The Dish

“Setting aside Paul Wolfowitz’s complex, controversial career and what it all means for a moment, the problem with David Brooks’ piece in today’s New York Times is his concluding sentence: “But with change burbling in Beirut, with many young people proudly hoisting the Lebanese flag (in a country that was once a symbol of tribal factionalism), it’s time to take a look at this guy [Wolfowitz] again.” That was so twenty-four hours ago. What would David make of today’s Hizbollah-sponsored counter-protest in Beirut? Half a million Lebanese citizens marched in support of Syria and against Western meddling in their country — far more than we’ve seen in the anti-Syrian protests to date.

Like a majority of Americans, David Brooks tends to think monolithically about our Middle East policies: we are “on” the side of the people and “against” their despotic leaders; if the Arab masses would only emulate our democratic traditions then a new wave of security and economic prosperity would wash over their lands; we Americans will be “safer” if the Arab world is more “free.” Only time will tell. Today’s huge demonstration in Beirut only shows how difficult — silly, really — it is to apply a single, unifying theme — in this case, American-style freedom — to millions of people who may ultimately reject it. Or, more saliently, the power of the ballot box in the Middle East may usher in more Iranian-style, theocratic, anti-American governments, such as the one that may well emerge in Iraq.

As someone who watched the events of September 11th unfold from my Brooklyn roof deck, I don’t think we’re any safer for the neo-con theories at work in the Middle East now. Do you? Free elections in Iraq may have beneficial long-terms effects for American security but we won’t know that for years, if not decades. Meanwhile, as Porter Goss and Robert Mueller have recently testified and terrorism experts like Clarke and Bergen stress, al-Qaida is still capable of causing unspeakable harm to us in our homeland. Osama bin Laden is still at large and able to shape events from some relatively secure place, probably in Pakistan; over 90% of our shipping containers slip in without inspection; our borders, particularly our southern one, remain alarmingly porous; our first responders are still shockingly underfunded; another piece in today’s Times reports that al-Qaida operatives may be penetrating the C.I.A.(!)

In other words, you and David Brooks may be sitting pretty on the Wolfowitz bandwagon, proclaiming a new and better world, but I’m hanging back, largely because the images of September 11th haunt me. I’m afraid that it may take another large-scale attack on U.S. soil to refute the idea that our Iraqi adventure has somehow made us safer here. And after all, Andrew, isn’t that the sole stated reason George W. Bush took us to war?”

I’m with David on the assessment of Paul Wolfowitz. I’ve never understood the demonization of this man, whose integrity has always struck me as unimpeachable. He truly is a sincere backer of freedom around the world, has taken many lumps defending that increasingly vindicated principle, and been subjected to the usual obloquy from the reactionary parts of the left. The only moral question that hangs over him is the deployment of torture. I have no idea what his involvement in that shameful chapter of the war has been. But it would go against everything I know about the man to think he would approve. Or am I being naive? Speaking of which …

If you want to understand how torture is regarded by this administration in our current war, you need to read this story. A detainee was abused and murdered by CIA operatives in Afghanistan. No one outside knew for two years. The officer who presided over the murder was subsequently promoted. (Only now will there be an investigation – by the CIA. Reassured?) Tragically, this president has signed off on the capture of “ghost detainees” with no accounting, outside of any scrutiny, held in prisons that are nameless, to be tortured or killed by U.S. soldiers or CIA agents, who are in turn protected from prosecution by Bush administration legal memos and the support of their superiors. We simply have no idea how many people have beensubjected to this (although we have around 30 corpses that have been accounted for). The White House recently confirmed that well over a hundred detainees have been sent to Arab autocracies where torture is practised. Even as this president publicly calls on these regimes to democratize, he privately asks them to “take care of” prisoners of war. We also know that attorney-general Alberto Gonzales skirted the truth, to put it mildly, in his Senate confirmation hearing. Here’s what he said:

“[T]he policy of the United States is not to transfer individuals to countries where we believe they likely will be tortured, whether those individuals are being transferred from inside or outside the United States.”

So why send detainees to Pakistan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Jordan? Yes: Syria! The State Department has officially designated all those regimes as those that routinely practise torture. Even when cases emerge from the otherwise impenetrable darkness, 70 percent of the investigations of abuse, mistreatment or torture have been dropped on the grounds of insufficient evidence. And if you are a decent soldier and object to such tactics? They strap you to a stretcher in restraints and order you into psychiatric treatment. Then they remove you from the arena in order to protect your physical “safety.” Yes, this country treats military dissidents as psychiatric patients. Can we go any lower? Wait! We can. Alberto Gonzales, the attorney-general who helped craft the legal memos making torture permissible, said of such incidents: “I’m not sure that they should be viewed as surprising.” Let me put it this way: I’m quite sure that Alberto Gonzales is not surprised.

A GREAT PICK: Sending John Bolton to the U.N. strikes me as an inspired choice. The best diplomats in that position – Jeane Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan come to mind – have always been strong U.N. critics and have used their position to challenge the U.N. rather than flatter it. I’m also bemused by the critics. They don’t want Bolton in a powerful position in Washington, but equally they don’t want him in New York. Well, sorry, guys. It seems to me that this pick sends an intelligently mixed signal. Bolton will no longer be a central player in foreign policy in the White House and State Department. That signals more diplomacy, less confrontation. At the same time, the principles Bolton has stood for – democratization as a response to terror, the use of military force when necessary, and a refusal to coddle dictators – will be expressed where they are most needed. What’s not to like?

OH, RICKY: The funniest recent television series I’ve seen is “The Office,” the inspired Brit-com starring Ricky Gervais as a hapless, excruciating car-wreck of an office manager. But Ricky has a past. Here he is at the height of 1980s Brit synth-pop, eye-liner and hair and all of that. More here. Of course this means nothing to people not famliar with the show. But I assume that many as.com readers are. If you aren’t, do yourself a favor and get the DVD.

The pro-life son of former governor Bob Casey will be challenging the extreme right-winger Rick Santorum for a Senate seat in 2006. The first poll shows Casey ahead by five points.

McCAIN-FEINGOLD VS BLOGS? A disturbing interview. (Hat tip: Direland.)

HEADS UP: I’m on Chris Matthews’ Sunday network show this weekend.

Here’s a little tale that should help correct some people’s impressions that the blogosphere is somehow less reliable than the “mainstream media.” On February 17, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote a very tough column on the notion of an allegedly new, virulent strain of HIV in New York City. He made several factual claims that I know no solid evidence for. So I emailed him asking him for supporting data. The specific claims he made and I questioned were as follows:

1. “Tragically, this juvenile reasoning partially accounts for the apparent upsurge in HIV infections among gay males — and the emergence of a virulent new strain that has health officials plenty worried.” 2. “Unprotected sex is reckless, and unprotected sex between gays who are already HIV-positive will sooner or later produce a super strain of the disease.” 3. “The fact remains that a portion of the gay population — maybe 20 percent, Kaiser estimates — conducts itself in ways that are not only reckless but just plain disgusting.”

On February 17, I asked him where he got the data for all these assertions. He was in Saudi Arabia when I emailed him and promised to get back to me. Two weeks later, I got the following email:

“I think it’s obvious that I based much of what I wrote on the findings of the New York City medical authorities. As for the rest, it comes from Kaiser, as I made clear. The sentiments about bath house sex and such are strictly my own.”

Let’s review. 1. The New York health department did not say and has not said that there is an “apparent upsurge” in HIV infections among gay men. (By the way, what, exactly, is an apparent upsurge? Either it exists or it doesn’t, no? If it exists, why no supporting data?) So where does this data come from? I have no idea. After two weeks, Cohen can provide no supporting data.

COHEN’S NON-EVIDENCE: In the same sentence, Cohen cites as fact “the emergence of a virulent new strain.” But the strain is not new. It has been seen before in Canada. Those Canadian patients with a very similar strain now have zero viral loads under treatment. A small percentage of new infections in New York and elsewhere are resistant to three of the four classes of drugs now available, as was this one. So the word “new” is factually wrong. What about “virulent”? We do not know – and the NYC authorities did not claim to know – if this single patient’s immune system crash was a function of the viral strain, his repeated use of crystal meth, his own genetics, or simply an example of a common feature of recently infected men, whose immune systems regularly plummet before rebounding. So, again, Cohen has provided no solid evidence for his assertion. The same goes for 2. The bald statement “unprotected sex is reckless” is erroneous. If two men are HIV-negative and in a monogamous relationship, unprotected sex, i.e. what human beings have always called “sex”, is not reckless. It’s responsible and way more intimate and pleasurable than the alternative. Same for a couple who are both HIV-positive. There is no solid evidence that “super-infection” takes place at all. Viral mutation occurs because the virus mutates in the presence of drugs. People already infected with HIV and with antibodies to HIV have not been defintively shown to get reinfected, except if they have not yet developed antibodies. And most viral strains that have become drug-resistant are actually less virulent than regular HIV. Now this issue may be debated (and has been debated) – but this was not addressed by the NYC authorities Cohen cites as his sole source. Then there is his claim that “the fact remains” that twenty percent of gay men “conducts itself in ways that are not only reckless but just plain disgusting.” By that, he means: “Unprotected, promiscuous sex in bathhouses and at parties and using drugs such as crystal meth to prolong both desire and performance.” Notice he doesn’t say: maybe. Or possibly. Or potentially. He says: “The fact is…” Huh? Let’s say gay men make up 2 percent of the population. Cohen is saying that 1.2 million gay men are behaving this way. Again: where’s the evidence for this vast generalization? Cohen’s sole source is one Charles Kaiser. Kaiser is a gay writer and friend of Cohen’s. He has no studies backing this data up, so far as I know, and Cohen provides none, when given two weeks to come up with support. Did Cohen ask for the source for corrobration? Can he provide any data backing this up? Nope. Look, I have no beef with Cohen. In my first email, I began by saying

“First off, I’m a huge admirer of your writing on gay issues. You’re the very rare heterosexual man who actually gives a damn and writes as if we are equal human beings and citizens. Second, you are absolutely right that gay men have a responsibility to protect themselves and others from HIV.”

But this column is built on factual sand. In the blogosphere, it would have been buried by now. In the MSM, it lives on, uncorrected and untrue.

Blogads, the savior of blogdom, is running a survey on blog readers. Please take it. It will help all of us. For question 16, which asks which blog you read, write “andrew” or “sullivan” if you want to represent this site. Cheers.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I’ve been a devoted reader of your blog since its inception five or six years ago. I’m a stalwart Democrat, and I disagreed with you for quite a bit of time – particularly the years immediately after 9/11 – yet I continued reading. I was studying in Cairo for 9/11, and the sentiments you called upon seemed completely alien to me, as your assessment of Bush seemed ridiculous; when you declared that you couldn’t have imagined a competent Gore response to 9/11, I couldn’t have disagreed more.

However, I suddenly feel a similar sentiment. I’m currently in Damascus, and I’ve been following the events in neighboring Lebanon quite closely. And all I see are Bush administration successes, from Ukraine to Iraq to Lebanon to Egypt. The transitions to democracy in all of these countries is hardly a fait accompli – both Iraq and Lebanon could still descend into sectarian civil war, and Egypt has hardly begun – but they are immensely heartening. And it’s hard not to credit Bush. More worryingly (for me at least), it’s hard to imagine a Kerry responding to Hariri’s assassination as perfectly. This may be unfair – I’m a big fan of Joe Biden – but I have to confess that Bush’s radical liberalism feels quite justified by current events. I’m waiting for a Democratic foreign policy that’s not only competent – and I’m still convinced that the Democratic foreign policy establishment has many more competent than, say, Rumsfeld – but also idealistic. Idealism is powerful, and this is something Bush realized and I didn’t. But the people of the Middle East certainly do understand this, and hopefully the Democratic foreign policy establishment will follow suit.”

The joys of spending the afternoons immersed back in political theory (yes, I’m a nerd at heart) somehow diverted me from linking to two recent pieces. Here’s my Sunday Times column on Hillary – she’s the one to beat in 2008. Here’s my tangentially-related Time essay on the Democrats and abortion.

Yes, the Blair government will keep the mandatory television tax to fund Britain’s institutionally leftist and compulsory state broadcasting system. For another decade. This is a huge victory for Britain’s left.

“One of the things that none of us have fully appreciated is that below the surface in Lebanon, there was always frustration. But obviously, something has been percolating from below. And the most profound things that we’re seeing is a loss of fear. In Syria, everything is governed by fear. And the Syrians use coercion and intimidation to get their way within Lebanon. And what we’ve seen in Lebanon looks an awful lot like what we saw in Kiev. In the end, people were not prepared to accept this kind of a process any longer. And they saw it in their numbers in a kind of collective approach. They saw strength. And the more they saw strength, the more they gained confidence. They’ve gotten confidence from others as well.” – Dennis Ross, on Brit Hume last night.

GETTING AWAY WITH IT: The Senate Republicans cover for the administration on torture.

THE OPPORTUNITY MISSED: I’m one of those people less enthusiastic about social security reform now than I was a month ago. The main reason for me is that I don’t trust this administration to achieve something fiscally neutral or even beneficial. I’m terrified of the massive borrowing private accounts will require. But this returns me to a theme I wrote about a couple of months ago. The president could have punted on social security reform and focused on a flat tax as his major second term agenda. If the result were simply flatter taxes, it would be better than no social security reform. Bruce Bartlett has a useful piece on this. My own view is that progressive taxation is immoral. The government should treat all its citizens as equally as it can. Punishing people for being successful is morally wrong and counter-productive. We should at least treat hard work neutrally, rather than punitively. (Inherited wealth is another matter, which is why I favor keeping the estate tax.) It’s really the same principle behind ending affirmative action and allowing gay marriage: government neutrality in a diverse society, where our differences cannot and should not be micro-managed, and where people can enJoy the benefits of their own responsibliity. I have a feeling that Bush’s decision to back social security reform over a flat tax will go down as a miscalculation on the scale of Clinton’s decision to do universal healthcare before welfare reform.

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “He is not Peter Pan. He is a full-grown freak. And he must pay.” – Andrea Peyser, New York Post. Let’s wait for the verdict, shall we? Being a freak is not a crime.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Respectfully, Andrew, I beg to differ on the alleged churlishness of Democrats on progress in the Middle East.
Let me explain what’s maddening to Democrats: no matter what happens that is progressive in the Middle East, Republicans and the Bush regime not only claims credit for it, but also claim that the war in Iraq is the reason for the progress. Libya doing a deal on weapons and Lockerbie so it can back into the international oil market? Must be because Bush invaded Iraq! Lebanese reacting with revulsion to Hariri’s assassination, probably by Syrian agents, and demanding Syria’s exit from their country? Must be because Bush invaded Iraq! Progress in the Palestinian-Israeli peace effort as a result of Arafat’s death? Must be because Bush invaded Iraq! Who’s really peddling nonsequitors here?
In short, what drives Democrats batty the tendency to take partisan political credit for anything progressive, and to blame anything retrograde on political enemies (both foreign and domestic) who “just don’t get it.” Never is there any recognition that Bush’s international strategy even MIGHT be responsible for the negative radicalization we’re seeing in places like Iran, North Korea, and maybe even Venezuela — not to mention alienating essential partners in nation-building.
And what really kills Democrats is the way that Bush not only takes credit for everything that is going well, and denies any responsibility for things that are going badly (and, when we’re honest, how many people really feel that the world is, on balance, headed in the right direction?) — it’s that he then claims these false credit as the basis for “political capital” to spend on what Democrats feel are retrograde domestic policies.
The result is that the first reaction any Democrat has to good news in the Middle East (or anywhere else) is to think, “How can Bush be denied political credit for this, since you know he’s going to claim it.” And the important thing to emphasize is that it is Bush’s own political habits that have created this dynamic, and it started right after 9-11.”

Michael Ledeen‘s right. Hitch gleefully inters the “Arab street” here.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “You wrote today that:

I think even the fiercest critics of president Bush’s handling of the post-liberation phase in Iraq will still be thrilled at what appears to me to be glacial but important shifts in the right direction in the region.”

I so wish you were right, but I’m afraid you probably aren’t. I had lunch today with a friend – a really smart, knowledgeable, accomplished guy, who also happens to be very liberal and is active in state Democratic politics. I mentioned to him that Lebanon’s government had just fallen. You would have thought I told him his dog had died. He chewed his sandwich slowly, thought for a while, and finally said,”You know, Assad’s a bastard, but he was right when he said the problems in Iraq are the fault of America, not Syria.”
There wasn’t any happiness that Lebanon is marching toward freedom. This kind of sulky non-sequitur, to me, exemplifies well why the Democratic Party cannot be trusted right now with our national security. Though some in the party, like Biden and Lieberman, are serious about protecting us, there are just way too many others so filled with hatred for Bush that they are incapable of understanding what is happening in the Middle East, and what the stakes are for all of us. And that’s why I stand by my intense disagreement with your decision last fall to endorse John Kerry – even if the man could have been trusted, his party, as a whole, could not have been.” How depressing.

GENDER DIFFERENCE: As many of you know, I don’t think there’s any real doubt that gender difference – including subtle differences in the wiring of male and female brains – is a fact. I’ve also long wondered why more study hasn’t been done on gay men and lesbians to see how their experiences and behaviors reflect that. Here’s an article that raises some interesting questions:

Gay men employ the same strategies for navigating as women – using landmarks to find their way around – a new study suggests.
But they also use the strategies typically used by straight men, such as using compass directions and distances. In contrast, gay women read maps just like straight women, reveals the study of 80 heterosexual and homosexual men and women.
“Gay men adopt male and female strategies. Therefore their brains are a sexual mosaic,” explains Qazi Rahman, a psychobiologist who led the study at the University of East London, UK. “It’s not simply that lesbians have men’s brains and gay men have women’s brains.”

Notice the assumption about innate difference in the first place. No serious scientist disputes this. Only Harvard humanities professors.