The Dish

More evidence we are dangerously over-stretched. Tom Friedman adds his appraisal. The administration says the commanders haven’t asked for more. Yeah, right. That’s why we’re dragooning retirees to the front. And why would a commander tell Rummy that he doesn’t have enough troops, when the Bush administration’s habitual response to internal criticism is to fire someone?

THE LEFT AND CONDI: I guess I should say that Condi Rice’s race and gender are not the most important things about her career and abilities. But I’m still amazed at how little credit this president gets for promoting a black woman to such a position, and, more importantly, by his obvious respect and admiration for her. His management style is clearly post-racial, and his comfort with female peers is impressive. You know, Bill Clinton was celebrated for his progressiveness, and ease with African-Americans. But it’s inconceivable that he would have given so much power and authority to a black female peer. Why does Bush get no respect on this score? I guess it reveals that much of the left’s diversity mania is about the upholding of a certain political ideology, rather than ethnic or gender variety itself. Depressing.

The depressed Democrat’s guide to recovery. Animated.

A NEW LOW: Here’s how the journalist, Robert Fisk, begins an article on the brutal murder of Margaret Hassan:

Who killed Margaret Hassan? After the grief, the astonishment, heartbreak, anger and fury over the apparent murder of such a good and saintly woman, that is the question that her friends – and, quite possibly, the Iraqi insurgents – will be asking. This Anglo-Irish lady held an Iraqi passport. She had lived in Iraq for 30 years, she had dedicated her life to the welfare of Iraqis in need. She hated the UN sanctions and opposed the Anglo-American invasion. So who killed Margaret Hassan?

Fisk goes on to imply and then weasels away from implying that the U.S. or Allawi were behind her murder. I really don’t know what else to say.

BACKLASH WATCH: In East Texas, an old homecoming tradition of “TWIRP Day,” where girls dress like boys and vice-versa, will occur no more. One “religious” parent had a cow and launched a campaign to stamp it out. “It is outrageous that a school in a small town in east Texas would encourage their 4-year-olds to be cross-dressers,” Liberty Legal Institute attorney Hiram Sasser said. What a loser.

EXECUTING MINORS: In Iran, it’s justice as usual.

THE MORONIC RIGHT: They now want to see war-journalists killed. For doing their job.

BECOMING PIGS: The Republican attempt to change the rules they once supported in favor of keeping Tom DeLay in his leadership post is a revealing turning point. It’s that Orwellian moment when you realize that ten years after the Republicans pledged to overturn the self-serving corruption and complacency of the majority Democrats, they have become indistinguishable from the people they once targeted.

Yep, more appalling details about the U.N. oil-for-food program. Just don’t expect it to lead the nightly news.

In Germany, you’d never know about it.

“I follow your site regularly. While I don’t agree with you all the time, I do find your posts interesting. Having said that, I do strongly disagree with your November 17, 2004 post regarding the video of the Marine apparently shooting an unarmed and wounded person in Falluja. This conduct by U.S. military personnel cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. As a former Marine, I strongly sympathize with the Marine involved, but killing unarmed people only undermines our cause in Iraq and elsewhere. The Marine involved, like all Marines, is taught the rules of war and is indoctrinated with American and Marine Corps ideals. If the allegations are true, then what he did is a betrayal of both his country and his service and he should be punished to the fullest extent permitted under the UCMJ. We as civilians have the responsibility to ensure that what our military personal do in our name comports with American standards of human rights and decency. We cannot compromise our standards regardless of the circumstances. We, the civilians in charge, must investigate every allegation of wrongdoing and bring those responsible to justice. This has not happened with Abu Ghraib – it must happen here.” More feedback on the Letters Page.

The video is grim enough; and if the marine in question is found guilty of violating rules of conduct, then he should face punishment. But I have to say I cannot stand in judgment of this young man, after what must have been brutal, terrifying days of urban conflict. This is surely what they call “what happens in wartime.” It may not be morally defensible; but it is psychologically understandable. Franly, I’m grateful for what this man, half my age, is doing with his fellows in unspeakably terrifying circumstances. Compare his action with Abu Ghraib, and you can see the difference. One a snap judgment in a furious battle context; the other a pre-meditated example of abuse and murder of prisoners in U.S. custody.

A KILLING IN FALLUJA II: From the Times of London, which has just, long after intense lobbying from yours truly, put all its content online for free:

In the south of Fallujah yesterday, US Marines found the armless, legless body of a blonde woman, her throat slashed and her entrails cut out. Benjamin Finnell, a hospital apprentice with the US Navy Corps, said that she had been dead for a while, but at that location for only a day or two. The woman was wearing a blue dress; her face had been disfigured. It was unclear if the remains were the body of the Irish-born aid worker Margaret Hassan, 59, or of Teresa Borcz, 54, a Pole abducted two weeks ago. Both were married to Iraqis and held Iraqi citizenship; both were kidnapped in Baghdad last month.

There you see the difference between the occasional horror of war and premeditated, conscious barbarism.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “‘What on earth did Jacques Chirac mean when he used these words to describe the Anglo-French relationship?’ Let’s bitch-slap him a few more times and find out.” More insight on the Letters Page.

You reading, Mr Kelly? Thanks for all your input on who should be made Time’s Person of the Year. Lance Armstrong? A little off-topic, but surely he’s worth celebration in some sense. Barry Bonds? A reader explains:

Bonds is fast staking a claim to being the greatest player in history, better than Babe Ruth. And in 2004 this guy had quite a year: fourth consecutive MVP (never happened before), 7th overall MVP (never happened before) and he’s 40 years old. He also weathered a steroids scandal, and the death of his father. Why not?

Maybe because he’s regarded by a lot of people as an asshole. (But that would disqualify a lot of others as well). Among the bad guys, Zarqawi and Arafat stand out:

Arafat invented modern terrorism, setting a precedent that a young new leader – perhaps a Palestinian, perhaps a Chechen, perhaps a Saudi (turmoil is coming to the Royals, and soon) – will take up Yasser’s torch and take it higher and further. His legacy has yet to come; he laid the cornerstone of legitimizing terror in the ‘world’s’ view by killing innocents while being a celebrity, welcomed in halls of power across the globe, ranging from the White House, the UN, and the Vatican.

Or both Arafat and Zarqawi? On a lighter note, why not Mr iPod, Steve Jobs? Then there’s the pajamahideen. Still, it’s difficult to say a media revolution in one country trumps world-historical change elsewhere. Then there’s the “gay American.” It sure was a gay year: McGreevey, Cheney, O’Donnell, Lincoln, the marriage revolution across the world. As one reader puts it,

We have them to thank for (1) electing Bush, (2) exposing the Republicans as Islamofascist equivalents, (3) exposing the Democrats as hypocrites, (4) Arafat’s death and (5) the tackiest wedding pictures of all time.

Ahem. But the marriage movement in some ways is an effort to move away from the “gay American” syndrome and to treat all of us as merely citizens, with the same rights and responsibilities. A real possibility: Christopher Reeve. But I think you have to be alive to be included. Could “just dead” count?

EDUCATION BY MURDER: Daniel Pipes on the Theo van Gogh case.

“I recognize and celebrate that our country is founded upon Judeo-Christian values. And I have pledged my life to defend America and all her values, the values that have made us the noblest experiment in history. But political intolerance by any political party is neither a Judeo-Christian nor an American value. The political tactics of division and slander are not our values. They are corrupting influences on religion and politics and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.” – John McCain, in the 2000 primary, a speech that all but guaranteed his defeat. Marshall Wittmann draws some lessons for today.

IN OKLAHOMA: Check out this conclusion to a superb Washington Post story of conflicting emotions as homosexuality comes out in the heartland. A protest by the vile Fred Phelps leads to a backlash against those who would berate a young gay man in the congregation, Michael Shackleford:

Inside the church, the congregation was standing and the six-piece guitar band was rocking. The Lord reigns … Great is the Almighty. The music and energy built until Pastor Eubanks bounded onstage. “Welcome to the reign of life,” he said. “Amen?” “Amen!” the crowd shouted, whistling and clapping. “There is darkness and there is light and we are in the middle of the light,” Eubanks said, to more thunderous applause. “Say it: God loves us all. All of us!”
After the service, several people came up to hug Janice. One woman held her in an embrace that lasted two minutes, whispering to Janice the whole time. A burly man with a crew cut gave Michael a thumbs-up. “Man, you be who you are,” Shannon Watie said, holding his Bible. “We got your back.”

Not everything is black and white. Or red and blue.

What on earth did Jacques Chirac mean when he used these words to describe the Anglo-French relationship?

I just got back from a fun luncheon for Time magazine, where a panel of me, Al Sharpton, Brian Williams, Alessandra Stanley and Coleen Rowley (the 9/11 FBI whistle-blower) discussed who should be Time’s Person of the Year. My suggestions? Karl Rove, Muhammed, or a mix of Michael Moore and Mel Gibson. But as the discussion progressed, it seemed to me that the editors would have a hard time not picking Bush. Rove was critical to Bush’s victory, but any Rove cover would inevitably be interpreted as some kind of insult to Bush himself. It would also do terribly on news stands, although the editor, Jim Kelly, said that was not a consideration. A generic person like the “terrorist”? Nah. Too defeatist and they’ve had too many generic persons of the year recently. And who other than GWB has affected the world more in the last twelve months? Sharpton was funny, as usual. Williams was very defensive about the blogosphere. And Alessandra Stanley of the NYT lamented that most blog readers were engage, and so unrepresentative of America as a whole. Yep. That’s coming from the NYT. Oh well. Any out of the box ideas? Since Jim Kelly tells me he reads the blog every day, this would be a good place to forward them. Oh, and Paula Zahn is taaall.