The Dish

Bottom line: so far so good for the administration. I haven’t been able to peruse all the documents but I will wait for other journalists with access to summarize them in time. When I said yesterday that I was relieved that Bush had spoken out so forcefully against torture, I simply meant that I was glad that it was not now official policy. But it still isn’t clear that we have all the truly relevant memos. And Gonzalez’s statement yesterday was also troubling:

“We’re going to be aggressive in our interrogations. There’s no question about that,” Gonzales said. He insisted that the United States would not engage in torture and said the administration uses the definition of torture provided by Congress as “a specific intent to inflict severe physical or mental harm or suffering.”

This still leaves open the possibility of the infliction of “severe physical or mental harm” if the “specific intent” is to gain information. But in general, the Rumsfeld decisions in both December 2002 and April 2003 do indeed appear to exonerate him from approving the worst options. The only technique he approved that is directly linked to the Abu Ghraib horrors is the use of dogs to terrify inmates. Bush’s decision to maintain Geneva rules is also heartening. But this story is not yet over. And more will emerge.

THE GOOD NEWS FROM IRAQ: Arthur Chrenkoff offers another essential summary of where we now are. Why, one wonders, couldn’t a mainstream newspaper produce something like this?

REAGAN’S HUMOR: Here’s a classic from a wonderful essay by Edmund Morris in the new New Yorker:

Perhaps the best of Reagan’s one-liners came after he attended his last ceremonial dinner, with the Knights of Malta in New York City on January 13, 1989. The evening’s m.c., a prominent lay Catholic, was rendered so emotional by wine that he waved aside protocol and followed the President’s speech with a rather slurry one of his own. It was to the effect that Ronald Reagan, a defender of the rights of the unborn, knew that all human beings begin life as “feces.” The speaker cited Cardinal John O’Connor (sitting aghast nearby) as “a fece” who had gone on to greater things. “You, too, Mr. President – you were once a fece!”
En route back to Washington on Air Force One, Reagan twinklingly joined his aides in the main cabin. “Well,” he said, “that’s the first time I’ve flown to New York in formal attire to be told I was a piece of shit.”

LOL.

Why was it conducted with the least reliable sample method? Captain Ed wants to know. UPDATE: Another reader points out that although the sample method was dubious for the entire poll, they did parse many questions using a registered voters criterion. And even by that count, Kerry still had an eight point lead.

THE BBC ON THE BEHEADING: Never averse to presenting the other side in dealing with terrorists who behead innocent civilians, the BBC had this to say about South Koreans’ views of yesterday’s atrocity and the policy implications:

The South Korean troops to be deployed in Iraq are due to be involved in humanitarian and rebuilding work, and the area they are to be based in, near Kurdish-controlled Irbil, has been largely peaceful. But the BBC’s Charles Scanlon in Seoul says that internet chat sites suggest a majority of Koreans believe their troops should not be taking part in what they see as an immoral occupation.

Ah the scientific polling of the BBC. Anything to promote the idea that a war against terror and fascism is futile.

ANOTHER MOORE LIE: This one on Bush’s vacations. Of course, the premise is wrong as well. The effectiveness of a president does not inhere in his ability to work non-stop round the clock. It’s what he does when he works. Vacations and sleep are integral to a healthy mind and body. Americans need to do more of them, not less. Good for Bush for setting an example.

THAT LIBERAL MEDIA: It’s worth downloading and reading this study on media bias. Its merit is that it tries to find an objective measure of right/left positioning by checking citations of various think tanks. This is somewhat limiting, but not nuts. The authors see which think-tanks are cited by which newspapers and media outlets and they compare them with citations by members of Congress. In a very closely divided House, this makes some sense. And the results are that the press isn’t just slightly to the left of the American middle – but wildly out of sync. (Drudge, by the way, comes out a centrist not because of his own page’s text, but due to the text of all the links he cites. But it shows he cites outlets of all persuasions, even if some, presumably, are linked in order to mock them). Then there’s this arresting passage:

These statistics suggest that journalists, as a group, are more liberal than almost any congressional district in the country. For instance, in the Ninth California district, which includes Berkeley, twelve percent voted for Bush, nearly double the rate of journalists. In the Eighth Massachusetts district, which includes Cambridge, nineteen percent voted for Bush, more than triple the rate of journalists. In the 14th California district, which includes Palo Alto, 26 percent voted for Bush, more than four times the rate of journalists.

Of course, what the author doesn’t realize is that journalists are uniquely virtuous individuals and never let their internal views dictate the content, placement or subject-matter of stories. Never happens.

It’s a striking phrase, coined in the Weekly Standard, to describe what Reagan vanquished. Or did he? Roger Kimball ponders its relevance to today.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Someone’s probably already passed this along to you, but in the back of this year’s ‘Official Magazine of San Francisco Pride’ program, there’s a short interview with Al Franken.
He’s asked ‘Best Kisser: Andrew Sullivan or Matt Drudge?’ to which he replies ‘Andrew, I would think.’ Just thought you’d like to know.” For the record, despite fantasies of becoming a real princess at long last, I have not and almost certainly never will kiss Al Franken.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I am not new to my conservative principles. No one has ever tried to accuse me of being a liberal Republican or a moderate Republican; I have only been a conservative Republican. And, as a conservative Republican, I have never compromised my basic principles – limited government, the free market, steadfast adherence to civil liberties including the right to keep and bear arms and the rights of the states – in the search for higher office. I appear before you today in that spirit of consistency with conservative ideals… I, along with many other conservative opinion leaders and lawmakers, strongly oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment for three main reasons. First, by moving what has traditionally been a state prerogative – local marriage laws — to the federal government, it is in direct violation of the principles of federalism. Second, in treating the Constitution as an appropriate place to impose publicly contested social policies, it would cheapen the sacrosanct nature of that document, opening the door to future meddling by liberals and conservatives. Third, it is unnecessary so long as DOMA is in force.” – former congressman Bob Barr, testifying on the Hill yesterday against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

It comes as a relief to hear these words from the president:

“We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture,” Bush told reporters in the Oval Office. “The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being.”

It also comes as a relief to see that the White House says it is prepared to release all the relevant internal documents to prove the point. This is, indeed, a critical issue, at the core of the meaning of America. It is long past time that the administration proved its innocence on something about which there should be no doubt.

Yours truly fisks the Rather-Clinton interview.

Maybe he didn’t mean to. But here’s a fascinating nugget culled by the Washington Post:

Clinton’s own legal battle with independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr accounts for one of the book’s more peculiar revelations. In his August 1998 grand jury testimony, Clinton said he began an inappropriate sexual relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in “early 1996.” His testimony, as was widely noted at the time, was in conflict with Lewinsky’s story: She testified the relationship began on Nov. 15, 1995, in the midst of a government shutdown.
Starr’s prosecutors, in their report to Congress, accused Clinton of lying about the date of their relationship in order to avoid admitting that he had sexual relations with an intern, as Lewinsky still was in the fall of 1995 before being hired for a paying job in the winter.
Without explanation, in his memoir Clinton departs from his grand jury testimony and corroborates her version: “During the government shutdown in late 1995, when very few people were allowed to come to work in the White House, and those who were there were working late, I’d had an inappropriate encounter with Monica Lewinsky and would do so again on other occasions between November and April, when she left the White House for the Pentagon.”

So he lied under oath. By his own admission. Does he take responsibility? Nah.

Here’s a revealing quote from the president on his political philsosophy:

“[T]he role of government is to stand there and say, ‘We’re going to help you.’ The job of the federal government is to fund the providers who are actually making a difference.”

He’s referring to a government-funded attempt to help people in troubled marriages. It would be hard to think of a realm more private than a marriage, but the president believes that the government has a role there. I’m sure his motives are genuine and sincere. But anyone still deluded in thinking that Bush conservatism means limited government should open their eyes. Bush believes in big government. He just believes it should be funded by debts the next generation will have to pay.

The Washington Post poll shows rising approval of president Bush’s handling of Iraq and terrorism, but a widening lead for John Kerry – eight points if you remove Nader from the survey. Hmm. This graph is particularly striking. I’d say that’s not too good news for the president. On the other hand, the same poll also shows that the economic turn-around is beginning to be felt. The Wall Street Journal equally shows Bush gaining in a handful of swing states – but the movement is all within the margin of error. What to make of all this? Not much at this stage – but the Post’s recording of a big swing away from Bush among independents strikes me as significant. I’m not the only McCainiac rattled by Bush’s growing closeness with the religious right and large errors in the conduct of the war. Of course, we haven’t seen much of Kerry lately either. No wonder the Democrat is moving up.

THE OTHER ABU GHRAIB STORY: I couldn’t agree with Nick Schulz more that the awful record of Saddam in Abu Ghraib merits dissemination in the media. I’m glad that some of the footage was finally shown on Fox News last night. And as readers know, I’ve been in favor of showing as widely as possible the horrors of the enemy. We have to look these monsters squarely in the face and see them for what they are if we are to sustain the morale necessary to keep taking the fight to them. But this does not in any way lessen the need for us to make sure that the U.S. government hasn’t endorsed or practised much milder but still reprehensible abuse and torture. Between those who want to downplay the evil of Saddam and those who want to look the other way at the Bush administration’s own conduct, there must be a middle way.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY: “To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of “dissenting” bravery.” – Hitch, telling it like it is, in Slate. It’s a tour de force, and reminds me that Moore is beneath contempt. Meanwhile, Moore is threatening to sue anyone who criticizes his movie for libel. Shafer eggs him on.

The latest stats from the military’s policy of discharging honest gay soldiers are encouraging in a small way. There’s been a big drop in discharges. Whether this is because a Republican is in the White House (no one did worse than Clinton in this respect) or whether we’re at war and we cannot afford to lose good soldiers is hard to tell. But consider this: in the last five years, we have lost 49 nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare specialists, 90 nuclear power engineers, 52 missile guidance and control operators, 150 rocket, missile and other artillery specialists, and 340 infantrymen. We’ve also lost 88 linguists, many of whom are expert in interrogation. It seems to me that this policy is stupid and cruel in peacetime. It’s madness when we are at war.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “In regards to your article “Reagan did not give me HIV” on the Advocate website: Huzzah. Every time I see Larry Kramer’s overwrought, specious work, I recall the character of the aunt in the poem “Matilda Who Told Lies and was Burned to Death” (from “Cautionary Tales for Children” by Hilaire Belloc, which is in no way suitable for children). One early stanza in the poem reads:

Matilda told such dreadful lies
it made one gasp and stretch one’s eyes.
Her aunt, who from her earliest youth
had kept a Strict Regard for Truth,
attempted to believe Matilda.
And the effort nearly killed her.

I have no desire that Larry Kramer, who tells lies, be burned to death, but I do sometimes think that he will nearly kill me. I do not even attempt to believe him any more: gay loyalty can only go so far. I welcome that there are writers like you still alive in my community, so that I don’t have to suffer the agony of shame by proxy for being gay like Kramer. I was lucky to have not become infected with HIV; many of my friends and boyfriends and a few of my heroes died from it. The second man whom I ever shared sex with died from AIDS on 25 June 1992. Joe Albanese was a soldier, secret service agent, political operative, and president of the Washington D.C. Gay & Lesbian Community Center. To me he was a loving, supportive friend from the day we met in 1983 until he died, almost 9 years later. I appreciate that you honor him and my other, dead friends, by writing forcefully, temperately, and truthfully.” More feedback on the Letters Page.

Mike Kinsley kills his own editorial. Classic. And good for him. His explanation? “It was an attempt at ironic reflection on the Hollywood decapitation. My editorial page colleagues convinced me it was inappropriate as an editorial. I agonized quite a bit, although looking back the next day, it was a clear case of ‘what on earth was I thinking?'” Now if he were blogging … Sometimes I’m amazed not at my occasional screw-ups, inconsistencies and conflicts … but that I haven’t been guilty of more of them. Hey, it’s a new medium. Cut us some slack.