The Dish

A sobering review of a new book about Iraq:

Mr. Agresto argues that Americans too often underestimate the extent to which religious extremism can thwart pragmatic ideas, demonize moderation and undermine stability. He feels that the U.S. government – then and now – has put too much faith in Iraqis, who are culturally unaccustomed to standing up for themselves and taking responsibility for the society that they are a part of. For Mr. Agresto, misguided expectations threaten to destroy much of what America hopes to accomplish in Iraq.

An idealistic faith in the immediate, cure-all power of democracy has been part of the problem, in Mr. Agresto’s view. Granting power to a Shiite majority without developing moderate parties or setting up a mechanism to protect Sunni interests, he says, merely exacerbated sectarian tensions.

The threat of religious extremism is not, of course, exclusive to Iraq.

Wisdom from James Lileks:

If you find yourself living in The Small World, and you do not spend the majority of the day in a building that features the words "High" and "School," you might want to get out more often.

(Hat tip: Insta.)

Gay journalist Ann Rostow asks a few questions about the Human Rights Campaign’s secrecy and unaccountability. HRC recently held a forum in San Francisco and barred reporters and bloggers, just as they barred all media from Hillary Clinton’s speech to their board. They act like a politburo with something to hide, not a civil rights group with a message to send. Rostow asks:

Listen, if Joe Solmonese and HRC can’t handle Michael Petrelis, how the hell are they going to handle the real enemies facing our community? And why wouldn’t Solmonese want one of the most provocative activists on the blogosphere to participate in this meeting? Is this a pep rally or a serious attempt to hear what San Francisco has to say?

HRC still won’t respond to the five basic questions I have asked of them. They refuse to say how many members actually pay the recommended minimum $35 annual membership fee. I’m beneath a response because I have dared to criticize them. A reader comments on Rostow’s analysis, disagreeing that this is a fight between "insider" activists and "outsider" activists:

The basic question isn’t whether we need a "lobbying group in Washington," but whether HRC can meet that need in any meaningful way. In part, HRC is the victim of recent successes (and even a few near-misses) in state legislatures: State GLBT lobby groups have shown signs of success, quite possibly because many of them are actually working for GLBT equality. Compare HRC’s record with Equality California — or even with a group like Equality Virginia, working in one of the most anti- Gay states in the Union — and you wonder just what HRC has been doing with all that cash.

The answer is: not much apart from teddy bears and Cyndi Lauper concerts. If you want real progress, demand more accountability, transparency and effectiveness.

(HRC logo courtesy of Bay Windows.)

Just for the record, I thought last night’s episode, "Lice Capades," was the best I’ve ever seen. Pure genius.

I didn’t know her, but others did. Virginia has a touching tribute. And this one broke my heart.

Give the president what he wants. My advice is here.

Ben Smith explains and apologizes. I linked. What seems to have happened is that the more tests that came through the more optimistic the diagnosis became. Ben was behind the news. If the diagnosis had been dire, I expect Edwards would have suspended his campaign. Now the diagnosis is that the cancer is treatable if not curable, he’s soldiering on. There are perils of real-time reporting. Politico just discovered that – but they’ve also corrected and apologized swiftly, which is to their credit.

So, despite earlier reports, Edwards will not suspend his campaign. Good for him. The diagnosis is not as dire as it seemed only a little time ago, it seems. And if anyone did not know of Elizabeth Edwards’ extraordinary character before, they do now. What I saw in this press conference was the reality of family values – not the rhetoric, not the divisiveness, not the politics, just the reality of an actual family dealing with real issues. We all face such issues. Cancer survivors and their families know it all too well. So do those of us who live with HIV, diabetes, Parkinsons and many other diseases that patients can now live with, rather than die from. In this, John Edwards is doing a public service. He was admirably candid about his wife’s cancer being treatable, if not curable. That paradigm is increasingly common – and it’s affirming to see someone in public life live through it so positively, so admirably and so passionately. She shouldn’t give in to it. One key to surviving serious illness is to live positively and candidly while you treat it. With HIV, I learned to repeat to myself a triad that was essential to surviving any serious medical condition: Own it, face it, beat it. That’s what the Edwardses did today, and they will help a lot of people through their example.

The campaign should go on, as life goes on. The cancer should neither help nor hurt it. But I will say this: Elizabeth Edwards is a truly remarkable human being. And her marriage is an inspiration.

(Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty.)

He does it because his wife has a recurrence of cancer in some degree to be further explored. It is of a piece with his character to do this; and a simple testament that he has the right priorities and values to be a president of the United States. Sorry, Ms Coulter. But this man will be remembered for a character you do not even want to possess.

(Photo: Mannie Garcia/AFP/Getty.)

Tom Edsall gives good advice, I think. This is president Bush’s war in Iraq. No leading Republican candidate for the presidency can defend his handling of it. That in itself is remarkable. Here’s McCain:

"We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement — that’s the kindest word I can give you of Donald Rumsfeld — of this war. The price is very, very heavy and I regret it enormously. I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."

Here’s Giuliani:

"You’ve got to change the whole strategy … The whole strategy has to be a strategy of not just pacifying places, but holding them, and holding them for some period of time. … Here’s what I would change. Do it with more troops, maybe 100,000, 150,000 more. I would do it in a way in which we didn’t disband the army, which we’ve learned. I would have us not disband the army. You wouldn’t de-Baathify. See, de-Baathify sounds like the right thing to do because you’re getting rid of all the old Saddam guys. But that meant getting rid of the entire civil service. The country had no infrastructure."

Here’s Romney at CPAC:

"We were under-prepared, under-managed, under-manned and under-planned."

I’ll note that this blog has consistently made these criticisms for the past four years, only to be told by the right-wing blogs that the only reason I turned against the conduct of this war was the Federal Marriage Amendment. Heh. This war has been managed disastrously, according to all the major GOP candidates. Only the partisan saps in the conservative blogosphere are still defending it.

It seems to me that the smartest thing for the Democrats to do is simply to echo the Republican candidates. On every occasion possible, the Democrats should cite these Republicans, quote them and agree with them. Micro-managing a war from the Congress is a fool’s game. Trying to cut off funds actually helps Bush: it relieves him of the responsibility for the nightmare his incompetence and arrogance have created. The cold truth is: There will be no resolution to this war before the next election, and instead of trying to create one, the Democrats should simply give the president what he wants, expand the broad defense budget to protect the military from being totally broken before the next election, and simply hold Bush accountable for the results. It’s his war. Make him own it. If by some miracle, the surge succeeds, then it’s good for Iraq and America. And if the Democrats have funded it, they can also take some credit. If it fails, it will be Bush’s final, miserable failure.

The current mess merely confuses Bush’s responsibility. The Democrats should clarify it, and fund the war fully – entirely as a way to express support for the troops. Then Obama or Clinton or Edwards or Gore can run on a simple program to end it in 2008. And they can argue that any vote for a Republican in Congress will risk a continuation of failure.