The Dish

Fascinating little column by Howell Raines. Reading it is a very useful insight into how he turned the New York Times into a crusading left-populist pamphlet. Take Iraq. Of course Raines opposed the war. The notion that he might have supported it under any circumstance while Republicans were in power is ludicrous. No doubt he takes the New York Review line that we should get out now. But then he’s criticizing the Bush administration for a “cut-and-run” strategy:

White House strategists are betting that leaving Iraq in 30 days – no matter what chaos ensues in that country – will leave them time to revise history between now and election day and, more importantly, get on with the work of destroying Kerry’s image.

Let’s look at that quote again: “… leaving Iraq in 30 days …” The question is: does Raines believe this? If he does, he believes keeping up to 140,000 troops in a foreign country is the same as “leaving” it. Now imagine that the Bush administration decided not to transfer sovereignty and remain in control of Iraq for another year. Do you think Raines would support them? The truth is: Raines would oppose any policy in Iraq as long as it was pursued by the Bush administration. And that was indeed the rule during his editorship: the Bush administration was wrong and evil, whatever it did. Now get a load of Raines’ loathing of the American market economy as a whole:

As Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council noted, Americans aren’t antagonistic toward the rules that protect the rich because they think that in the great crap-shoot of economic life in America, they might wind up rich themselves. It’s a mass delusion, of course, but one that has worked ever since Ronald Reagan got Republicans to start flaunting their wealth instead of apologising for it. Kerry has to understand that when a cure is impossible, the doctor must enter the world of the deluded.
What does this mean in terms of campaign message? It means that he must appeal to the same emotions that attract voters to Republicans – ie greed and the desire to fix the crap-shoot in their favour.

The only reason people vote Republican is greed and a desire to screw other people over? Has this guy got through his sophomore year yet? And the notion that people can actually make it big in this country is “a mass delusion, of course.” I love that: “of course.” All Guardian readers, from that wonderfully socially mobile country, Britain, know that only socialism allows people to better themselves, as long as that socialism is managed by enlightened souls like Raines. Then we have this:

As matters now stand, Kerry has assured the DLC, “I am not a redistributionist Democrat.” That’s actually a good start. Using that promise as disinformation, he must now figure out a creative way to become a redistributionist Democrat.

So the aim is to deceive voters about what you want to do. This might be amusing coming from a Dick Morris or a Karl Rove. But didn’t Raines spend a year and a half lacerating the Bush administration for, er, lying? And now he thinks it’s an essential tool for governance? Not all Bush-haters are as dumb or as crude as Raines. But it’s useful to see how decadent the left-liberal mind can be in one of its more prominent exemplars. The American people are stupid, craven greed-hounds; lying is good if you can get away with it; American capitalism is a rotten, hollow promise; and even the Democrats refuse to take the advice of the few enlightened people who can help them, like Howell Raines. Well, that makes one thing to be grateful about.

ONE OTHER POINT: Can you imagine being a conservative of any kind and having to work for someone who could write a column like that one? Raines’ sheer contempt for opposing views is gob-smacking. And can you imagine anyone writing a column like that deciding to edit the New York Times as objectively as possible? They key to Raines is the method he endorses in this column: “disinformation.” That was his modus operandi for a year and a half: to hijack a newspaper and turn it into a means of disinformation. His only regret is that he didn’t get away with it for much longer.

Josh Marshall and Noam Scheiber both lay into David Brooks over Bush’s economic record. Josh’s point is that the big Bush tax cut that probably did avert a full-scale depression in 2001 – 2002 should not be counted in the president’s favor. Why? Because Bush didn’t intend the cut to boost demand during a threat of worldwide deflation, and had crafted it years before, anticipating a surplus. Josh is surely factually right about intentions; but intentions aren’t everything in politics. Whatever Bush’s intentions, the effect of the tax cut was obviously the right thing at the right time, and may have prevented a global economic disaster. But of course, the conditions for the demand-boost have now abated, and the economy is growing again. Now is the time for serious spending cuts to match the tax relief – at least that would be my preference. Josh would surely be better off criticizing the Bush administration for its prospective fiscal policy rather than its past economic success.

CHENEY’S HAD ENOUGH: He finally walks out on the president:

According to the vice-president, the Cheney Administration would be much more streamlined and efficient than Bush’s administration has been. “Let me tell you this: It’d be a lot easier just to give a speech myself and do it right, rather than spending six hours trying to explain everything to the president-only to have him botch it anyway,” Cheney said. “That ‘I don’t know what you’re saying and I don’t care’ look in his eyes when I start talking policy drives me absolutely bonkers. And he wonders why the reporters are so hard on him.”

When he’s losing the veep, things have got to be bad. Of course, this was the Onion.

THE VIRGINIA LAW: I missed an enlightening exchange of views about the anti-gay Virginia statute that, on its face, appears to ban any private contractual arrangements between two people of the same gender. Here’s Ramesh Ponnuru’s defense of the law; here’s Wally Olsen’s response. Ponnuru’s defense of the law would be more persuasive if the law hadn’t passed the Virginia legislature after a virulently anti-gay debate. Ramesh’s friends on the social right in Virginia are not interested in nuance here. They are interested in doing whatever they can to stigmatize, marginalize and criminalize gay relationships for religious reasons. That’s the sad reality.

EMAILS OF THE DAY: Two diverging views on my post yesterday:

“If someone had said in February 2003 that in June 2004 there would be: 140,000 American troops in Iraq, just a smattering of foreign troops, heavy fighting leading to significant monthly causalties, debate over increasing the number of troops instead of decreasing them, thousands of troops diverted from Korea due to a troop shortage in Iraq, a lack of Arabic speaking and appropriately trained special forces in Afghanistan due to their necessity in Iraq, a significant presence of foreign fighters and terrorists, an increased capacity for terrorists worldwide to recruit new fighters due to increased worldwide hatred of America, a huge prisoner abuse scandal threatening the already troubled American image overseas and specifically in Iraq and the jobs of the Secretary of Defense and other top military leaders, no WMD’s, no progress in the Israeli-Palestenian conflict, no progress in relations with the rest of the axis of evil, oil prices over $42 a barrel, over $120 billion spent on the war, over 800 soldiers dead, over a hundred American civilians killed in Iraq, over 4000 casualties … well, I think you would come to the conclusion that the war had been an extraordinary … failure. And you’d be right. Yes, there have been enormous successes; and yes, so much less could have been achieved without vast steadfastness and the bravery of our soldiers and many Iraqis. But it’s worth acknowledging that, with a little perspective, our current back-patting is over-blown.”

Funny, I haven’t seen much back-patting. Here’s another:

You asked “If someone had said in February 2003, that by June 2004…”
Good question, but you forgot to add that, in addition to that amazing list of accomplishments, Libya essentially sued for peace with the US and Britain days before the invasion of Iraq and then completely capitulated to our demands a few days after Saddam was yanked out of that rat hole. Their capitulation consisted of surrendering their extensive WMD programs and revealing details of a frighteningly advanced clandestine nuclear program run out of Pakistan (one that is now shut down).
Changing the behavior of the other state sponsors of terror was always one of the most important reasons to topple the murderous tyrant in Iraq. Had we not invaded Iraq, we’d be blissfully unaware that nuclear weapons were secretly spreading to states like Libya that sponsor radical Islamic terror. But that frightening problem was revealed before it was too late, and the problem has been effectively addressed (which was the whole idea). Nuanced diplomacy, by itself, never would have achieved this.
Opponents of the war keep asking for an explanation of Bush’s strategy and complaining that he doesn’t have one. As they watch freedom unfold in Iraq and former state sponsors of terror throw in the towel, those opposed to the liberation of Iraq may wish to consider the possibility that it is they, themselves, who have a strategy problem. They don’t have one (unless speaking in broad, feel-good generalities is a strategy that will defeat al Qaeda), and they can’t see one when it is staring them in the face. Either that, or they just refuse to see it.

More feedback can be found on the Letters Page.

BLOGS IN BRITAIN: An essay asks why they haven’t taken off as they have in the U.S.

The Onion surveys the American street.

If someone had said in February 2003, that by June 2004, Saddam Hussein would have been removed from power and captured; that a diverse new government, including Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, would be installed; that elections would be scheduled for January 2005; and that the liberation of a devastated country of 25 million in which everyone owns an AK-47 had been accomplished with an army of around 140,000 with a total casualty rate (including accidents and friendly fire) of around 800; that no oil fields had been set aflame; no WMDs had been used; no mass refugee crises had emerged; and no civil war had broken out… well, I think you would come to the conclusion that the war had been an extraordinary success. And you’d be right. Yes, there are enormous challenges; and yes, so much more could have been achieved without incompetence, infighting and occasional inhumanity. But it’s worth acknowledging that, with a little perspective, our current gloom is over-blown. Stocks in Iraq have been way over-sold. I even regret some minor sells myself. Now watch the media do all it can to accentuate the negative.

WHAT THE MEDIA READS: This blog comes out first in terms of media influence, according to Dan Drezner.

A MUSIC BLOG: The brilliant young music critic and writer, Alex Ross, now has a music blog. Everything he writes is worth reading.

JUDICIAL TYRANTS: Yes, those figures in black robes once violated basic principles of self-government and forced vile and disgusting marriages on unwilling majorities. No one had a say – except nine dictators in the Supreme Court. And the public was overwhelmingly opposed, according to Gallup:

In 1968, only 20% of Americans approved of marriage between “whites and nonwhites.” By 1983, 43% said they approved of marriage between blacks and whites, and in the most recent survey conducted for AARP, 73% of Americans expressed approval toward black-white marriages. This percentage is up significantly since Gallup last asked the question in June 2002.
While a majority of black adults have consistently approved of marriage between whites and nonwhites since Gallup began asking this question of blacks in 1968, only 17% of whites approved in 1968. It wasn’t until 1997 that a majority of whites expressed approval toward black-white marriages. According to the latest survey, 70% of whites and 80% of blacks approve of marriage between whites and blacks.
Younger Americans are more likely than older Americans to approve of marriage between blacks and whites (approval ranges from 85% among the 18- to 29-year-olds to just 47% among those 65 and older).

It wasn’t until 1997 that a majority of whites approved of inter-racial marriages! The public approval of marriage rights for gays today is close to double the approval of inter-racial marriage in 1967. Judicial tyranny was worse then, wasn’t it?

Still alive here, a few pounds lighter. Sorry for the break but this stomach flu basically prevented me from functioning for a few days. I’m almost better and hope to be back blogging at full speed in a day or so. Thanks for your patience, but even bloggers get sick from time to time. In the interlude, here’s my review of Tony Hendra’s astonishing new spiritual memoir, “Father Joe.” And please don’t forget the best collection of essays, monographs, legal opinions, poetry, debate and comment on same-sex marriage. Here’s a reminder.

purchase at amazon.com [USA]
purchase at amazon.ca [Canada]
purchase at amazon.co.uk [Europe]

I’ve been side-swiped by a nasty stomach virus. Will blog as soon as I feel better.

It’s grim, of course. Radical Islamism hates only Jews more than homosexuals. And the mullahs best even John Derbyshire in their bigotry:

Dr Muzammil Siddiqi, director of the Islamic Society of North America, says “homosexuality is a moral disease, a sin, a corruption… No person is born homosexual, just as nobody is born a thief, a liar or a murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education.” Sheikh Sharkhawy, a cleric at the prestigious London Central Mosque in Regent’s Park, compares homosexuality to a “cancer tumour.” He argues “we must burn all gays to prevent paedophilia and the spread of AIDS,” and says gay people “have no hope of a spiritual life.” The Muslim Educational Trust hands out educational material to Muslim teachers – intended for children! – advocating the death penalty for gay people, and advising Muslim pupils to stay away from gay classmates and teachers.

What staggers me is how silent the gay establishment is about these obscenities. If a religious right figure had said them, there would be hell to pay. But the multi-culti left still has a stranglehold on official gay discourse and won’t condemn Islamist bigotry. Why not? These mullahs are fanning the flames of anti-gay violence with literally incendiary rhetoric. Burn gays? Yep, that’s what the cleric said.

ANOTHER SOLDIER EMAIL: I was sent this first-hand report of a soldier currently on leave from Iraq:

Anyway, he said that he refuses to watch the news coverage of what’s happening over there. He said that the things they show are true but that the media blows everything out of proportion and makes it look like it’s total chaos all of the time. He said that for the most part it’s quiet and boring. And he has been in downtown Baghdad for a year in the middle of it all! He said that it’s really like an inner city that has a lot of gang activity. The people that live there are happy that the troops are there and are very friendly and supportive (women and girls always blowing kisses, men waving and smiling!) They point out the “bad guys” and call them “Ali Baba”! He said that so much has changed for the good over there. Kids are back in school, adults suddenly have internet access and telephones where before they had no way of knowing what was happening in the outside world. Businessmen are tearing down old falling apart mud and stone buildings and building real businesses. J has learned some basic Iraqi including writing their alphabet (which is basically symbols written from right to left) and he has in turn taught English to some of the Iraqi’s. As much as he doesn’t want to go back, he sees how much the Iraqi’s need help and wants them to be successful. He said that he can see them becoming a thriving country within the next 10 years. He said that all of the troops that he knows are very supportive of what Pres. Bush is doing but that Donald Rumsfeld is another story. No one seems to like him at all for a lot of different reasons.

Yep. Most of the country is “quiet and boring.” I’m sure it is. If you watched the evening news in DC, and never lived here, you’d have a similar impression. I live at a center of drug and gang activity and yet for the most part, life goes on. Baghdad is obviously much more dangerous; but the notion that it is descending into chaos as we speak just isn’t borne out by the facts.

From Fallujah, a grisly scene:

On Sunday, for example, scores of masked mujahedeen, shouting “Allahu Akbar,” or “God is Great,” paraded four men stripped down to their underpants atop the back of a pickup truck that drove through the city. Their bare backs were bleeding from 80 lashes they had received as punishment for selling alcohol. They were taken to a hospital where they were treated and released. Residents said a man found intoxicated last week was flogged, held overnight and released the next day.

Funny. I haven’t seen those photos in the media anywhere.

The major papers today are highlighting what they say is a major difference between the UK and the US on Iraqi sovereignty after June 30. Chief among them is the New York Times’ Patrick Tyler, who claims to read a difference between Tony Blair’s and Colin Powell’s statements. (This was also BBC World TV’s lead story.) Blair said: “If there’s a political decision as to whether you go into a place like Falluja in a particular way, that has got be done with the consent of the Iraqi government.” He elaborated:

That’s what the transfer of sovereignty means. That doesn’t mean to say that our troops are going to be ordered to do something that our troops don’t want to do. The political control shifts, the operational issues have to be decided under various agreements… It may be decided on an operation-to-operation basis.

Powell, for his part, said that “we would take into account whatever” Iraqi officials say “at a political and military level,” but if the American military had to act “in a way that might not be in total consonance with what the Iraqi interim government might want to do at a particularly moment in time, U.S. forces remain under U.S. command and will do what is necessary to protect themselves.” I’m sorry but where is the big difference? Both Blair and Powell seem to me to be saying exactly the same thing. (Cheney might wish for something else.) The Washington Post offers the following construction: Powell “phrased the issue differently.” Different phraseology is now a major split in the alliance? Obviously, coalition forces, if attacked or in danger, will not ask the new Iraqi government for permission to defend themselves. But equally, offensive operations, especially if they have delicate political repercussions, will be cleared by the future Iraqi government. That’s what Powell and Blair both said. (The BBC, of course, edited Powell’s quote so that it didn’t include the final, contextual phrase: “and will do what is necessary to protect themselves.” Just when I thought they were improving.)

There are plenty of reasons to worry about Iraq. There are also many valid criticisms of the occupation. But I have yet to read any cogent criticism that offers any better future plan than the one president Bush outlined Monday night. John Kerry’s plaintive cries to “internationalize” the transition are so vacuous they barely merit attention. The transition is already being run by the U.N.; very few countries have the military capacity to cooperate fully with the coalition, and few want to; quicker elections would be great, but very difficult to pull off on a national level before the end of the year. So what are Bush’s opponents proposing? More troops now? But wouldn’t that undercut the message of transferring sovereignty to the Iraqis? A sudden exit of all troops? But no one – apart from right-wing and leftwing extremists – thinks that’s a wise move. Giving a future Iraqi government a veto power over troop activities? Done, according to Blair. The truth is: Bush’s plan is about as good as we’re likely to get. And deposing a dictator after decades of brutal rule could never have led immediately to insta-democracy. Do I wish we had had more troops at the start to maintain more order? You bet. Do I wish incompetence had not allowed Abu Gjraib to happen? Of course. But none of that would have prevented the Baathists and Jihadists from wreaking havoc. Do I wish the original war had been bloodier so that the real battle with Saddam’s henchmen could have been joined all at once rather than over a long year of low-level conflict? Er, no. Remember what our anti-war friends predicted at the outset? That the battle for Baghdad could cost up to 10,000 Coalition casualties? I’m quite happy that didn’t happen. 800 deaths is bad enough. What I’m saying, I guess, is that as long as the anti-war critics continue relentless negativism without any constructive alternative, they will soon lose the debate. Americans want to know how to move this war forward, not why we shouldn’t have started it in the first place. Right now, the president has the best plan for making this work. What does anyone else have?

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “OK damn you and your infernal blog suggestions – I’ve taken to riding my bike to work everyday. It’s a 26 mile round trip journey. You’re to blame for my weight loss, increased libido, extra energy at work and a reduction in petrol expenditures. You bastard. Gas Tax? Go for it – I rarely use the stuff any more.” – More feedback on the Letters Page.