conservative politicians. Coming out doesn’t have to mean putting a sticker on your car, flying a rainbow flag from your front porch, or marching in a parade. Coming out means different things to different people. It may be as simple as putting a picture of your partner on your desk at work, sharing your personal story with your boss, or speaking up when someone says something anti-gay. For others, it may be as difficult as offering a letter of resignation instead of implementing or assisting with an anti-gay campaign strategy.
For many conservatives, coming out will come with real and profound sacrifice.

Imagine that. Sacrifice for something more important than your own comfort level. No one should be forced into a decision he or she feels uncomfortable with. But that doesn’t mean and shouldn’t mean that the Republican gay closet is morally defensible. It is increasingly a failure to do what is simply right at a time when so many in the GOP are intent on doing wrong.

THE TROOP STRENGTH DEBATE: Striding Lion considers the past and present alternatives.

CHEER-UP TIME: Two emailers address my pre-apocalyptic gloom:

I think your analysis of flu-terrorism-technology-etc. is spot-on; and the only cheer I can offer is long, long term, and grows out of Robert Wright’s analysis (brilliant, I think) in “Non-Zero.” I think, as you suggest, terrorists will sooner or later succeed in exploiting ever-more-accessible and ever-more-sophisticated technology to inflict immense damage. This will, once repeated enough times, prompt most people and governments to recognize that the only effective counter (for management — cure is out of the question) is greater interdependence, greater trust, greater cooperation, greater devolution of power to ordinary people. “Flat” management a necessity for self-preservation. If ordinary folks are to be entrusted with more power, they will have to be given a stake in the mutual polity — i.e., they will have to be assured a decent standard of living and a real vote, even in developing countries. In short, we will have to choose between dying and becoming our brothers’ keepers.
Some governments will try Orwellian totalitarianism, but it won’t work — there will be too many Brownies in charge.
How soon? Dunno. Long, long time. Many, many people suffering and dying first.
Feel better now?

Thanks a lot. If you haven’t read Bob Wright’s book, “Non-Zero,” you really should. For some reason, it didn’t take off the way his first book did – but it’s a superb examination of, er, the whole of human history. Since I have a possibly even gloomier view of human nature than Bob, I’m unconvinced. Then along comes anther email-therapist:

I’ve thought about the problem of the escalating force multiplier for a long time now and haven’t been able to conceive of more than the obvious solution: the End of Privacy. I see a world where, in fifty years, everyone has the ability (and the right) to see what everyone else is doing-physically, financially, whatever-in real time. Computers will analyze everyone’s behavior and identify those whose actions and transactions are suspicious, dangerous, or unapproved. It doesn’t have to be as Orwellian as it sounds–government itself will be just as transparent.

Given how lttle privacy we already have, maybe the trade-off may not be so bad. either way, the golden age of freedom may be heading toward an eclipse.

An emailer makes a good point:

[The NRO editorial] even more bizarre than you claim. Consider: “If the president withdrew the nomination, we believe that he would seek a replacement who could unite conservatives – as he no doubt expected Miers to unite them. But that nominee would be tarnished, perhaps fatally, by the suspicion that the president was forced to pander to the Right.” But the first sentence makes clear that NRO does want Bush to “pander to the Right” — they just want him to do it sub rosa and untraceably.

That’s certainly the impression. But maybe my bullying point is a little unfair. Another emailer comments:

The NR can’t “bully” anyone. It is a magazine. They have no authority – only the power of persuasion. The last time I looked, engaging in that is called exercising one’s First Amendment rights. (Or does your occasional stridency make you a bully too?)

Point taken. What I was trying to say is that it isn’t a nominee’s responsibility to withdraw. And she cannot really defend herself right now. It may well have been a bad decision, but she deserves a hearing. Bully the president, not her.

The pressure being piled onto Harriet Miers right now strikes me as inappropriate, and bordering on public bullying:

Some conservatives have called on the president to withdraw her nomination, and a few have urged senators to vote against her. If the president withdrew the nomination, we believe that he would seek a replacement who could unite conservatives – as he no doubt expected Miers to unite them. But that nominee would be tarnished, perhaps fatally, by the suspicion that the president was forced to pander to the Right. The president, moreover, surely does not want to risk looking less than strong and steadfast. The prudent course is for Miers to withdraw her own nomination in the interests of the president she loyally serves.

Miers has been nominated. The president made the decision. If her nomination is to die, then the president should make that call; and take responsibility for it. Trying to force Miers to fall on her own sword for the sake of the “conservative movement,” whatever that means any more, seems deeply unfair to me. Besides, I thought the Republican mantra has been clear in the past for judicial nominations: they should all be allowed an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Miers should be given a chance to testify; or the president should withdraw his nomination. Those are the honorable courses. The bullies at NRO can go pull a Cheney.

One of the greatest pop artists of our time turns out to be a defender of “people of faith.” Here’s a transcript of a chat between Madonna and Stuart Price, the musical director of her 2004 Re-Invention Tour:

Madonna: (speaking about Stuart) He doesn’t believe in God and he’s not spiritual at all.

Stuart: Eh.. No. I don’t.. I don’t really believe in God.

Madonna: That really hurts me to hear that.

Stuart: Why does it hurt you? Why does it hurt anyone to hear that someone doesn’t believe in God? What’s the problem with that?

Madonna: Because then you don’t – you don’t believe in anything past this physical life that you live.

Stuart: You can believe in certain policies without having to believe in God.

Madonna: Do you believe in reincarnation?

Stuart: Yeah.

Madonna: You do?

Stuart: I believe in lots of things that are beyond the physical world.

Madonna: You don’t believe that there’s a supreme power or higher energy force that had something to do with the creation of the world?

Stuart: Yeah, but why does that have to be labeled “God”?

Madonna: Ok, how bout “Energy”?

Stuart: Yeah.

Madonna: Or “The Light”?

Stuart: [rolls eyes] Alright, how bout “Energy”?

Madonna needs to have a nice little chat with my friend, Bill Maher, doesn’t she?

I’m as big a defender of drug patents as anyone but there’s always an exception for epidemiological emergencies. With avian flu, we could be facing an emergency that makes Katrina look like a sunny day. Right now, we should do all we can to accelerate the difficult process for a vaccine, but that may take too long and production of sufficient vaccine is often a logistical nightmare. The second best option is mass distribution of Tamiflu and similar drugs that can ameliorate symptoms and could cut the death rate. I just want to second Stephen Gordon. We have no time to waste.

As so often, Charles Krauthammer cuts through to a central question of our time. His column today is a chilling one, and it’s about the potential for both a natural or a deliberate outbreak of a deadly flu virus. Money quote:

[R]esurrection of the [1918 flu] virus and publication of its structure open the gates of hell. Anybody, bad guys included, can now create it. Biological knowledge is far easier to acquire for Osama bin Laden and friends than nuclear knowledge. And if you can’t make this stuff yourself, you can simply order up DNA sequences from commercial laboratories around the world that will make it and ship it to you on demand. Taubenberger himself admits that “the technology is available.”

I fear we are close to the moment when our intellectual capabilities as human beings overtake our moral capacity for self-restraint. We are becoming too smart for our own good. We know too much, and have too much potential for massive destruction for major shit not to hit the fan relatively soon. I’m not even talking about unintended consequences of intellectual or scientific advances. I’m talking about deliberate use of destructive technologies to end our civilization as we have known it. Have we advanced morally as a species at the same pace that we have advanced technologically? The question answers itself. In the recent past, we feared nuclear immolation at the hands of governments, but the logic of mutually assured destruction kept the peace. Now, the very technology that empowers a blogger like me can also empower any number of murderous lunatics to kill on a massive scale. What are the grounds for hoping that the worst won’t happen in our lifetimes? What are the odds? If someone out there can provide an argument to cheer me up, I’d be grateful.

A reader emails:

You’re being somewhat unfair to the researchers who attribute suicide terror to “altruism.” We generally use the word “altruism” in a positive sense — an “unselfish concern for the welfare of others,” as defined in The American Heritage Dictionary. However the same dictionary defines the scientific term “altruism” as “instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.” There are no value judgments inherent in this scientific definition, which seems clearly to be the meaning intended by the researchers in the article to which you link. The conclusions reached by the researchers may or may not be accurate, but understanding the mind of the suicide bomber is both a worthy and necessary goal.

Huh? Let’s concede for the sake of argument that altruism in this sense means precisely “instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.” You’re saying that the murderers of 9/11 were exhibiting “cooperative behavior” for the “survival of the species”? Suicide bombing is an upper-middle class form of mass murder, attached to a psychotic, narcissistic version of religious faith. If someone wants to martyr himself as a protest, that’s one thing. If he wants to take other innocent people with him, it’s quite another. I would think that distinction is an obvious one. Within the confines of today’s value-free academia, it apparently isn’t.

Mystery Pollster has some very credible doubts that Bush’s approval numbers are that low.