Category: The Dish

Los Angeles, California, 6 am.

For an interactive gallery of Dish readers’ window views across the world, click here.

Poor Mickey is all upset that I used the term "wuss" recently and yet once published an email about his use of the word that detected some homophobic subtext. He claims self-contradiction. I claim context. Like many slurs, it really does matter who says it, about whom, and how. Mickey is a proud homophobe, and used the word to demean a man already called a "faggot" by Mickey’s close friend, Ann Coulter. In Mickey’s mindset, Edwards is a faggot because he is

"being flighty, dancing around like a little elf and being wussy on foreign policy."

I used the term about gun-owners in a context that had no conceivable reference to homosexuality (and, in fact, was part of a mild tease about machismo). I do think it matters if someone has a racist past when they use a term loaded with racial baggage. Ditto with gays and homophobes. For a reminder of Kaus’s long record of homophobia, here’s a piece of his defending a bar that had a "No Fagots" [sic] sign proudly displayed. Mickey loved that bar.

Brutal about the Bush record, still with the surge, but with an obvious out in September if a miracle doesn’t happen. What his Plan B would be no one knows, least of all him, I suspect. From last night’s Sixty Minutes:

Meanwhile, he’s sticking up for Darwin.

Bruce Bartlett went to work for the presidential candidate back in the 1970s. He recalls:

Ron was not your average Republican or a typical member of Congress. Most Republicans reflexively voted whatever way the White House told them to — Gerald Ford was still president, and party unity was the order of the day. And most congressmen hate being on the wrong side of a lopsided vote. But Ron voted his conscience and was often the only ‘nay’ vote out of 435.

Since Ron is a medical doctor, he became known as "Dr. No," which delighted him. He hadn’t run for Congress as a stepping stone to becoming a lobbyist, but to define the political spectrum by showing how a consistent libertarian would vote. This meant being for the free market and against gun control — conventional right-wing positions — but also being in favor of drug legalization and nonintervention in foreign affairs — more commonly left-wing positions.

This is still Ron’s philosophy. It is why he has consistently opposed the war in Iraq, making him something of a darling among those on the left who see no connection between Ron’s free market views and his antiwar position. But to him and other libertarians the issues are one and the same. They’re against unjustified government intervention at home or abroad.

The column, alas, is on TimesDelete. Here’s a list of Ron Paul’s policy stances. He’s a pro-life libertarian who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. He’s for legalizing marijuana. And he got 60 percent of the vote in Texas.

(Photo: Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty.)

They’re tough in that city. And so was Giuliani. If you vote for him, I think you have to understand that you’re voting for what the NYT today called a "benevolent dictator." A lot of people want that, as we have discovered. But Rudy is the real thing: a potential Putin-style president for the U.S.

In Washington, we’re arguing over non-binding benchmarks and political progress by September. In Baghdad, not so much:

"This is an internal American strife between the Republicans and the Democrats," Sami Al-Askari, an MP from the Dawa Party and close advisor to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, told AFP. "I think there is a misconception in America that if the oil law is enacted, if an amendment to the constitution is made, if the de-Baathification law is amended, the political and security situation will be stable and they will be able to pull out their troops. This is an illusion."

Mahmud Othman, a Kurdish MP and member of the ruling coalition told AFP that he doubted benchmarks would have any impact. "I understand why the US is doing this but the Iraqi government has certain capabilities and it will not be easy to change those capabilities… so I don’t think this will change the situation on the ground."

So we either have to stay for a long-term colonial occupation, or get out. The Maliki government does not have the power to make any progress. And Petraeus has assured us that there is no military soution.

A terrible smear on the good professor.

It would be a boon to those of us who are alarmed by what Hagel has called the hijacking of the Republican Party. With sectarian murders rising in Baghdad, I can see internal GOP chaos in the fall, as the current crop of candidates try to decide if to support the president (and face potential electoral doom) or to run directly against his war policy. Under those circumstances, a war-critic like Hagel could be very well-positioned. A Nebraska-New York ticket could also win many votes from Blue State Republicans and Independents, and reduce the Rove Christianist machine to a rancid rump. Money quote from Hagel:

"The president may find himself standing alone sometime this fall where Republicans will start to move away, and you’re starting to see trapdoors and exit signs already with a number of Republicans. The 11 House Republicans that went to see him speak for more than just 11 House Republicans. That’s just the tip of the iceberg."

My advice: don’t run as Independents. Run as Independent Republicans. We may have to split this party in order to save what’s left of it.

Donald Sensing sees something scary. I see something long, long overdue.

"Earlier this month, our Army released the results of an internally initiated survey of soldiers and Marines in Iraq. The results showed that almost half of our troops would condone torture in a specific instance if it saved their buddies’ lives. The media were, of course, appalled. I was shocked, too – surprised that so few of our troops would condone any action that kept their comrades alive. Torturing prisoners should never be our policy, both because it’s immoral and because it’s usually ineffective. But it’s madness to declare that there can never be exceptions," – Ralph Peters, preparing to blame our defeat in Iraq on our unwillingness to use torture more widely.

For an historical contrast, see this counterpoint to Petraeus:

"The war against Russia cannot be fought in knightly fashion. The struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be waged with unprecedented, unmerciful, and unrelenting hardness. All officers will have to get rid of any old fashioned ideas they may have. I realize that the necessity for conducting such warfare is beyond the comprehension of you generals, but I must insist that my orders be followed without complaint… Any German soldier who breaks international law will be pardoned. Russia did not take part in the Hague Convention and, therefore, has no rights under it."

That’s Cheney’s approach to the laws of warfare. Let it rip. The enemy is too depraved to merit any better. But it’s not the American way. And we have Petraeus to thank for restoring the honor besmirched by his commander-in-chief.