The Dish

Here’s another fast-accelerating meme: the president led the American public to believe that the post-war reconstruction of Iraq would be easy, he never anticipated these problems, and can only blame himself for not lowering expectations. The one true aspect of this seems to me to be the gratuitous symbolism of the USS Lincoln landing and that hubristic banner: “Mission Accomplished.” I think I’ve been proved right about the over-reach there. But rhetorically, it’s fair for the White House to point out that the president did indeed warn about the post-war. Here are some extracts sent to me from the president’s speeches in the last year:

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We’re pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We’ve begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We’re helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done.

That’s from the Lincoln speech. Then there’s this:

The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife. Yet, the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us, and Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times, and we will meet the tests of our time.

That was February 26, before the war. This was on April 15:

Our victory in Iraq is certain, but it is not complete. Centralized power of the dictator has ended — yet, in parts of Iraq, desperate and dangerous elements remain. Forces of our coalition will engage these enemies until they surrender or until they’re destroyed. We have waged this war with determination and with clarity of purpose. And we will see it through until the job is done. As we press on to liberate every corner of Iraq, we are beginning the difficult work of helping Iraqis to build a free and stable country.

This was a day later:

American and coalition forces still face serious risks in Iraq. Scattered enemy is still capable of doing harm to our forces and to the innocent. But we’ll stay focused. We will finish what we’ve begun. We will press on until our mission is finished and victory is complete… With all the hardships of this transition, the lives of the Iraqi people will be better than anything they have known for generations. The journey from a totalitarian, brutal dictatorship to a free society is not easy. It will take time to build the institutions of democracy and the habits of freedom.

I could go on. The bottom line: this enormous effort in Iraq will take a long time – years, maybe. Doing it is the only profound measure taken in years to turn the growing threat of Middle Eastern radicalization around. It is a good in itself. It will make us more secure. It has the potential to revolutionize the Arab world. We cannot relent or buckle or show weakness. The real test of this war, as we’ve known from its inception, will be the years ahead when the memory of 9/11 recedes and the forces of appeasement and amnesia seek to undermine our resolve.

Oliver Kamm looks at the history of French idiocy in foreign affairs – back to Napoleon III. They learn nothing, do they?

CLARK ON THE WAR: A useful summary of complete incoherence.

THE RISE OF SINGLES: I didn’t know this:

Last month the Census Bureau reported that 132 members of the House of Representatives have districts in which the majority of households are headed by unmarried adults.

Here’s a useful primer on the implications.

The British Tories have ousted their leader. 90 votes against – 75 for.

Over to administration spokesman, Lawrence Pettibone. Actually, he has a point.

“I don’t know whether we’ll win the postwar if Congress approves the money Bush asked for. But I know we’ll lose it if Congress doesn’t. That’s what happens when a nation at war starts to think like the Wes Clark of 2003. Just ask the Wes Clark of 1999.” – Will Saletan, in a perceptive piece on the opportunism of Wesley Clark.

Some in Paris are ecstatically happy at the thought of dead Americans.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has now upped the ante. Rather than conceding that they deliberately distorted his quote to attack Congressman Nethercutt, they now run this cartoon about him. Shameless. (Hat-tip: Stefan Scharansky.)

“The Federal Marriage Amendment wouldn’t simply ban equality in civil marriage, a right that is now guaranteed to murderers, child abusers, dead-beat dads, multiple divorcees and foreigners – but not to gay citizens. It would also make it unconstitutional for a state or federal law to give any benefits whatsoever to gay couples. Where do I glean that? From the words “or the legal incidents thereof.” Even the weakest forms of domestic partnerships contain benefits, i.e. “legal incidents,” that are also part of marriage, like hospital visitation, shared wills, etc. This amendment would make every such benefit subject to abolition through the courts. Some say that because the amendment says that no law should be “construed” to grant the “legal incidents” of marriage, it’s directed only at courts, not legislatures – so a legislature could enact equal marriage rights and pass the Constitutional test. But anything called marriage or equivalent to marriage would be banned under the first part of the amendment. And any benefits in a lesser version could be challenged by the far right in the courts under the second part – and no court could constitutionally uphold them.” My call to arms to the gay community to come together to fight the direst threat to gay civil rights in history can be found opposite.

Great to see I’m not the only one who sees the genius of this mix.

THE TORIES PUT THE BOOT IN: It looks increasingly likely that the British Conservative Party is about to switch leaders. This is a good thing. Blair needs a real opposition and his domestic policies are reverting to the left’s mean: more taxes and more spending. But look at the reasons for the leader’s decline:

The Times says plans are under way for a “lightning contest” to replace Mr Duncan Smith and thus minimise the damage to the party, if, as expected, he fails to secure the 83 votes required to win this afternoon’s vote of confidence in him by Tory MPs. The paper’s Michael Gove identifies three major defects that sealed Mr Duncan Smith’s fate: his inability to manage his team, as evinced by his harsh treatment of now-rival David Davis; his poor communication skills, as revealed during lack-lustre performances at PMQs and party conference; and his poor judgment, displayed over issues such as his opposition to gay adoption.

Yep. Opposition to gay adoption has helped sink a conservative leader. There lies the future.

“What a phony! What a bunch of crap this Clark boom is. Clark reminds me of Keir Dullea in “2001: A Space Odyssey” — a blank, vacant expression, detached and affectless. There’s something sexually neutered about Dullea in that film — a physical passivity necessitated by cramped space travel — that I also find in Clark. And the astronaut Dullea plays is sometimes indistinguishable from the crazed computer, HAL — which I find in Clark’s smug, computerized vocal delivery… Doesn’t anyone know how to “read” TV? The guy’s an android! He gives me the creeps. And don’t they realize how short he is? He’s a slick, boudoir, salon military type who rubbed plenty of colleagues the wrong way. Clark is not a natural man’s man. And he’s no Eisenhower, who was a genial, charismatic leader with a genius for collaboration and organization.” Her take on the war seems wrong to me – she seems more concerned about educating the public about the glories of Middle Eastern culture (not a bad idea in itself) than tackling the frightening rise of Islamism. And she doesn’t get Washington. She seems to think that State Department-Pentagon infighting is somehow Rumsfeld’s doing! But when she’s good, she’s great. This was how she felt about Rush Limbaugh’s woes:

For me, it was almost like when Diana had her accident or when Natalie Wood was found drowned off Santa Catalina. That’s the level of deep emotional upset that admirers of Rush had — not because his private life contradicted his public code but because of the revelation of the desperate, agonizing subterfuges to which he had been driven by his addiction.

Paglia is the only person on the planet who could go on to compare Rush Limbaugh with Judy Garland. For that alone, she deserves to be celebrated. Oh, and she’s dead right about the genius of Drudge. Incomparable.