The Dish

One small thing about the Mel Gibson trailer for his upcoming movie about Jesus, ‘The Passion.’ As I understand it, one of the true merits of this movie is its attempt at historical accuracy. But the trailer’s scenes portray a very traditional Catholic passion scene. In particular, they show Jesus being put on a cross with nails into the palms of his hands. I may be wrong about this, but hasn’t it been established that such nails would have penetrated Jesus’ wrists, not his palms? Would anyone surivive long on a cross if held up only by nails into palms? Maybe someone out there knows. But if Gibson is merely making a traditional passion movie, then it strikes me as far less interesting.

“Apropos of the media, I feel like John Adams, in the musical, “1776”:
Is anybody there?
Does anybody care?
Does anybody see what I see?
Because I was out of town yesterday, I stayed up late last night to listen to the news, and “Charlie Rose,” and “Nightline” (didn’t make it to 11:30, though). No one led with Tony Blair’s speech – no one even played any portion of it. If it weren’t for Mark Levin, on WABC radio in New York, I wouldn’t even have known what Blair had said. Levin read portions of the speech during his show, and I started to cry while I was listening to it, as I was driving home – weeping at the wheel, really! I was thinking – “This is a great man. We are lucky to be living at the same time he is.” I think of what he has gone through in his own country, and of his strong convictions and actions. (It’s not so surprising, actually – I have them, also. But given what’s going on in Europe these days….)
I feel like I’m living in an alternate universe. I turned “The Today Show” on this morning, and while there was a piece from Iraq by Brokaw (who’s coming around on this issue, I think), the next story was, of course, about Kobe Bryant. Is anybody there at all? Does anybody care? What is wrong with the world these days, or is it just the media? Couldn’t we start some sort of news channel that really DOES deal with what’s going on in the world – the important, earth-shaking events going on in the world currently?
Listen: when a moderate-to-liberal lesbian has come to appreciate (and listen to) Mark Levin and WABC talk radio, the world has turned seriously upside-down.”

Tony Blair’s speech yesterday was a masterpiece of concision, precision and passion. One day, someone should write a good book on how two British prime ministers, Thatcher and Blair, have come to have such high and powerful profiles in the U.S. My favorite extract from Blair’s speech was the following Ciceronian paragraph:

Can we be sure that terrorism and WMD will join together? If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that, at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive. But if our critics are wrong and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in face of this menace, when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive.

This is what the carpers and nay-sayers still don’t understand. The West is at war with a real and uniquely dangerous enemy. When the consequences of negligence become catastrophic, the equation of intervention changes. The burden of proof must be on those who counsel inaction rather than on those who urge an offensive, proactive battle. Does it matter one iota, for example, if we find merely an apparatus and extensive program for building WMDs in Iraq rather than actual weapons? Or rather: given the uncertain nature of even the best intelligence, should we castigate our leaders for over-reacting to a threat or minimizing it? Since 9/11, my answer is pretty categorical. Blair and Bush passed the test. They still do.

BLAIR’S LIBERALISM: But what Tony Blair’s speech does more than anything else is reveal the decadent state of American liberalism. Imagine if a Democratic candidate could speak as clearly and as forcefully about the war on terror – and then criticized the Bush administration on domestic matters or progress on homeland security. When was the last time you heard a ‘liberal’ actually speak of liberty in so enthusiastic and unambiguous a manner? Here’s Blair in full throttle:

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack. And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify around an idea. And that idea is liberty. (Applause.) We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal. Abraham Lincoln said, “Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.” And it is this sense of justice that makes moral the love of liberty.

Blair has helpfully reminded us once again of the urgent need to deal with the threat of Islamo-fascism, to rebuild those societies plagued by it however long it takes, to pursue every possible avenue to bring a settlement between Israel and Palestinian Arabs – to place the toughness of war in the context of a rebirth of liberty. He also reminds us of the need to bring as much of Europe along as we possibly can.

BUT HE ALSO GETS AMERICA: Beyond this, Blair seems to get America. He has an amazing instinct for public mood, for what others need to hear, and yesterday, he delivered. I found his peroration intensely moving – for its clarity and for its empathy:

We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind — black or white; Christian or not; left, right or merely indifferent — to be free — free to raise a family in love and hope; free to earn a living and be rewarded by your own efforts; free not to bend your knee to any man in fear; free to be you, so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others. That’s what we’re fighting for, and it’s a battle worth fighting. And I know it’s hard on America. And in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I’ve never been to but always wanted to go — (laughter) — I know out there, there’s a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, “Why me, and why us, and why America?” And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do. And our job — my nation, that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond — our job is to be there with you. You’re not going to be alone. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us.

It doesn’t get much better than that, does it? The president is bloody lucky to have this prime minister. We all are.

The leading anti-Blair BBC journalist, Andrew Gilligan, has received a withering assessment from the parliamentary committee looking into his charges that the Blair government politically manipulated intelligence findings. They claim in the Guardian today that Gilligan changed his story in mid-interrogation, calling him “an unsatisfactory witness.” These people aren’t Blair stooges. And they’re getting a strong whiff of the BBC’s Rainesian corruption. Meanwhile, the Times’ Tom Baldwin weighs in on “Bye Bye Credibility.”

“Your link to the hit piece from the Nation is beneath you. A couple points about “medical marijuana”: 1. It’s not a question of “states’ rights” to say that states can’t pass laws that are expressly contrary to federal laws — laws passed by Congress. There is such a thing as the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. The members of Congress who voted for the law and so far have been unwilling to change it, are representing citizens from …… STATES. 2. Congress’ (not the Justice Department’s) prohibition on the manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of marijuana specifically states that it has no medicinal value — as the Supreme Court held a couple years ago. Maybe that is a flawed judgment, and it should be revisited. But there are 535 people in this country that have the authority to start that process, and so far none of them have. Let Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, or Diane Feinstein introduce legislation on the House and Senate calling for exempting medical marijuana from the federal law and have the matter debated. If the med-pot advocates are to be believed, there is a huge majority in the country that favor it, so let their elected representatives speak up and be heard. Until then, quit blaming the Justice Department for enforcing a law that is on the books, and has been enforced for decades in the same manner as it is being enforced now.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

LETTER FROM BAGHDAD: An email from a reader’s friend who, after twenty years, is back in Iraq. Youwon’tget this on the BBC, so here goes:

Baghdad is wonderful, despite the destruction and neglect, and the obvious presence of the new class that made its wealth through the oil for food programme, and the misery of the Iraqis. Nevertheless, there still remains an educated middle class which is completely aware of all that has happened and is still happening in Iraq. It is these people that make you want to stay and do something to the beloved country. I was made more than welcomed by this type of people, most of whom I had met for the first time in my life. In fact, they did every thing possible to make my life comfortable, for fear that I should otherwise leave them. One person described us (Iraqis from outside) very eloquently, he said that the body of Iraq was bleeding and in need for blood transfusion, and it was the Iraqis who are outside the country who have retained the good healthy blood, of the same blood type which will not be rejected by the body!!! Believe me, only those who support Saddam and want him back, will talk of us as outsiders and half Iraqis, and fight their way to make us leave. Good decent people are yearning to being part of the rest of the world and taking part in the 21st century and feel that they can only achieve that through us.
I have met with hundreds of people, especially women. I have helped form a women’s group named Iraqi Independent Women’s Group. Women have very clear fears, concerns and requirements, and are ready to fight their way into achieving their goals. I held 14 meetings in total with them, and there are many more to come. What surprised me most was the amount of tolerance that all Iraqis had. They respected each other’s thoughts and ideas like never before in Iraq, even when they disagreed. The only exception (of course) were Saddam’s boys and the Baathis, who would throw accusations right left and centre, in an attempt to protect themselves and their interests. No Baathi will ever admit to ever being a Baathi. They all claim that they were forced into it. Some Baathis have grown beards and pretend to be Islamists in order to fight against the occupation that has effected their status. These are the people who have been bombing the electricity and water supplies, and oil pipes. They are very dangerous and despised by all that I know. They do not want life to improve for Iraqis and are behind all the existing unrest, including the lack of law and order. Others are more opportunists, and try to infiltrate political movements. People know them one by one, and no one escapes unnoticed.
A lot of sincere hard work has to be done in Iraq, otherwise it might fall once more in the hands of the ignorant and the extremists. The real struggle today is not between Sunnis and Shias, nor Kurds and Arabs. It is between the secularists and centrists one side, and the religious extremists, part of whom are the Baathis who now wear clerical robes. This war, in my opinion, has to be fought now or else Iraq will be lost forever.
As for the occupation forces, whatever you might think of them and their performance so far, every one that I have met wants them to stay for the time being. Much worse will happen should they decide to pack and leave. I have been in a number of meetings with them and can tell you that their long term plans will turn Iraq into an economical and educational heaven, however, Iraq will play no role in the politics of the region. Their short term plans for keeping law and order in the country leaves much to be desired, however, I sincerely believe that things have and will continue to improve, slowly but surely.

Time to recommit to the task.

Mark Steyn nails it:

Intelligence is a hit-and-miss business. In 1998, when Bill Clinton launched mid-Monica cruise-missile attacks on Afghanistan and the Sudan, he hit a Khartoum aspirin factory and missed Osama bin Laden. The claims that the aspirin factory was producing nerve gas and was an al-Qaeda front proved to be untrue. Does that mean Clinton lied to us? I mean, apart from about Gennifer, Monica, and which part of the party of the first part’s enumerated parts came into contact with part of the party of the second part’s enumerated parts. Or was it just that the intelligence was lousy? The intel bureaucracy got the Sudanese aspirin factory wrong, failed to spot 9/11 coming, and insisted it was impossible for any American to penetrate bin Laden’s network, only to have Johnnie bin Joss-Stick from hippy-dippy Marin County on a self-discovery jaunt round the region stroll into the cave and be sharing the executive latrine with the A-list jihadi within 20 minutes.

This BUSH LIED!!!!! schtick won’t stick, because it’s not true.

A British Islamic site now has a list of “the men in Tony’s life.” It means the Jews close to Blair: “This research is intended to highlight some of the names and demonstrates the network of influence that certain business leaders and millionaires (with a particular ideological view) hold within New Labour’.” Maybe the Observer will run the list next Sunday.

I linked recently to a piece just written by Richard Ingrams, where, in the pages of the liberal Observer, he said that he never read letters to the editor when their writers had Jewish last names. It turns out he has urged this before:

When people write to The Observer to complain about anti-Semitism (as happened recently), should they not be obliged by law to state whether or not they themselves are Jewish?

Ingrams was also responsible for one of the lowest responses to 9/11. Writing days later, his column was titled, “Who Will Damn Israel?” It included this passage:

Noticeable was the reluctance throughout the media to contemplate the Israeli factor – the undeniable and central fact behind the disaster that Israel is now and has been for some time an American colony, sustained by billions of American dollars and armed with American missiles, helicopters and tanks.
Such has been the pressure from the Israeli lobby in this country that many, even normally outspoken journalists, are reluctant even to refer to such matters. Nor would you find anywhere in last week’s coverage, any reference whatever to things I have mentioned here in recent issues of The Observer: the fact, for example, that Mr Blair’s adviser on the Middle East is an unelected, unknown Jewish businessman, Lord Levy, now installed in the Foreign Office; the fact that this same Lord Levy is the chief fundraiser for the Labour Party; unmentioned also would be the close business links with Israel of two of our most powerful press magnates, Rupert Murdoch and the newly ennobled owner of the Telegraph newspapers, Lord Conrad Black.

I think this is classic anti-Semitism: the need to blame the Jews for everything, the paranoid assertion that they operate at the highest levels of society and cannot be trusted; and so on. But the point is: this poison is published in a liberal newspaper. That’s how deep the problem is becoming in Europe.

The WSJ uncovers the national intelligence estimate of the uranium-Africa Saddam link. It’s clear; solid; still backed by the Brits. The more I read about this, the less there is to the critics’ hyper-ventilation and glib assertions of “lies” where no lies were spoken. The president and the prime minister should go on the offensive soon. Maybe Blair will in front of Congress.

This column captures something of my own dismay at European hostility to Anglo-American intervention in Iraq, hostility that has begun to morph into a more worrying loathing of market capitalism as a whole:

The issue was debated many times, but it took shape, for me, in the course of a lengthy and brilliant discourse on the future of the market economy, from a French speaker. While outlining thoughts on financial regulation that would have sat perfectly well on this page, he devoted one section of his speech to the “symbolism” of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre. It was of course, he said, an evil act, but the twin towers, as symbols of Western capitalism, had become an almost inevitable target for terrorists; their collapse had something of the Old Testament about it – the razing of a monument to untrammelled power. If we were to counter future threats, we should create different symbols – a form of capitalism that would be less divisive than the American version.
It slipped in so neatly, so rationally, that no one, not even the Americans, listening intently through their earphones, thought to challenge it. Indeed, it was only as I considered it afterwards that I realised what had been said. The implication, not openly stated, was that US economic power was, in itself, a justification for terrorism, that if it was not modified, then it might expect more of the same, and that Europe, if it was wise, should adopt a different model if it was to avoid similar attacks. No mention of 3,000 lives lost; no condemnation of the worst terrorist act of our age; instead, the unmistakable whiff of compromise hovering in the air.

Not compromise. Appeasement. And they are appeasing still. As the shock of that terrible day wears off, the cynics and the carpers will do everything to undermine the huge steps forward we have made since then. The reassertion of American will has provoked an inevitable backlash of resentment that is as much a background noise of the war we are now in as the mortar-fire of guerrilla Baathists in Iraq. And it must be exposed and opposed every bit as vehemently. It’s time to shake off the notion that this war is over or in abeyance. It is absolutely in full swing. And we have to fight back continuously – by arms and words – in case the carpers of defeat overwhelm the prospects for victory.