Category: The Dish

The truly bizarre story in the NYT today about Jacques Chirac’s interview do-over prompts a couple of responses. One is that, once again, the French are wimping out on deterrence in the Middle East. But the other is that Chirac, like any self-respecting Parisian, is always more lucid after a decent bottle of wine:

The president had a different demeanor during the two encounters.

In the first interview, which took place in the late morning, he appeared distracted at times, grasping for names and dates and relying on advisers to fill in the blanks. His hands shook slightly. When he spoke about climate change, he read from prepared talking points printed in large letters and highlighted in yellow and pink.

By contrast, in the second interview, which came just after lunch, he appeared both confident and comfortable with the subject matter.

It must have come from one of the better cellars.

Here’s another slice-and-dice amateur YouTube – a genre that will, I predict, be among the most powerful forms of media in the coming presidential election. Paid ads will be less significant than viral video, disseminated by the blogosphere and hitting MSM shortly thereafter. We’ll get used to it, but its first victims won’t see it coming. This time the target is McCain. And it’s brutal.

Cheney’s notes, subpoenaed by Fitzgerald, reproduced here. There’s some debate about what the crossed out words ‘the Pres" means. No idea myself.

A reader writes:

Isn’t it pretty obvious what this could mean?

"Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy the president …  asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder…" Just complete the thought.

Cheney realized what he was about to write, he’s no dummy, and decided to go for the vaguer, "that was asked." That was asked "by whom?" is the question. By Cheney or the President? Seems like the latter was the one on the Veep’s lips or tip of the pen.

Hmmm. So Cheney was reflecting a presidential decision as to who was expendable and who wasn’t? Bush wanted to save Rove by designating Libby the fall-guy. He asked Libby to be the fall guy for Rove. (Cheney may not have been thrilled that he had to lose his right-hand man to save the president’s.) Pure speculation, of course. But it makes sense. And if true, it’s a fascinating glimpse into the mafia-like code of loyalty that exists in Bush world.

Anglophile politico Michael Barone spots a trend.

Is the new atheism really very old? Pete Rollins has some thoughts.

"I’m not going to be a part of the [Congressional Hispanic Caucus] as long as Mr. Baca illegally holds the chair … I told them no. There’s a big rift here. You treat the women like shit. I have no use for him," – congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. Sanchez claims Baca called her a "whore."

One way of deciphering the opinions of Glenn Reynolds – it’s hard work, but someone’s got to do it – is to examine his links. He is non-committal on "Plus Up": he says he’s for it, but only if it’s conducted the right way (quite what the right way would be is left vague). But he gleefully links to anyone who argues that criticism of the surge is a function solely of a) siding with al Qaeda; b) partisan advantage; c) political cowardice; or d) media bias. Here’s his latest link: "JULES CRITTENDEN: SURGE!" Is he for it? Is he against it? Does he agree? Does he disagree? No idea. Then you read the link, and find this:

The signs of success [for the surge] are showing up fast. The mere suggestion of a serious crackdown has prompted its targets to run for cover. Moqtada al-Sadr is angling to get back into the political process. His Shiite militias men have hidden their weapons and are trying to act normal. Sunni insurgents are reportedly hightailing it to Diyala. Iran has signalled it wants positive engagement and negotiations, and is trying to look like a friendly neighbor to Iraq.

Those are only preliminary and temporary developments. But they represent a vote of confidence in the Bush plan from its target. The enemy has shown fear. The enemy does not want us to attack.

Er, there is another, obvious explanation for these developments, as a cursory read of the newspapers (liberal media bias!!) will reveal. The "surge" is so anemic it is only designed to calm sections of Baghdad outside the power-base of the Shiite militias (Sadr City). Since these militias control the Maliki government, their current quietness is explicable primarily in terms of simply waiting until the Americans have gone. We know this surge won’t last more than a few months. Why fight when you can wait? Why fight when the bulk of the surge will be dealing with Sunni extremists in Anbar and Sunni districts in Baghdad? Why wouldn’t the Shiite militias be quite pleased by the U.S. doing their work for them? Does he think they’re actually scared?

Crittenden also argues that because 63 percent of Americans want the surge to succeed, it will. Heck, I’m amazed that anyone would not want the surge to succeed. Of course, we’d all love it to succeed. I sure would. I’d also like al Qaeda to surrender, Ahmadinejad to be deposed, and al-Sadr to order his militias to disarm. But I’m not delusional. And I see little reason to encourage others to be so.

A television classic. Wouldn’t you have wanted to hang in that green room afterwards?

Jason Zengerle uncovers a 1995 piece on Obama that reveals his long-term consistency. Mark Steyn finds in Romney’s flip-flops on social issues a reason to like him more: "If he’s just being opportunist, then even that is modestly encouraging." I look forward to Steyn finding others’ changes of mind "modestly encouraging." Funny but I don’t recall him being so charitable toward Kerry.

A reader writes:

Wow, I remember the Liberace of Baghdad — from the Hamra Hotel in the winter/spring of 2004.

You’re right about watching society crumble before your eyes. It’s very difficult for people to understand but, between orgies of mass slaughter, you kind of knew where you stood in Saddam’s Iraq. This isn’t my speculation; this is what Iraqis have told me. That order was imposed by terror. But all the invasion did was destroy the order — it didn’t eliminate the terror. The insurgency, the militias and the criminal gangs terrify Iraqis more than Saddam did.

One of the drivers I work with has moved his family out of Baghdad because his old neighborhood is no longer safe. But they’re Shiites, and they must travel between Baghdad and their new home on a road where they risk being stopped and murdered by Sunni insurgents. I know a translator, a Christian, who was terrified his neighbors would find out he was working for western reporters. He had lied about what kind of work he was doing, and to avoid being caught out he slowly withdrew until he wasn’t talking to his neighbors at all.

I didn’t have a single moment of clarity about Iraq. The most horrible thing I’ve seen here was the charred bodies of those Blackwater contractors strung up at the bridge. I was at the scene by happenstance. But terrible things happen in war, and the barbarism of the enemy is no reason to stop fighting. I was reacting more to the realization that we’d never be able to understand what motivates Iraqis, and they’d never be able to understand what motivates us.  That Christian translator and I were talking politics in the winter of 2004 and he asked, "How can we be asked to fight for democracy when we don’t know what that is?"

The gulf is just too wide. We tried to bridge it with recklessness instead of respect, and with arrogance instead of courage.