The Dish

A reader writes:

Real patriots will break the law for the greater good and proudly face the music for their actions.  Sometimes we have to do things that are wrong, but making the wrong lawful cheapens the choice.

The president and his crowd come from the top of corporate America where one can run a company into the ground and still get paid tens of million.  Bush has no concept about self-sacrifice for the greater good. The army and CIA have always done things against the law but did it in the shadows. If they were caught, then they accepted their punishment. Oliver North made a choice. He broke the law and paid the price (sort of). This administration wants to take away that price.  It is cheapening acts of patriotism. When an interrogator looks into a suspect’s eyes, he should see a jury of his peers looking back and then he needs to make his choice.

When Americans think of torture they think of Dirty Harry standing over a serial killer whose next victim is running out of air at a remote location. Americans think of Harry as a hero for doing everything he can to save the victim. But what most people fail to realize is the thing that makes Harry the hero is not the act of torture. It is the choice to torture given he will face consequences for his action. If the consequences are removed then Harry becomes a meter maid.

Once the torture bill passes it won’t take long before many, many more terror suspects will be tortured. A time will inevitably come when a detainee is found to contain some information that could have stopped a loss of life or property.  At that time interrogators will have to account for not getting the information.  Torture will become a cover-your-ass technique.

This is a sad time for morality and accountability.

This is the Bush era.

"This matter of gay ‚Äî I want the gays mad at me. I‚Äôm not on enough of their hit lists … But I want to tell you something is, they don’t know, we’re driven by God to deal with this stuff, and I want to say to you that, in this regard, I’m not playing with you. That when it comes to the matter of this gay stuff, I know that a family is not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It’s a man and a woman. That’s the creative order, and I’m not backing down. I’m standing flat-footed on that right there. [Applause]

Everywhere I get to speak, I am guarded by the grace of God, being strong on it. Now they’re fussing on it, they’re saying a few things, but they don’t have me, you know, in their, you know, on their web sites. They’re not coming at me strong, and I would say this. Back in the days when I was a kid, and we see guys that don’t stand strong on principle, we call them ‘faggots.’ A punk is ‚Äî and our people, I’m from the ghetto, so sometimes it does come out a little bit. I got another one I’m gonna say in a minute ‚Äî [laughter] ‚Äî that don’t stand up for what’s right, we say, ‘You’re sissified out!’ ‘You’re a sissy!’ That means you don’t stand up for principles. And I just believe that God hasn’t called us to be sissies on a principle level. We’re called to be, to stand up and be men. I’m not talking about as in gender. I’m talking about man of God, men in the marketplace, and when a U.S. senator or congressman says that he wants me to vote for them, and he’s not biblically based ‚Äî if he doesn’t have God as his Lord, how can somebody that doesn’t feel the need for God lead me?" – Bishop Wellington Boone, speaking last weekend at the Republican Values Voters summit.

Among those attending the summit: Tony Snow, Attorney General Gonzales, Senator George Allen, Governor Mike Huckabee, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.

"We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another," – Jonathan Swift. (Anyone know the precise source?) [Update: Of course, you do. It’s from "The Battle of the Books And Other Short Pieces" at the beginning of Chapter XVI: "THOUGHTS ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS".]

The Scissor Sisters give pop music an adrenaline injection. Jake Shears flames out. And I can look at Babydaddy’s beard all day.

An open seat, formerly Republican, previously considered close. A new poll shows a massive Democratic lead. The Dem has a 40 percent lead among self-described "moderates". A fluke? Or a harbinger of an awakening?

A new survey suggests they want us out within a year:

A new WPO poll of the Iraqi public finds that seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming majority believes that the US military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the US made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on US-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten. Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the US government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.

I can’t verify the acuracy of this poll, but felt it was relevant to the debate prompted by the NIE. More data here.

I believe her:

Mrs. Hawkins, who described herself as a rural Virginia housewife and an active Democrat, said in an interview Tuesday that she heard Mr. Allen use the slur repeatedly at a party on election night in 1976. She said Mr. Allen used the term while deprecating the intelligence of the black players on the Washington Redskins football team, which Mr. Allen‚Äôs father coached. Recalling remarks about its star running back, Larry Brown, Mrs. Hawkins said that Mr. Allen ‘started in effect bad-mouthing him, saying what a shiftless you-know-what’ he was.

She said she remembered the conversation because she was a big fan of the team and was shocked. She said Mr. Allen’s statement on Monday was ‘just plain a lie.’

Can you imagine what he says about gays behind our backs?

It’s an excruciating read. Here’s my summary: we’ve made real progress against the organized professional leadership of al Qaeda. Everywhere else, we’ve lost ground. One reason we’ve lost ground – both strategically, ideologically and politically – is because of the bungled war in Iraq, which has produced the worst of all worlds: an ineffective occupation that doesn’t bring democracy, has turned the image of the U.S. into Abu Ghraib, and has inspired many more decentralized and dangerous Jihadists across the globe. As a supporter of the war in Iraq, it’s clear that over three years later, it has spawned more terrorism, and is now causing more innocent deaths on a daily basis than Saddam’s vile regime. Whether this was inevitable or a function of the way it was conducted will be debated for decades. But this much we know: it was conducted dreadfully anyway, on the cheap, and without even minimal strategic intelligence and care. At this point in time, there’s no way to spin this except as a fiasco that has obviously made us less safe right now and in the immediate future. The only arguments the Bush administration has left is that in 2050, historians may regard it as a turning point, and that leaving now would be even worse. The first argument is pathetic; the second argument is true but only underscores their unforgivable recklessness.

The NIE further concludes that our continued ineffective presence in Iraq is spawning more terrorism, and that our departure would also be a huge morale boost to the Jihadists and foment even more hell. Great. (What the war has done to increase Iran’s power and potential danger is not addressed in the sections I’ve read. But it surely adds to the negatives.) What’s clear to me is that we therefore have a gamble ahead of us: do we withdraw from Iraq in some way – either completely or to Kurdish areas – or do we seriously try and get the occupation right? At this point, I’d say the argument is very finely balanced. Obviously, the first step must be to get rid of the people so far responsible for the Iraq disaster. Until Rumsfeld is dismissed, we have no hope for any improvement. General Casey needs to be fired as well, along with several other military leaders who have presided over this mess. For the first time in this administration, we need some accountability. Then we have a decision to make. Do we have the troops necessary to make this work? Or do we not? If we need a draft, do we have the guts to say so and debate it?

My own view is that we should either drastically up the ante in Iraq – by adding tens of thousands of new troops in a serious, concerted attempt to provide order for the first time; or we should withdraw. Anything in between continues the same worst-of-all-worlds nightmare. We knew occupying a Muslim country would be a very high-risk venture. Which is why it had to be done with overwhelming force, meticulous planning, and an equally painstaking political strategy for the aftermath. We know now that Rumsfeld and Cheney just wanted to bomb the crap out of the place to prove they had more testosterone than the Democrats and to scare a few leaders in the Middle East. But the time for their amateurism is over. Either get serious or leave, guys. And make up your mind soon.

(Photo: U.S. troops in Baghdad this month, by Yuri Kozyrev for Time.)

I have a simple question: were all of Power Line’s trio of Dartmouth alums students of Jeffrey Hart in college? Was he their mentor in conservatism at the time? Their blog has mentioned him several times in the past glowingly, and Scott Johnson has identified himself as a disciple of the professor "emeritus and extraordinaire." They speak warmly of him here and recommend an essay of his. Here they imply that they were former students. Scott Johnson here recalls how "everything I think I know about literature I learned as a grateful student of Professor Hart." There’s a poignant reminiscence here, and an endorsement of a new book by Jeffrey Hart. Scott Johnson wrote the following about his former mentor here:

Professor Hart disabused me of my addled adolescent liberalism and smugness over the four years I was his student as an undergraduate. I remain his grateful student … Professor Hart joined the editorial board of National Review in 1969. In the course of his long association with the magazine he met up with virtually all of the magazine’s great characters. In the current issue of the New Criterion, Professor Hart brings his gifts for portraiture to bear on an autobiographical reflection on the founding father of National Review and the modern conservative movement: "Buckley at the beginning." This brilliant essay is difficult to excerpt. Please read the whole thing.

Of another essay by Professor Hart, Johnson wrote: "There won’t be a better essay published this year."

And yet, strangely, the most brilliant essay of this year by Jeffrey Hart is ignored by the trio of his former students. Here it is. It’s a brutal excoriation of the toxic brew of authoritarianism and Christianism that Hart’s former students now try to pass off as "conservatism." Money quote:

If [Bushism] amounts to a worldview, it’s certainly not that of Burke. Indeed, Bush would probably be more at home among the revolutionary French, provided his taxes remained low, than among Burke’s Rockingham Whigs. (Burke would of course deny Bush admission to the Whigs in the first place, as Bush would be seen as an ideological comrade of the philosophes —if a singularly unreflective one.) It’s no surprise that longtime conservatives such as Francis Fukuyama, George F. Will, and William F. Buckley have all distanced themselves from Bush’s brand of adventurism.

The United States has seen political swings and produced its share of extremists, but its political character, whether liberals or conservatives have been in charge, has always remained fundamentally Burkean. The Constitution itself is a Burkean document, one that slows down decisions to allow for “deliberate sense” and checks and balances. President Bush has nearly upended that tradition, abandoning traditional realism in favor of a warped and incoherent brand of idealism. (No wonder Bush supporter Fred Barnes has praised him as a radical.) At this dangerous point in history, we must depend on the decisions of an astonishingly feckless chief executive: an empty vessel filled with equal parts Rove and Rousseau.

Equal parts Rove and Rousseau. With a sprinkling of Carl Schmitt. Add torture for flavor. And you have what conservatism has now become.

Is it becoming an oxymoron? A Muslim journalist vents here:

The writer in a Muslim society is in shackles. Every time I put pen to paper it is a struggle against the tyranny of community-imposed self-censorship. Nowhere is Rousseau’s statement that "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains," truer than in the House of Islam.

Everything is a taboo. Whenever a Muslim writer takes up a pen he starts tiptoeing in a minefield. You have to follow the flag signs of religious, cultural and social taboos. You should tread carefully avoid shame, social estrangement or even death.

The beheading of the Sudanese journalist Mohamed Taha Mohamed Ahmed in early September was the latest example of community punishment of a journalist/writer…

In the House of Islam, you cannot have a principle other than that of the community. Every thing you do is referred to Islam. The mantra is "that’s stupid BUT … But we cannot do this because we are Muslims." One hears this expression ad nauseam. In the Islamic world you cease to be a human being. You become only a Muslim, whatever that entails.

You are not allowed to be a person with vices and virtues, you cannot follow your own reasoning, and you cannot be unpopular or defend an unpopular idea. You cannot go out of the circle. To express yourself freely means to risk death. And death indeed if you change your faith. Invention itself is considered as an act of blasphemy.

And so the backwardness deepens; and the ressentiment intensifies; and the censorship grows. Somehow we have to reverse this cycle of conformity and fear – there, and, to a mercifully much lesser extent, here.