The Dish

Johann Hari, a writer for the Independent in London, was close to many Iraqi exiles – refugees from the Baath dictatorship – and was worried when they went back home at the end of the war this spring. But many have just returned for a brief visit to London and have been reporting what they found. His worst fears dissipated when he first saw them in his apartment, “beaming and speaking at a hundred words a minute.” They’re the younger generation and had gone back specifically to engage students and the younger generations:

First, they wanted to establish debating societies and newsletters in the Baghdad universities. “These are going to be the seeds of democracy,” Yasser explains. “Once you learn to argue against people instead of killing them as Saddam did, you’re on your way. We explained to the university students that they could have different newspapers – and even have different opinions in the same newspapers – and it seemed totally surreal to them. They just couldn’t understand it. But when they realised that it really was possible and nobody was going to punish them, they were so excited that they were just obsessed. They were in the middle of their exams and supposed to be studying, but they insisted on writing and photocopying a newsletter that they distributed everywhere. They wrote articles on amazing things they could find out about on the internet – philosophy and art and the difference between proportional representation and first-past-the-post! It was the best thing in my life, seeing that,” Yasser says.

Thrilling, no? Like the fact that Iraq-Today.com explains why it’s written in English: they now have almost 200 competing outlets in Baghdad and beyond. So where’s the catch? The electricity problems, yes. Security, yes. But this most of all:

There is a terrible fear among many Iraqis that they will not be able to match the Kurds’ achievement if they are abandoned by the Americans once again. “The memories of 1991 are so vivid,” says Sama. “People still fear that somehow the Americans will abandon us and Saddam will claw his way back from the grave. They say, `It happened in 1991, it could happen again.’ That’s one crucial reason why people are reluctant to cooperate with the coalition.” She adds: “I find it absolutely incredible that the anti-war people are now calling for the coalition to leave straight away. Nobody in Iraq wants that. The opinion polls show it’s just 13 per cent. Don’t they care about the Iraqi people and what they want at all? This isn’t a game. This isn’t about poking a stick at George Bush. This is our lives.”

Yes. But many on the Western left couldn’t give a damn about the lives of Iraqis. If they had, they would have supported the war, wouldn’t they?

“At the time of the robbery, Ms. Boudin had been a fugitive for several years, since her known involvement in a 1970 terrorist bomb-making operation in New York City. She occupied herself in jail by getting a master’s degree in adult education, assisting other inmates to get degrees, and ministering to inmates with AIDS (a fashionable venereal disease).” – John Derbyshire, National Review. He subsequently denigrates Boudin because she is working to help women affected with HIV, because she isn’t helping people with a “less chic disease.” He describes this ministry as “cushy.” He should visit an AIDS ward. This “fashionable venereal disease” is killing millions across the planet – young, old, men, women, children. In prisons, it’s often a result of rape, and a growing crisis that needs to be addressed out of simple compassion. It can be transmitted by non-sexual means. To trivialize the suffering of people with such a disease by calling it “fashionable” is to spit in the face of the sick – yes, the sick. There are plenty of reasons to dislike what Kathy Boudin has done in the past. But that she is now helping some of the most marginalized and needy people in our society is surely a good thing, and something no sane or right-minded person would seek to belittle. Some of the editors at that magazine call themselves Christians. Yet they gladly publish a smug, sickening bigot like this. This isn’t funny. It isn’t even pertinent to any broader point. It’s despicable.

Tom Friedman comes to the only conclusion possible from recent events. France is not an ally of the United States. It’s an enemy. Their resentment is helping to undermine the cause of stability and progress in Iraq, and their machinations are doing immeasurable damage to the future of European-American relations. Money quote:

If France were serious, it would be using its influence within the European Union to assemble an army of 25,000 Eurotroops, and a $5 billion reconstruction package, and then saying to the Bush team: Here, we’re sincere about helping to rebuild Iraq, but now we want a real seat at the management table. Instead, the French have put out an ill-conceived proposal, just to show that they can be different, without any promise that even if America said yes Paris would make a meaningful contribution.
But then France has never been interested in promoting democracy in the modern Arab world, which is why its pose as the new protector of Iraqi representative government – after being so content with Saddam’s one-man rule – is so patently cynical.

Worse than cynical. Malevolent. I’ve been reading Peter Stothard’s lively book about the most critical month in Tony Blair’s premiership, Thirty Days. What really struck me about the internal debates in the British cabinet last March was the simple assumption of French malice and cynicism at every juncture. And this from a bunch of committed Europhiles. And it’s getting worse.

Check out this devastating analysis of the BBC’s fabrications about the Blair government. It’s all the more damning for appearing in the ultra-left newspaper, the Independent. Blair won’t be undamaged by this whole affair. But the credibility of the BBC is in tatters. Yay. Privatize it.

Yep, this piece of the bleeding obvious is now brought to you by the Heritage Foundation. The logic is hard to refute:

All government spending eventually must be funded with taxes, and budget deficits only delay the inevitable taxes (with interest). This year’s $401 billion budget deficit will add $3,774 to the average household’s future tax burden. If the budget deficit reaches $600 billion to $700 billion, the annual tax increase will top $6,000 per household. Unless they balance tax relief with spending cuts, President Bush and Congress will leave a legacy of temporary tax relief followed by permanently higher taxes.

Why doesn’t the administration see this? Does Dick Cheney think we’re persuaded by his insistence last Sunday that he is a “deficit hawk”? If his record is that of a hawk, what on earth would a dove have done? My own frustration at this administration’s fiscal recklessness is catalogued here. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to raise taxes. But if we don’t cut spending drastically and reform entitlements, we’re going to be crushed by taxation in the not-so-distant future.

My favorite thing about hurricanes is the coverage. Matt Drudge is getting the vapors, the way he does. Others are getting a little uptight. I also love the way weather people on the telly pretend to be terribly upset that a hurricane may come and give us hell, when quite obviously they’re having the time of their lives. The crushing look of disappointment they feel telling viewers it isn’t going to be as intense as they first ‘feared’ has to be seen to be believed. My own rule of thumb with hurricanes is that if they warn you about them, it’ll be ok. It’s the ones they don’t tell you about that’ll kill you. Fearless prediction: It’s just going to rain a lot here. The beagle is bummed.

“I just believe in keeping the peace. I don’t throw tea bags every week.” Well, that’s a relief.

OFF-MESSAGE: The Swedish government takes on Oprah for being too pro-war. Oprah?? Who’s next? Peter Jennings?

IRAQIS VERSUS ARABS: Fascinating editorial in Iraq-Today on the bitterness many Iraqis feel toward the opportunism of their fellow Arabs:

On the walls of Mosul University, one of Iraq’s oldest, warning signs are clearly displayed; “No Jordanians, No Palestinians”. Iraqis are clearly still upset that other Arabs were able to study in Iraq, effectively on Saddam’s payroll. Iraqis have had enough of seeing their own lives compromised for the benefit of Arabs from neighbouring countries.
Saddam Hussein played the Palestinian card to the max. It’s widely believed that the support, both vocal and financial, he gave to the suicide bombers, are the reason behind the wrath of the “Zionists” in Tel Aviv and Washington. Whether that is true or not is beside the point – Iraqis saw other Arabs benefit from Saddam’s regime while they were left to suffer.
In contrast, the US spilled the blood of its own people to liberate them from Saddam’s tyranny. No matter how bad things are here right now, friends, colleagues and relatives assure me that with the pressure of living under the old regime gone, life is one hundred percent better.

Funny how few reporters from the New York Times have been able to report the same thing.

The backlash against equal marriage rights in Canada is in full swing, but the odds are still in favor of full civil rights for gay citizens. The Parliamentary vote was extremely close, suggesting the deep divisions that this subject sill arouses. But it’s worth considering a little historical perspective. The vote this time was 137 – 132 against a motion restricting civil marriage to heterosexuals. Four years ago, a similar motion passed on a vote of 216 – 55. In other words, in four years, pro-gay-marriage forces have gained 82 votes, while anti-gay-marriage forces have lost 84. Polls show the under 30s supporting equal rights for gays at around the 70 percent mark. The task of the social right now – here as in Canada – is to freeze this social change before it becomes irreversible. Meanwhile, Canadian dictionaries are changing the definition of marriage. The change is already here.

DO LUCKY DUCKIES QUACK? One of the more irritating of rhetorical devices by some on the partisan-left (Tim Noah, Paul Krugman, et al.) has been their invocation of the Wall Street Journal editorial that worried about the consequences of taxes only being paid by a section of the population. With his typical sleight of hand, Noah interpreted this to mean that conservatives wanted to raise taxes on the poor. He’s been giggling ever since. He’s full of it, of course. Jacob Levy patiently explains why.

A blogger points out that in post-war Europe the U.S. never spent more than 5 percent of the GNP of the recipient country. The impact of money up to 50 percent of a country’s GNP is unprecedented. Surely it will have a huge impact. Obviously, money isn’t enough – cultural, social and ethnic factors may well be more critical in determining Iraq’s possible emergence into the civilized democratic world. But no one can claim the Bush administration isn’t committing enough resources.

All that’s left of his claim that the Blair government deliberately inserted evidence it knew not to be true and generally sexed up the Iraq dossier against the wishes of the intelligence services is that some intelligence analysts were uneasy about the presentation of he data. Money quote: “Appearing at the inquiry for a second time Wednesday, Gilligan said he had not intended to give the impression the government had lied. ‘The allegation I intended to make was a spin. I do regret those words … and I shouldn’t have used them.'” He also admits wrongful leaking. He’s toast. So are the conspiracy theorists.