Category: The Dish

A reader writes:

It would seem that all political discourse is now deteriorating into taking sides – not in the context of a particular issue, but in the Manichean sense of are you a supporter of the administration or you are against it. It is increasingly difficult to take a nuanced stance on any topic. For the record:

I do not support the war in Iraq but I fully supported the effort to topple the Taliban and rebuild Afghanistan. I oppose a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman but fully support states’ rights to amend their own. I fully support the need for the West to stand up to Islamic religious extremism and forcefully espouse the virtues of the Western Enlightenment, but oppose the contorted lengths that the administration will go to justify torture, suspend Habeas Corpus for legal aliens and ignore the checks and balances of the founding fathers.

I do believe in moral values such as honesty, forgiveness, trust and tolerance but oppose the religious extremist’s (of whatever faith) right to define morality for me. I do believe in the capitalist system of competition but oppose the corrupt cronyism that passes for an entrepreneurial culture in the current times. I do not believe in the phrase "if it feels good, do it" but oppose the government deciding what is moral.

I do believe in the fourth estate, but I am frustrated that the press wants to present every side of a debate as if it carries equal weight. I do believe that Western countries should have a strong military but do not believe that diplomacy is a weak option. I do believe that the UN has become a bloated body incapable of making hard decisions but do not believe that the UN is an evil conspiracy out to destroy the USA. I do believe that society, via Government has a duty to help ameliorate poverty but do not believe in massive entitlement programs.

What label should I self apply? I no longer know.

Me neither. We’re in the same party, it seems. Pity it doesn’t exist.

Michelle Malkin does not have a sense of humor.

San Diego, 6.30 pm.

A reader writes:

I haven’t regularly read Reynolds since well before the ’04 election but it is incredible to see in the post you linked to today that he is still as lame and depressingly predictable a thinker as ever.

There’s the passive indifference to the details of a specific issue ("I haven’t read the actual bill"), a creepy deference to the will of the public no matter how wrong the "public" may be ("this is pretty consistent with polls I’ve seen on public attitudes") and, of course, hollow pleas for civility (bloggers behind Porkbusters "treat people … with some minimal courtesy, an approach that Andrew might consider emulating in his next crusade.")

It’s been obvious to anyone remotely sentient that Glenn became a parody of himself long ago but it’s less than clear why, exactly, anyone still reads him.

For comfort, mainly. And you can see why.

A reader writes:

As much as I’ve enjoyed your blog (stopping by several times a day over the last 5 or so years) I’m taking a lengthy break from reading you. I’m fatigued by your inability to accept that honest disagreement is possible. In the last year it seems that those who reach a different conclusion on difficult issues are liars, torturers, "Christianists," (although in the case of John McCain and NR I believe you decided they weren’t Christians). This is all beneath you or, at least, too overbearing for me such that I find myself uncomfortable standing with you even on issues where we share general agreement. I’ll be back, I suppose, but not any time soon.

On the question of torture, I’m afraid I do believe that the president is a demonstrable liar and that, on such a profound question, there can be no compromise. I have never questioned John McCain’s faith and never would. What I do question is whether a defense of torture is compatible with even the most minimal level of Christian faith. I doubt the Senator disagrees and has fought a tough battle. On the deployment of religion as a partisan political matter, I feel just as strongly. But I have no window into others’ souls; and we all have to live with our own consciences on this. My criticisms are on the basis of principles – limited government, secular politics, free speech, individual freedom, and competent, accountable war-making. The cynicism of the current Republican leadership and its acolytes on all these fronts is something I find repellent. Hence my passion. If it’s too much, you’re welcome to read someone else. But I have to write what I believe – or not write at all.

We’ve allowed it to return to Saddam’s levels of brutality, according to this analysis from a pro-war person like myself:

"Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam’s needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam’s reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam’s 8,000-odd days in power."

Of course, the violence included peaks and valleys. But the toll in the last two months is about 117 civilians a day. So we’re back where we started. But now, the violence and torture is not directed by one tyrant, but by anyone, anywhere, in the anarchy Rumsfeld deliberately unleashed and deliberately ignored.

David Horowitz’s online magazine publishes the following:

Waterboardingis fleeting in duration with the actual discomfort lasting seldom more than a couple of minutes. And since a man can be safely deprived of oxygen for at least twice as long, there is almost no risk of long-term harm. The possibility of injury is further reduced by the fact that the procedure calls for no direct physical contact between the subject and his interrogators. Not even as much as pushing or chest slapping is required at any time, making waterboarding one of the safest and least confrontational among interrogation methods. Involving the lowest risk of long-term harm and the least amount of cumulative discomfort, it is also the most humane.

The Khmer Rouge as humane interrogators. This is the abyss in which conservatism now finds itself. One reason I became a conservative was because as a teenager in the 1970s, conservatives seemed the only people to grasp the true evil of the Sovet Union. At the core of its evil was its deployment of torture to break free people’s souls and to obliterate their liberty by the brute force of the state. Now conservatives are the ones justifying torture – by the United States. They have become what they once fought. Unchecked power does that to you.

Atlanta, Georgia, 2.30 pm.

The Onion has the scoop:

Led by a bipartisan group of senators critical of White House policy on suspected terrorists, the Senate passed a bill Thursday that prohibits interrogators from exceeding 100 amps per testicle when questioning detainees. "Even in times of war, it is counterproductive and wrong to employ certain inhumane interrogation techniques, and using three-digit amperage levels on the testicles of captives constitutes torture," said Sen. John Warner (R-VA), who has also supported reducing the size of attack dogs and the height of nude pyramids.

Laugh? Cry?

Bush’s closest confidants both tried to get Bush to dump Rumsfeld, and both failed, according to Woodward:

Card made his first attempt after Bush was reelected in November, 2004, arguing that the administration needed a fresh start and recommending that Bush replace Rumsfeld with former secretary of state James A. Baker III. Woodward writes that Bush considered the move, but was persuaded by Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, that it would be seen as an expression of doubt about the course of the war and would expose Bush himself to criticism.

Card tried again around Thanksgiving, 2005, this time with the support of First Lady Laura Bush, who according to Woodward, felt that Rumsfeld’s overbearing manner was damaging to her husband. Bush refused for a second time, and Card left the administration last March, convinced that Iraq would be compared to Vietnam and that history would record that no senior administration officials had raised their voices in opposition to the conduct of the war.

When even Andy Card knows they’re headed for disaster, you know it’s true.