Category: The Dish

This one truly takes the breath away. It makes Michael Savage appear like the model of reasonable discourse.

A reader thinks I’m still naive:

I’m glad to see the Geras quote (and your comments). As a conservative, I’m ashamed of believing in 2003 that the unintended consequences of war would not overwhelm the benefits. Of course I’m surprised by the degree of overwhelming, but not at all by the fact of it. I can‚Äôt honestly say I believed the threat from Iraq was imminent or substantial at the time: I knew it was a war of choice. I so strongly wanted the U.S. to remake Iraq (and was so frustrated with the Saddam regime), that I let hope trump judgment. 

There were better, slower and more careful (more conservative) ways of improving the lives of Iraqis without ripping that society apart. But I fell for the seduction of rapid social change through force, ignoring what may be the most obvious lesson of the 20th Century. I know you believe that if we’d just done things better on the ground it might have worked, but I disagree: this result (or some similar form of it) was inherent in the enterprise.  We should have done things better without going to war. 

If it’s a bellwether, the Dems are in good shape. Check out polling data here and here. Presidential tracking numbers for the state can be found here.

A reader writes:

You know better than that. Neal Boortz is a libertarian, not a religious conservative or a Republican, and he has been all over the president on critical issues, including the war, the deficit, gay marriage, immigration, and Terri Schaivo. He frequently laments the infusion of religion into politics, and you have quoted him approvingly on several occasions, which has never been the case with the others. He was there because because he’s "right" on taxes and for no other reason.

You are accused often enough of painting with too broad a brush. Don’t give your critics easy ammo.

Boortz is indeed a principled libertarian conservative. Hannity is an apparatchik. I still find the fawning invitation to select talk-show hosts a little creepy. Somehow I don’t think they were invited to give the president a piece of their mind.

This scene from "Team America" always cheers me up. You can get the masterpiece on Netflix.

Mumbai, India, 11 am.

Who are these people called in to meet the president for a pep talk? Here are the toadies awaiting instructions and talking points: Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved. It forces one to ask the question: what is the difference between journalists fawning on a president, taking spin directly from him, cozying up to him – and paid propagandists whose job it is to advance the interests of those who already wield power? Some of these "journalists" have been critical of Bush policies. Which is why they have been summoned. You want the party line? You now know who to listen to.

(Photo: Eric Draper/The White House.)

The author of "Tempting Faith" blogs about what he’s now going through:

James puts it well when he says that there is arrogance in saying what we will do in the future – that we are vapors. That was the birth of Tempting Faith. It is, more than anything, a spiritual book. It is a book about my journey with Jesus through dark times – being part of an abortion, part of a divorce, hating my political "opponents." But it is also about my journey with Jesus through his infusion of life – finding forgiveness, finding love, celebrating life.

Ultimately it is my conviction that Jesus must (must!) be first that led to the book and to my willingness to sit down with "60 Minutes" – and, worse, to have to watch myself on television tonight.

Maybe it is different for others on TV, but for me there was just the overwhelming sense that I was being forced to watch a home movie of myself – with the added bonus of knowing that it was also being seen by millions of other people.

But therein lies my little hope, too – that people who think of Jesus only in a Republican way left thinking that maybe there is more to him than that … and that those who love Jesus were reminded that putting him first is always a good thing.

Several of us seem to be arriving at the same conclusion at the same time.

I hear reports of a serious rift between the two leaders. The call Bush placed to Maliki yesterday is a sign of serious strain. Money quote:

Snow said Maliki, who he said brought up the timetable question with Bush, was referring to a "rumor" about "attempts to replace him" if certain conditions weren’t met by a certain time.

"The president said, ‘the rumors are not true; we support you,’" Snow told reporters.

Well, we know what to make of the president’s word. The rumors were, apparently, about the Bush administration debating if some kind of military coup might be better able to stabilize Iraq. I cannot substantiate them but Maliki’s call to Bush obviously suggests he’s worried that the U.S. might try to pull the plug on him. There are also rumors of new contacts between Bush and Allawi. Is something afoot?

The awful truth seems to be: Maliki cannot restrain the militias; the sectarian violence is getting worse, not better; and yet Maliki is resisting partition or a big new infusion of U.S. troops. I have to say that the rumors of a Bush-backed coup actually reassured me a little. Not because I’d support it – but merely because it suggests that finally the White House seems to understand how dire the situation is. I have a sinking feeling, however, that their fundamental concern is not Iraq itself, but the effect it will have on the November elections. God knows what lies beyond that horizon. But if the Democrats control one or both Houses, the Iraq debate will become electric.

(Photo: Brooks Kraft for Time.)

In the case that has rocked Britain, a Muslim member of parliament backs the government position. A public school teacher cannot wear a veil in teaching her classes. Money quote:

A [government official] has called for the dismissal of a Muslim teaching assistant who refused to remove her veil in school, as senior Labour and Conservative figures indicated that they were hardening their stance on community relations.

Phil Woolas, the communities minister, whose brief includes race relations, told a Sunday newspaper that Aishah Azmi, 23, had "put herself in a position where she cannot do her job". He added that should the head teacher at the school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire choose to sack Ms Azmi then "so be it".

He was backed by a Muslim MP who said that it would be a setback for common sense in education if his constituent were to win her employment tribunal claim for religious discrimination. Ms Azmi was suspended from her job teaching children English because she refused to remove the veil.

Shahid Malik, the Labour MP for Dewsbury, said: "The basic thrust of what Phil says is just common sense. If you are not able to fulfil your job requirements then obviously it will be difficult for you to continue in that particular role."

I get the sense that the Brits are starting to hold the line against excessive sectarianism in public life. And this is a good thing.