The Dish

"If you mean by ‘military victory’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible," – Henry Kissinger, speaking the bleeding obvious.

To see why it’s obvious, check out this report in the NYT about an American captain trying to "stand up" a local Iraqi police force. In the current security climate, created by Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney, it’s like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Even the Federalist Society is now divided:

As to the contentious issue of the reach of presidential authority, the Federalist Society membership is not united. Professor Yoo, who wrote several memorandums while in the Justice Department arguing that the president’s power is expanded during a war on terrorism, represents one wing of the conservatives, while many in the group are smaller-government libertarians.

At a spirited panel discussion Friday with Professor Yoo, one of the revered figures of the group, Prof. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School, branded as dangerous the notion of expanded powers for the executive branch because of the continuing fight against terrorism.

"This is an issue which splits this group right down the middle," Professor Epstein said.

It appears to be crumbling. Money quote:

After he was arrested in 2002, Jose Padilla was considered so dangerous that he was held without charges in a military prison for more than three years – accused first of plotting a radiological "dirty bomb" attack and later of conspiring with al-Qaeda to blow up apartment buildings with natural gas.

But now, nearly a year after his abrupt transfer into a regular criminal court, the Justice Department’s prosecution of the former Chicago gang member is running into trouble.

A Republican-appointed federal judge in Miami has already dumped the most serious conspiracy count against Padilla, removing for now the possibility of a life sentence. The same judge has also disparaged the government’s case as "light on facts," while defense lawyers have made detailed allegations that Padilla was illegally tortured, threatened and perhaps even drugged during his detention at a Navy brig in South Carolina.

The Justice Department denied the allegations of torture last week and is pursuing an appeal of the conspiracy ruling in hopes that the charge will be reinstated.

So an American citizen, detained without due process for three years, accused of terribly serious crimes, and allegedly tortured, may not be found guilty, after all. And people wonder why many of us have concerns about the way the Bush administration has handled military detainees.

Hewitt leads the hysterics, as usual.

Brendan Nyhan pores over the record. Charles’ recent statement was that

Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and always simple: Depose Saddam Hussein and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government.

But he once cited WMDs as the core reason. What happened? Or was this merely an oversight?

Why did Tori Amos not find a way to burn every copy of this? Heh:

Click here to see the other entries…

The NYT runs a very curious article today about Italian humor about the current Pope. None of the jokes cited seem to me to be very risque or even funny. The entire argument of the piece is undermined by lack of any real evidence that this pope is subject to any more ridicule than has historically been the case. Except of course for that photograph (see above). It shows the source of the actual jokes circulating in the Vatican and elsewhere about this Prada-preferring, Gucci-wearing, high-drama German intellectual. The actual jokes – which the NYT won’t print – are about how good looking so many of the men are who surround Benedict, especially his personal assistant, Msgr. Georg G√§nswein, shown holding the large phallic microphone in front of Benedict’s face. The Vatican gossip merchants call Georg "Gay-Org." He is inseparable from Benedict. And he surely is easy on the eyes. There is no evidence that Benedict has ever broken his vows of chastity; but there is no evidence that he is heterosexual either. Hence the gossip; hence the jokes. When you’re a Pope who declares that even closeted, chaste gay men cannot be priests, it’s pushing your luck to clothe yourself in Prada, bedeck your Pope-mobile with luxurious Natuzzi Italian white leather, and surround yourself with assistants who look like they strayed from the pages of "L’Uomo Vogue."

Butch it up, sister. Or the jokes will only get louder.

(Photo of pontiff and Georg by Franco Origlia/Getty.)

A reader writes:

The abolitionists certainly did accuse Lincoln of moral equivalence. Even the less radical anti-slavery men, like Horace Greeley, accused Lincoln of not taking the moral cause of slavery seriously enough as a component of the war. Consider Greeley’s famous letter to Lincoln pleading with him to make the war a moral cause. Lincoln’s reply to Greeley is very telling. He specifically separates the idea of personal conviction of morality (his "often expressed wish that all men, everywhere, could be free") with his offical morality as to his position as President. In his offical capacity, Lincoln is, of course, famously concerned not with slavery, but preserving the union ("If I could save the union by freeing some…"). But more telling is his attitude of doubt and his desire to change course when the facts merit:

"I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

That, to me, is the heart of Lincoln’s anti-fundamentalism: his willingness to consider opposing viewpoints and to adjust when times call for it. And it was what separated him from both the abolitionists and the southerners.

And it is what made him a conservative genius – on a par with Elizabeth I, James Madison and Benjamin Disraeli. You can read more about the Lincoln-Greeley relationship here.

San Francisco, California, 3 pm.

A reader writes:

I love your blog, but I think the Burke quote you used Friday is spurious. Here’s a quick and dirty analysis of its appearances online and its provenance. I know this essay isn’t the last word on the subject, and if you have better information I’d be very interested in hearing about it. In the past I’ve used the quote and this essay to start a conversation about evaluating sources with my freshman writing students. (The really bright ones pick up on the fact that this essay isn’t peer reviewed, either.)

Thanks for the info. Whoever coined it, it still makes sense to me.