Mohammed at Iraq the Model believes that the riots in Iraq were orchestrated and were given the go-ahead by Ayatollah Sistani. I have no way to judge. But he also sees some positive signs:
"There are also some positive outcomes from this incident and its aftermath; the first one in my opinion was the performance of the Iraqi army which had a good role in restoring order in many places. Actually the past few days showed that our new army is more competent than we were thinking.
But the latest events have also showed the brittle structure of the interior ministry and its forces that retreated before the march of the angry mobs (if not joined them in some cases). The statements that came from the meetings of our politicians pointed this out when Sunni politicians said they wanted the army to replace the police and police commandos in their regions. This indicates growing trust between the people and the army."
Everything is still to play for. Send Clinton.
A useful primer on the Muslim fascists in France.
Ramesh Ponnuru argues that Robert P. George does indeed see a moral difference between the killing of an adult human being and the killing of a fetus, and so I am being unfair. Just read what I posted two days ago from George:
"I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in a sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view."
It seems to me that for this piece of irony to work, you logically have to assume the moral equivalence of murdering an abortionist with murdering a fetus. Which is to say, the premise of the cutesy quote I cite disproves Ponnuru’s point. And any honest reader of George would conclude that he uncategorically regards abortion as the moral equivalent of murdering an adult. How could he not? This is the same Robert P. George who has called abortion "the unjust killing of innocent human beings who, as a matter of right, are entitled to the equal protection of the laws." Ponnuru’s only argument is that George once argued that, in the theocon future paradise, it might not be appropriate to charge abortionists with "first degree murder," just murder of a lesser sort. But that is a prudential, legal judgment, not a moral one, a distinction George himself often makes. On the moral equivalence of abortion and murder, George has always been admirably forthright. He has written, for example, that for an adult human being,
"there was no stage at which he existed but was not yet a person."
In fact, the entire edifice of George’s work, which I have just finished re-reading, is absolute on the matter of the full human personhood even of a zygote.
As for masturbation, it is simply a matter of record that George believes, as Ponnuru does, that the government has in principle an obligation and right to police the private sexual lives of all its citizens to prevent them from sliding into "immorality." His view of the power of the state in this regard is extreme, and is mitigated again only by prudential considerations. As George once put it,
"’Secret’ vices have a way of not staying secret. There may be good prudential reasons not to attack them with the full force of the law … but that is not to say that, as a matter of principle, the law may not forbid them." [His italics.]
As for noting Hadley Arkes’ contribution, all I can say is that it struck me as an admirably frank admission that many theoconservatives have decided to hide their actual beliefs and objectives behind a Straussian facade of moderation. Ponnuru is upset – hysterical, actually, – when someone has the gall to rip off that facade. Of course, I do not know whether Ponnuru’s hysteria and deflection is rooted in malicious lying, indifference to the truth, incompetence in figuring out the truth, or some combination of these things. Readers need not know the answer to that question to conclude that he has something to hide. Maybe this new bill introduced in South Dakota will help elucidate matters further. Somehow, I doubt Ponnuru will be in opposition.
A group of Quebec priests take an unprecedented public stand against the bigotry of the current Vatican hierarchy.
A funny initiative in Ohio: a bill designed to prevent Republicans from adopting kids. Children brought up in such households, according to "credible research," tend to exhibit
"emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."
It’s absurd, of course. But no more absurd than the empirically baseless claims that kids brought up by gay parents are somehow at a disadvantage.
"Toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has ended his hunger strike on health grounds," – the Scotsman.
If you haven’t seen this video of an autistic kid creating complete and miraculous mayhem at a school basketball game, then watch it now. It will make your day.
It appears that Iraq’s elites may be pulling back from the brink. Zalmay Khalilzad has another mountain to climb – but, this time, the minds of his interlocutors might have been concentrated a little. We may be at the most critical juncture in the future of Iraq. The whole enterprise may now hang in the balance. Khalilzad suffers from a disadvantage, alas, that he can do nothing about. He is a Sunni. However agile and able he is, this identity in part hinders him. Could he in any way be helped broker a deal?
So here’s a thought: why not send Bill Clinton? For some reason that eludes my own judgment, Clinton has a great deal of cachet in the Middle East, and could defuse the anti-Bush and thereby anti-American obstacles to success. He was, by all accounts, superb at the Doha/Brookings/Saban summit in 2003. He would bring the Democratic party into a much more constructive role in trying to bring about a serious step forward for Iraq, and help unite the country at home. If Bush were to ask him, it would send a very powerful message of seriousness to the Middle East, put more of America’s prestige and effort behind the Iraq project, at exactly the time some in the country are doubting our fortitude.
And what else is the job at hand in Iraq if not some very tricky form of triangulation? And who comes to mind when you think of someone slick and charismatic enough to bring such a triangulation off? Yes, I know, I know. He failed at Taba and in the Oslo process (but that was largely Arafat’s fault). He has been a craven wuss on the Danish cartoon controversy. But that paradoxically gives him more cred with some of the forces we need to bring on board. Whatever you think about him – and I am no fan – Clinton is nonetheless an immense talent and national resource; and this is a time of immense danger and opportunity for the country. Moreover, one of President Bush’s main failures in this war has been in uniting the country around his Middle East policy. Picking Clinton would be magnanimous and paradigm-changing – at home and in Iraq. It’s time for a dramatic gesture – and one that would also bring Europe muchy more fully on board. Why not? Be bold, Mr President.
The pundit adds star power to a political fundraiser. It’s important to realize that Sean Hannity isn’t just a conservative; he’s part of the Republican party apparatus. I hope guests on his show will properly identify him in future.
The Dish 