Category: The Dish

Rasmussen polls need to be taken with a bucket-full of salt. But this one cannot be good news for the White House. The Democrats now have a slight edge over Republicans on the national security issue. Rove is being hoist on his own petard.

That’s the judgment of FBI officials, comparing what they knew was going on at Guantanamo and defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s denial of any condoned mistreatment. From the latest batch of Gitmo docs:

"The documents suggest that harsh interrogation methods were approved of and encouraged by high-ranking Pentagon officials and commanders. In an internal FBI memo dated May 2004, an unidentified bureau official complained that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s public pronouncements about interrogation policies were misleading.
‘I know these techniques were approved at high levels within DoD and used’ on specific prisoners, said the official, referring to the Department of Defense."

The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is suspended for a few weeks because he said something vile and inappropriate to a reporter? Who has that power? I had no idea that in England, democracy is really a veil for a bunch of unelected prissy tut-tutters to pick who can and cannot govern. Here’s Sharia law from the Jewish lobby in England:

"The London Jewish Forum welcomed the ruling, with chairman Adrian Cohen calling for the mayor to create a strategy which would ensure London’s Jews would be treated with respect."

Screw that and screw them. Just do your job. And if you don’t show enough "respect" for the voters, they can always throw you out of office.

I’m amazed this hasn’t gotten more attention. I suppose an incipient civil war in Iraq and Dubai port hysteria obscured it. But here are Stephen Cambone’s notes from Rumsfeld on 9/11, FOIAed by a blogger. Yep: a blogger.

The most revealing items, of course, are the following: in discussing whether Iraq could have been involved, the notes say: "judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at same time." Later comes: "Hard to get a good case." Then there’s this: "Go massive … Sweep it all up. Things related and not." (My italics). My confidence that there was no deliberate misleading of the American people after 9/11 just slipped a notch. More raw evidence here.

The opening sentence of Victor Davis Hanson’s new essay from Iraq is a little off-putting:

"The insurgency in Iraq has no military capability either to drive the United States military from Iraq or to stop the American training of Iraqi police and security forces — or, for that matter, to derail the formation of a new government."

We know today that, in fact, the insurgency has indeed temporarily derailed the formation of a new government. Zeyad is close to despair:

"What kind of nation are we? What kind of nation kills its intellectuals and academics, its doctors and healers, its women and children, its clerics and preachers? What kind of nation blows up churches and mosques, hotels and schools, funerals and weddings? We have left nothing sacred. Yet we have the insolence to accuse others of offending us, of vilifying us. I announce today that we have proved ourselves worthy of that vilification. Ten years ago, I denounced religion and disavowed Islam. I do not want to be forced to disavow my country and nation today, but with every new day, I’m afraid I am getting closer to it."

But if we were to look on the bright side, we could also say the following: the attack on the Samarra mosque is so heinous an atrocity in its patent blasphemy and attempt to ignite sectarian passions that it may be a good sign. How much more hideous a thing could the insurgency achieve? And yet, Iraq hasn’t disintegrated – yet. Today, the government has restored a semblance of calm. How could the insurgents top such a terrible crime? Attacks in Najaf might do the trick, I suppose. But we may now be seeing the maximum damage the insurgency can do to the process of forming a new government. If Iraq can manage to stagger toward a political consensus government after this, then it will have crossed a Rubicon of its own. Maybe it takes staring into the abyss of civil war to pull back from it. I know I may sound Pollyannish, but it is too soon to despair or to relent. And far too soon to pull out.

He has taken his clothes off for the cameras in the past. Those with Kaus-like "visceral surface revulsion" might not want to click this link. Ford offers this commentary on his own physique: "My butt is naturally hairless, by the way." The bears can move on. Meanwhile a reader writes of my earlier post:

"You were half right.
Women are not attracted to "a man’s soul, his character, his style" … they are initially attracted to his wallet and societal position. If everyone is going to admit that men are initially attracted to T & A, then why give women a pass."

Chivalry on my part? Ignorance? Take your pick. Another comments:

"Playing the straight male card here, I have to dissent on the opinon that all men ‘wanna see is titties.’ While Keira is stunning, and Scarlett needs more time on the stairmaster, I would prefer to see the both of them clothed any day of the week.  For an example, see the last red carpet Keira was on… she looked divine.  As far as sexism goes, I don’t see it.  These were high fashion, artistic photographs.  They were not portraying women negatively, as submissives, but rather showing a natural beauty.  Reading into it, you could say the photo leans more towards the futility of the male in expressing himeself to women.  Women aren’t afraid to be naked, to expose themselves to all that life, and relationships have to offer.  And the male, though dominant, will always find some way to hide a portion of himself from the woman, or man he loves.  And in that way it is not sexist, but empowering."

To be continued. The real news was getting too depressing.

A brilliant ACLU ad about the future of ordering a pizza.

This Vanity Fair cover is creating some kind of, well I wouldn’t go so far as "buzz," but low-level chatter. Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson are in the altogether, but Tom Ford is clothed (except for his trademark exposure of chest hair). A double-standard? I fear not. As US Weekly editor, Janice Min, explains:

"Men just aren’t viewed as sex objects in the same way that women are. Women don’t think about men being naked in the same way that men think about women." In fact, she says, at her magazine’s offices, when photos come in of a male star with no shirt on, "We say, ‘Gross! Put some clothes on!’"

Of course, gay media outlets have plenty of male nudes, but that’s because they’re read by … men. Men and women are biologically wired to be attracted to different aspects of the people they lust after. Women, for some reason still opaque to me, are sexually attracted to a man’s soul, his character, his style. Men want to see titties, as Dave Chapelle would say. Gay men and straight men are no different in this. And so the single standard VF is using is a simple one: let’s sell as many magazines as we can. I fail to see how they can be criticized for doing their job.

The White House budges, as it must. I have no substantive issue with the P&O deal, but it does trouble me that the statutory 45-day review was truncated. Let’s have that extra time to ensure there are no security problems; and then let’s move on. It strikes me as revealing that only one Republican showed up for the Senate hearings on the matter today.

"The issue hangs on the next few days. Either the gates of hell open onto a civil war or the Shi’ites will take more power. Only the U.S. military is preventing war in some areas," – Baghdad political science professor Hazim al-Naimi.