The Dish

I feel bad for not writing about it sooner. It was a terrific call to arms. This passage was particularly affecting:

This is the great challenge of our time, the storm in which we fly. History is once again witnessing a great clash. This is not a clash of civilizations. The civilization of Islam, with its humane traditions of learning and tolerance, has no place for this violent sect of killers and aspiring tyrants. This is not a clash of religions. The faith of Islam teaches moral responsibility that enobles men and women, and forbids the shedding of innocent blood. Instead, this is a clash of political visions. In the terrorists’ vision of the world, the Middle East must fall under the rule of radical governments, moderate Arab states must be overthrown, nonbelievers must be expelled from Muslim lands, and the harshest practice of extremist rule must be universally enforced. In this vision, books are burned, terrorists are sheltered, women are whipped, and children are schooled in hatred and murder and suicide. Our vision is completely different. We believe that every person has a right to think and pray and live in obedience to God and conscience, not in frightened submission to despots. (Applause.) We believe that societies find their greatness by encouraging the creative gifts of their people, not in controlling their lives and feeding their resentments. And we have confidence that people share this vision of dignity and freedom in every culture because liberty is not the invention of Western culture, liberty is the deepest need and hope of all humanity.

But I am still left wanting to hear something deeper: that the president understands where he has gone wrong, why he has made mistakes, and how he is going to correct them. Alongside this stirring speech, with which I agree almost completely, was the president’s bizarre, surreal announcement yesterday that George Tenet was resigning. How can you describe Tenet’s record in the glowing terms that Bush used and hope to retain the kind of credibility you need to be an effective war leader? Instead, the president appeared yet again divorced from anything vaguely representing reality. That is not a good thing for a nation at war. Ask yourself: do you trust Bush to deliver bad war news if it’s necessary and if it requires his taking responsibility for his own failures? I don’t any more. The Democrats bear some responsibility: the way they have exploited the few times the Bushies have admitted error has been a case study in politics conducted by people who really do not grasp the threat we face. But Bush’s response – to clam up, admit nothing, and refuse to take any real responsibility – is very damaging to his credibility and therefore to the war effort as a whole. It’s not a pretty cycle.

The anti-Western left has come up with a new term for a terrorist. It’s “commando.” Check out this strange story on Salon. It’s a memoir of a young Palestinian terrorist by a young woman who knew him while he was being protected in the 1980s by Yugoslavia’s Communist regime. The essay attempts to show how the young man came to recognize at one point the humanity of those Israeli civilians he was about to murder. But the euphemisms in the piece are priceless. Take this sentence:

The recent (and bumbling) Achille Lauro assault, during which young Palestinian commandos hijacked a Mediterranean cruiser and killed an elderly, wheelchair-bound American tourist, coupled with those ghastly shootouts at the Rome and Vienna airports, had made a mockery of the Titoist soft spot for resistance groups and rendered dinner chats with Western diplomats unbearably awkward …

The problem with the Achille Lauro hijacking was that it was “bumbling“? If only they’d killed more Jews more effectively! Notice also that it was somehow “during” the “assault” that a murder took place. Hmmm. Wouldn’t it be more, er, accurate to say that the hijacking occurred in order to murder civilians? Notice also here the unequivocal use of the term “commando” for “terrorist.” One reader emailed me to say he thought that “commandos” were more plausibly viewed as those who try to rescue hostages, not those who try to kill them. Such silly distinctions! Elsewhere in the piece, the terrorists are called “operatives.” Like Valerie Plame. The author knew that her friend was about to kill innocent civilians but glosses over this ugly fact by saying:

Looking back now on that snowy afternoon at Abu Moses’ place, the last time I would see him, it took longer than one might expect for me to comprehend what the trip to Cyprus meant. Indeed, months of denial and doubt.

It appears those months of denial and doubt are now indeed years. And denial has morphed into excuse. And excuse into euphemism. Who is the author? We are told: “D.N. Rosina is the pseudonym of a Bay Area writer now reporting from the Middle East.” So there’s a reporter out there who thinks that terrorists are commandos. Who is she reporting for? Why has she decided to remain anonymous? And why have the editors of Salon decided to grant her that anonymity?

Here’s a revealing sentence from National Review’s profile of Roger Simon, ex-lefty blogger: “[When] it comes to social policy, he continues to lean hard to the left. ‘I’m very liberal on social issues: pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, separation of church and state,’ he says. ‘I think racism and sexism are the greatest evils in the world.'” So allowing women to choose to seek an abortion is now a “hard left” position? And encouraging gay couples to have stable relationships is “hard left”? And being deeply concerned about racism and sexism is “hard left”? I won’t even touch “separation of church and state.” But I will notice that this assertion comes at a time when Karl Rove is deliberately trying to involve church congregations directly in Bush’s re-election effort. Disturbing.

COUNTRY FOLK AND ABU GHRAIB: Two contrasting responses to my hunch that rural voters were affected by Abu Ghraib:

I don’t know how you knew it but you nailed it. Rural voters are DEEPLY ashamed of Abu Gahraib. I just visited my rock-ribbed Republican former farm wife Mom, now living in suburban Kansas City. If there’s an echt American heartlander ‘don’t try to help me, Mr. Roosevelt’ Republican species of genus Americanus, it’s Mom. Civil War on.
I was amazed how deeply ashamed she was of Abu Gahraib. It just wasn’t like her to be so moved. I asked her why and she said “that’s not American, what we did there.”
My theory? Mom has never seen the Jerry Springer show, and didn’t really realize the extent to which the gleeful embrace of vulgarity by what she would never actually vocally call white trash has coarsened the traditional military-serving American working class.
America has tolerated the vulgarization of its yeoman class on TV. It’s quite another to see it in a military uniform. (I guess we sophisticates know it was always there, but that doesn’t cut any ice with Mom.)
You nailed it, Andrew.

Then there’s this view:

Country folk in general could care less about Iraqis and their plight really. They don’t know them and don’t feel that our boys should be dying over there helping them build anything. They are very, very isolationist. As long as the military is blowing things up they are supportive, that’s what the military does and they understand that mission. But as soon as it becomes a humanitarian focused mission, support will begin to erode. Especially when what they perceive are Iraqis who don’t seem to appreciate what has been done for them anyway. They look like a bunch of whiners.
The mission itself is nuanced and hard to understand. Saving the world from terrorism is too obtuse, not focused enough. They would be much more supportive of a proxy war and not direct US involvement. As long as its a proxy war, it would have support.
A long-term strategy would be to finish up Iraq and use special forces and more clandestine methods that aren’t so publicised. They would support that for the long-term, but if troops have to be involved in police work for a long time (in our culture that’s about 6 months) then support will not be solid.

There’s more diverse feedback on the Letters Page.

Very soon, I suspect, Stanley Kurtz will publish a Very Important Piece, following his latest Very Significant Essay, establishing that allowing gays to marry has destroyed the institution of marriage in Japan. The evidence, after all, is overwhelming:

Japanese are postponing marriage or avoiding it altogether. Weddings dropped last year for the second straight year. Fifty-four percent of Japanese women in their late 20s are single, up from 30.6% in 1985. About half of single Japanese women ages 35 to 54 have no intention to marry, according to a survey in January by the Japan Institute of Life Insurance. In fact, Japan’s divorce rate rose steadily to 2.3 divorces for every 1,000 people in 2002 from 1.3 in 1990; it appears to have dropped a bit last year, partly because fewer people have been getting married. (The divorce rate in the USA was 4 per 1,000 people in 2002.)

You can, in fact, draw a direct connection between the liberalization of marriage laws in Liechtenstein and this collapse in marriage in Japan. And the turning point came at exactly the moment that Richard Hatch won “Survivor,” putting another nail in the coffin of heterosexual marriage. Secular humanist skeptics will no doubt quibble that there is no such thing as gay marriage in Japan, that Japan is, in fact, a deeply homophobic society. But can they prove no connection with Holland’s slide toward Gommorrah? Hasn’t greater Western tolerance of homosexuals seeped through in Japan? Didn’t the “Bird Cage” do pretty well over there? You have been warned. Unless you amend the American constitution, the Yellow-Lavender Peril will be here before you know it.

FLATULENT PUSBAG FOLLOW-UP: The ad I linked to yesterday was, in fact, a parody of MoveOn’s Bush-hating ad contest. You can read about it here. My bad.

A useful Iraqi view of the new government in Baghdad:

Yawar is known to have good relations with Kurds, is trusted by the Shia, is respected by other Arab nations, has a clean record, and belongs to a powerful wealthy well-known Iraqi family that leads the Shimmar tribal confederation, one of the largest tribes in Iraq, with both Sunni and Shi’ite clans, and spanning several neighbouring countries (such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey). That may be a unifying factor and one that Iraqis need badly at this moment of their history. After all the presidency is almost a symbolic title.
The cabinet is impressive. We now have 5 female ministers, which is an unprecedented step in the region. Just as Iraq was the first Arab country to have a female minister in 1958, it is now also the first Arab country to grant a larger role for women in the government. I expect a much larger percentage of women in the future National Assembly or parliament. The majority of ministers are independent politically, they are mostly technocrats, and come from all Iraqi social, ethnic, religious, and sectarian backgrounds. Many old players are absent such as Chalabi’s INC. Also another interesting observation is that four of the ministers are also tribal figures.
So, perhaps I’m a bit optimistic today? Maybe. But Iraqis need to be optimistic at such a critical moment. There is no use in shrugging your shoulders and saying “I don’t care..” anymore. You will be left behind along with the dark forces that insist on killing more Iraqis and disrupting the new changes. I’m confident that the Arab world is now watching Iraq with eyes wide open (or wide shut).

He has some reservations as well.

The Bush-haters are beginning to make Clinton-haters look subtle. (Hat tip: Mickey.)

TO CHEER YOU UP: An Exorcist re-make by cartoon bunnies.

For “personal reasons.” Like he personally presided over two of the biggest CIA failures in modern history. Thank God Bush never actually fired him. That would mean taking responsibility, wouldn’t it?

BUSH: “I never apologized to the Arab world.” That was his message to the editors of Christianity Today about the Abu Ghraib abuses. It speaks volumes about Bush’s sense of personal responsibility. He is a walking example of the following culture: “If it feels good, do it, and if you’ve got a problem, blame somebody else.” But he just can’t or won’t see it.

The Iowa Electronic Market began its 2004 Presidential Market yesterday. Bush is ahead.

The fascinating thing about the slide in Bush’s support in the polls is that much of it has come from Republicans defecting. Ryan Lizza, citing Stan Greenberg, points out that the biggest slippage is among rural voters:

These rural voters, referred to as “Country Folk,” represent 21 percent of the electorate. In 2000, 63 percent of Country Folk backed Bush. Yet today, only 58 percent support him and only 51 percent want to continue in Bush’s direction; 47 percent want to go in a “significantly different direction.”
An overall drop of 5 points in the Republican presidential vote among these voters may not seem like a major shift, but in a country at parity it could provide the margin of victory. This impact is amplified by where the Country Folk live: they are concentrated in the battleground states, like Iowa, Missouri, Louisiana, New Hampshire and Minnesota.

But why are these Bush-base voters defecting? Bruce Bartlett has some plausible theories. My own hunch is that these voters do not like a massive increase in government spending, a huge jump in public debt, and a post-war policy in Iraq that seemed blindsided by reality. But here’s my other belief, and it’s about Abu Ghraib. The images from that prison shamed America in deep and inchoate ways. Traditional conservative patriots in particular were appalled. The awful truth is that this president presided over one of the most damaging blows to American prestige and self-understanding in recent history. He may not have been directly responsible; but it was on his watch. And he ensured that no one high up in his administration took the fall for the horror. I think traditional patriots were saddened, shocked and horrified by the abuse and, to a lesser extent, the Bush administration’s self-protective response to it. For me, at least, even though I am fully committed to the war, the images from Abu Ghraib are indelibly part of my memories of the Bush administration. I can move on in my head; but my conscience will be forever troubled.

CHRISTIANS AND ABU GHRAIB: Christianity Today laments how few leading Christian groups publicly protested the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Money quote: “It would seem that American soldiers, Graner included, at Abu Ghraib failed on at least two accounts – working counter to the purpose of peace, and if some reports are true, failing to disobey orders that no Christian could in good conscience follow.” That much is an understatement. But I didn’t hold my breath for the leaders of the religious right to make a fuss because, well, they’re the leaders of the religious right. When you’re primarily devoted to the pursuit of worldly power, it is hard to criticize its abuses.

A CANADIAN WATERSHED? The best analysis I’ve yet read of the big political shift in Canada is on Collin May’s excellent blog, Innocents Abroad. Check it out.

An insightful homily from an extremely good new theo-blog.

NADER ANNOUNCES …: …for the presidency of Iraq. Sunnis and Shiites denounce “spoiler.”

RAINES AND MOORE: Left Coast blogger Lee finds some uncanny similarities between Howell Raines’ worldview and Michael Moore’s. Of course they see the world the same way: America as a con-job on the permanent poor. Western Front blogger, however sees nothing that different in Raines’ worldview:

While Raines’ partisanship is blinkered, it is also entirely unremarkable. If you take Raines’ mien as something singular or asymmetric, I would submit, respectfully, that you are missing something about contemporary liberalism in places like Manhattan or Seattle or Amherst.
I am a conservative (of some kind) and I work daily for people who could have said everything in Raines’ column today – and much worse… I can tell you without any hesitation that outing myself even as a nominal conservative would be professional suicide in my milieu. So my choices are
1) keep your mouth shut and adopt a de facto “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when you are in professional company, or
2) abandon any reasonable hope of finding either regular work (as a freelancer) or advancement (in a full-time job).

Of course, it’s not a lot better being a conservative and favoring, say, gay civil rights. Try getting a job at a conservative institution with those views. But most conservatives don’t control institutions like universities, publishing houses, major general interest magazines, or Hollywood. They police their own openly partisan institutions – not others’ or the public realm. As another reader wrote me: “I can in fact imagine being a conservative employee of someone who could write a column similar to Raines’. It’s called being an employee in the political science department of a state university.” I’m afraid she’s right.