The Dish

A priest with integrity.

“Neither Per nor I is as scandalized as NPR apparently is [by allegations of voter fraud in Kurdistan]. The elections here went off without a hitch. No bombs. No violence at all. Quiet. As orderly as things get in Iraq. And, man, were the Kurds ever thrilled to vote. Per told me that in one rural village outside Erbil, info on registration procedures never got out, and hundreds of villagers were turned away from the poll. They were devastated. Democracy is life to these people — or, as one Kurdish Christian named Jacob told me: “Democracy is the best religion for mankind.” He meant that, and most Kurds agree with him. There will always be fraud and corruption in Iraq. (In one desperate moment, a cabbie here charged me 1000 times the normal rate for a short trip!) Nevertheless, these elections have been a resounding success.” – Noah Schachtman, blogging from Kurdistan.

Two fascinating and largely positive reviews from the Catholic News Service and Christianity Today. My favorite line from CNS:

While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true.

Hard to summarize better the contradiction at the heart of the Church’s teaching on homosexual dignity.

END OF GAY CULTURE WATCH: Casper, Wyoming, has an openly gay mayor. Zzzzzz.

The bottom line is surely this. With each election, Sunni Arab participation has risen this year. Yesterday, there was a clear indication that some deal had been made between the Sunni Arab political leadership and the insurgents to halt violence. That means that a) Sunni Arabs want in on an equitable Iraq and that b) the insurgency can indeed be destroyed by politics. American policy must now be a relentless attempt to facilitate concessions to the alienated minority, especially on oil rights, that can continue this process. Zalmay has his work cut out; and the dealing will, of course, be determined by the precise result. But this is an amazingly good opportunity for progress. Moreover, I believe as a matter of faith and of history that each time a people votes for its own future, the practice of democracy deepens, the sane majority strengthens, the appeal of extremism diminishes. Our job is now to keep this momentum going, to force the parties to deal, quickly and expeditiously, with their differences, and to lean on the Shiites to understand it is in their interest to make concessions to the people who tormented and oppressed them for so long.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT BUSH: I should add that pure domestic partisanship on this matter – and even recriminations and criticisms of the past – need to be abandoned in America right now. We are asking the various Iraqi factions to put the past behind them and work constructively for a better future. President Bush is the commander in chief for the next three years – the crucial years for Iraq – whether you like it or not. It is in all our interests – Democrat, Republican and Independent – that he succeed. Scoring points – as distinct from making clear and constructive criticism – is not what we need right now. Here’s a reader who sums up my own feelings pretty well:

I voted in the first democratic election in South Africa in 1994. There were long, long lines of people. Everyone was happy, smiling, black, white, rich, poor. The election changed everything, absolutely fundamentally. Ten years on, South Africa is a country with a lot of problems – AIDS, unemployment, violence. But the economy is booming, people are optimistic overall, and there’s no doubt it’s a way better place than it was in the dark days of apartheid. Democracy is powerful, powerful medicine. As a Democrat watching the Iraqi elections today, I could not help feeling very positive about the future of Iraq, and also what the United States has accomplished there. Despite all the screw-ups, and the moral lapses (like torture), George Bush may well be hailed as a visionary in ten years time by many in the Arab world, and the world at large. Liberals today should drop their hatred of George Bush, and hope this is a new beginning for the Iraqis and the future of democracy and freedom in the Middle East. As liberals, we should be wanting that more than anything.

Just as the Sunnis are splitting into those who want a constructive future and those who want to fester in the bitterness and divisions of the past, so the Democrats need to distance themselves from the humiliate-Bush-at-any-price extremists who can shout the loudest. the Iraqi people deserve better than that from us. And we owe them our support.

Yesterday was a stupendous day for those who care about the moral standing of the U.S. and its capacity to get good, reliable intelligence. The McCain Amendment is real, and will profoundly strengthen the hands of the majority of soldiers and CIA officers who want nothing to do with illegal treatment of detainees. But the Graham-Levin Amendment is a bizarre addition, as Emily Bazelon spells out in Slate. The records of Alberto Gonzales and Don Rumsfeld are clear. As long as Rumsfeld runs the Pentagon, you know there will be an attempt to undermine the clear new rules. McCain’s looming chairmanship of the Senate Armed Services Committee will help. I’m not minimizing the complete victory of the anti-torture forces this week, and Bush’s shrewd cooptation of them. Deep down, I believe Bush And Rice don’t want the U.S. to be tarred with this kind of stain, but that Cheney and Rumsfeld are fine with it. The lesson here seems to me to be along Churchill’s dictum of magnanimity in victory … but vigilance too. I do not trust Cheney, Rumsfeld or Gonzales on this issue; and they need to be watched continuously to see they do not try and subvert the law again.

This is such a great, great day. Iraqis turn out in massive numbers to move their country forward; and America regains her honor by finally, unequivocally reasserting a ban on torture and adherence to the U.N. Convention on Torture. I’ll have more to say tomorrow. But the sight of so many Arab and Kurdish Muslims having a chance to actually determine their own future is inspiring. We have so much more work to do; but now we can hold our heads up in pride. The heroes within the military and CIA and diplomatic services who resisted and finally overcame the Cheney-Rumsfeld axis of brutality deserve congratulations. John McCain has served one more mission in defense of his country’s ideals. One particular vote of thanks to Ian Fishback, the young man who risked his career to end un-American abuse and torture of defenseless detainees. He’s now training for the Special Forces – to go on and fight our enemy, with dignity, humanity and honor. May God protect him and all those who are protecting us. This was a fight for their honor too. And a tribute to their service and to the men and women who preceded them.

HOMOPHOBIA IN THE GENES? Mickey and Bob debate and discuss.

Some further reflections here.

I’ve just written a column on the Christmas wars. I’m as irritated as anyone by the p.c. nonsense of calling Christmas trees “holiday trees” and the like. But it does strike me as overkill that there’s a “war on Christmas,” as O’Reilly and Gibson have it. One particularly weird quote from O’Reilly is the following:

“There’s a very secret plan. And it’s a plan that nobody’s going to tell you, ‘Well, we want to diminish Christian philosophy in the U.S.A. because we want X, Y, and Z.’ They’ll never ever say that. But I’m kind of surprised they went after Christmas because it’s such an emotional issue.”

The relationship of what we call Christmas to Christianity is a very mixed one. Jesus obviously wasn’t born on December 25. That date was arrived at to coincide with the winter solstice. It was early Christianity’s smart cooptation of pagan rituals that helped it succeed as a popular faith. Moreover, the only people actually to have banned celebrating Christmas in the past were … Christians. Some early American Puritans banned it; so did Cromwell in England during his religious dictatorship. Secular societies have a much better record of protecting Christmas than explicitly Christian theocracies. I wonder if O’Reilly has even heard of this history. Or cares.

A reader writes:

One point on the Solzhenitsyn quote. The method you describe — one of over 30 he describes that were used to break prisoners but did not leave permanent marks on them so are OK, according to the Right these days. These methods were not used to extract information from prisoners. When the Soviets wanted intelligence, they would treat prisoners humanely, even well, making the comfortable and trying to persuade them to talk voluntarily. The idea was to get the prisoner to let down his guard, to trust you and then to let something slip. They did this for a variety of reasons, the biggest being that you never know what a prisoner might say that will turn out to be useful. We ape-folk like to talk. And when we’re doing wrong or secretive, our urge to confess to someone is very strong. The important thing was just to get the prisoner talking. Human nature would take care of the rest.

No, these techniques were used to extract confessions. The Organs would write up a confession to various crimes against the state and use these methods until the prisoner signed. They would use them until the prisoner named names — any names would do. Most of them had quotas for the number of political dissidents they needed to arrest. Forced confessions was a good way of getting a quota. But even the Commies realized that intelligence acquired that way was next to useless.

We’ve become dumber than the Soviets and in some cases just as cruel. Thank God this shameful era appears to be coming to an end.

I’m told a White House statement is imminent on the McCain Amendent. I’m told the White House has embraced the amendment, with no changes. If true, this is a huge step forward for the president, the war and American honor. It also has, I think, implications for McCain’s possible succession to Bush as president. Developing …