The Dish

Great idea to show us exactly what voluntary disarmament really means. Can anyone seriously refute Rice’s case here? If they can’t, what responsible choice do we really have but war?

Now that the European powers have tipped their hand and will do all they can diplomatically to forestall or derail war, we can at least reassess where we are. The participation of the French and Germans was never militarily significant. It would have been great to have gotten U.N. sanction for the war against terror, but given the disparate interests of the various great powers, it was always a long shot. So once again, it’s the English-speaking peoples versus the despots. And there’s a reason for this. Terrorism is a far greater threat to countries founded on liberty. Terror’s ability to cripple free societies, their travel and communications, their limited government, their cherished personal liberties, is felt far more keenly in the English-speaking world. That’s why the civil liberties enthusiasts on the right and left are both right and wrong. Right to defend what they defend. Wrong to think that John Ashcroft is a greater threat in this respect than al Qaeda.

A DIFFERENT LEGACY: Statist and dirigist societies, on the other hand, with freedom less of a priority than among their liberal, English-speaking allies, cope with terrorists by ratcheting up police powers, making all sorts of concessions to the enemy, and muddling through. It’s not so big a threat to their customary way of operating. Ditto with foreign threats. For most of the last century, France responded to external pressure in classic Gallic fashion: superficial remarmament, diplomatic ballet, appeasement, and, if necessary, tactical surrender or accommodation. And since the last war, Germany has placed superficial peace above all other priorities – whether defeating terror or accommodating Communism. When you don’t have a deep tradition of internal freedom or inviolate national sovereignty, and when the external threat doesn’t appear to be imminent, this kind of society instinctually avoids war. That’s especially the case now. It’s clearly the hope of France and Germany that the English speaking powers will bear the brunt of Islamist terrorism. By ducking out of the fight, they think they can avoid trouble once again, see the U.S. and the U.K. damaged, and make what best they can of the aftermath. (Check out Safire’s shrewd assessment of Schroder’s realpolitik today for a guide to what the Germans have in mind.) Their current position is therefore their historical default position. We shouldn’t be surprised by their avoidance of conflict now. We should be surprised that they came even this far.

THE WAR CONTINUES: But for us, it’s important to remember why we’re fighting Saddam. The answer is September 11. Those who want to find some specific evidentiary link between al Qaeda and Saddam don’t begin to fathom what war is. It is not the pursuit of one distinct goal after another, depending on the exigencies of international law or diplomacy. That’s called foreign policy. War, in contrast, is the attempt to destroy an enemy. The enemy is Islamist terrorism and its state sponsors. Strategically, the overthrow of the Saddam regime is absolutely central to this objective. It will deal another psychological blow to the reactionaries who want to ratchet Islam back a few more centuries and wage war on the free societies of the West. It will remove one huge and obvious source of weapons of mass destruction potentially available to the enemy. It will provide a military base from which to continue the war against al Qaeda and its enablers across the Middle East, specifically in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. And it will reassert the global hegemony of the United States and its Anglosphere allies. That’s why we fight. It isn’t a pre-emptive war. It’s a reactive war – against what was done to this country throughout the 1990s, culminating on that awful September day. We are fighting to honor the memory of the dead and to defeat a brutal enemy that would inflict even more carnage if they possibly could. And we fight to defend the principles of a liberal international order, principles that the United States and the United States alone has long been responsible for upholding. Our loneliness in this struggle should not therefore be a cause for concern. It is, in fact, a sign, once again, that we are on the right path.

What on earth is a fire-breathing, Bob Jones University alum doing on the presidential commission on AIDS? Check out this man’s views here as noted in the Washington Post. AIDS is a “gay plague.” With the overwhelming number of victims worldwide being straight, and a majority of new HIV cases in America non-gay ones? “Homosexuality is not inborn biologically, just as incest and bestiality are not inborn.” Is the Bush administration equating gay citizens with people who practice incest? Is it saying that the vice-president’s daughter’s relationship is as immoral or as arbitrary as having sex with animals? Is it asserting, against every serious psychological study, that homosexuality is chosen like becoming a dentist? If it is, then please let us know and we can think and vote accordingly. If it isn’t, then what is an extremist like Jerry Thacker doing advising the president on AIDS? This isn’t a legitimate conservative voice. The man was at Bob Jones for seven years, for Heaven’s sake. They appointed him how long after the Lott affair? (Did he also endorse their ban on inter-racial dating at the time?) I’m sorry, but if he’s appointed, I can’t see how any self-respecting advocate for public health can stay on the same board. Or any self-respecting gay man or woman either.

“It is always a joy to meet an American, Mr. Moulton, for I am one of those who believes that the folly of a monarch and the blundering of a minister in far-gone years will not prevent our children from being some day citizens of the same world-wide country under a flag which shall be a quartering of the Union Jack with the Stars and Stripes.” – Sherlock Holmes, in “The Adventure of the Noble Bachelor.”

THE ANTI-WAR LEFT: A picture speaks volumes.

MCCARTHYISM REDUX: “McCarthyism remained a potent myth in intellectual circles. In fact, it figures in many historical tests in universities as a major matter in American history – with accounts of the realities of Soviet penetration of U.S. agencies omitted. Indeed the myth remained so strong that when Angela Davis–not only an admitted Communist but actually the CPUSA’s vice presidential candidate – came to speak at Stanford University, the student paper referred to her simply as an “activist.” When queried on why they didn’t, truly and legitimately, call her a Communist, the editor said that this would be McCarthyism!” – Robert Conquest, “Reflections On a Ravaged Century.” I wonder if the editor at that student paper is now working for the New York Times.

It’s lengthy but I can’t get it out of my head, so here goes:

As a victim of affirmative action, I think I know a little bit about just what happens to a Hispanic student at a prestigious university.

I was accepted into an accelerated pre-med program at the University of California. My SATs were very good, as was my GPA. I graduated 4th in my high school class. Both of my parents were college-educated; my mother worked in a nuclear test lab, and my father was the proverbial Rocket Scientist.

The high school I attended was a joke. All of the district’s money, expanded programs, etc., were funneled into a different high school. I could not transfer there because Hispanics were “under-represented” at the school near my house, which was the one I did attend. We were supposed to have a special ‘gifted student’ program, which I qualified for. We did indeed have one. It was co-ed PE. The good school had advanced math, languages, physics. We had volleyball.

Every single semester started exactly the same way for me. I would get my assigned classes, then spend the rest of the day transferring into the ones I needed. It got to the point that all the teachers knew I’d be in the advanced class, so they’d save me a spot while I got transferred out of the remedial classes. Why was I always placed in the remedial classes? Well, with a last name like MARTINEZ it was just impossible for me to be able to read or write. The other Hispanic kids simply went along with it, taking the path of least resistance. Over at the good school, which had a population of 40% Hispanic, only three Hispanic kids were in the advanced classes. I was the only one at mine.

When I started the accelerated program I was in deep trouble, and not because of my name. The high school had never had anything higher than elementary geometry for math, and so I was already a year behind. The counselors bluntly told me that the only reason I was in the program at all was because of my ‘heritage’. After two years of that I transferred over to the English department.

This is where it turned into a farce…

For the rest, check out the Letters Page.

I vividly remember a huge fight I once got into in a Harvard dining room. The student who sat down opposite me was wearing a Mao-style red star beret. I told him I found it offensive to be sitting next to someone who thought that a symbol that had been used to dramatize the murder of millions should be proudly displayed as a fashion symbol. He accused me, natch, of being a McCarthyite. (No, it wasn’t Eric Alterman.) I asked him if he even knew what atrocities Mao had committed. Not as many as Reagan, he replied. These were the 1980s. I got up and left. These people, like the ones finding excuses for Saddam Hussein, are not within the realms of decent discourse. I’m reminded of this moment by James Lileks’ customary ability to put his finger on things. He gets it, if you’ll pardon the expression (but you won’t). Here’s my favorite bit:

Nowadays, if you point out that someone’s a Communist, you might well be accused of – dum dum DUMMMM – McCarthyism. The term has morphed from its original meaning. It no longer means falsely accusing someone of being a Communist. It now includes correctly identifying someone as a Communist, or ascribing a taint to someone because they don’t reject the Communists in their midst. (I’ll admit there’s a significant difference between the two.) But let’s leave this increasingly insupportable series of generalizations, and return to the point. Do reporters suppress the nature of ANSWER / ACTION because they don’t want to embarrass the movement? No. Do they secretly admire the ANSWER / ACTION / WWP positions on China, North Korea, and other dictatorships? Of course not. (Cuba is another story.) Are they inclined to wonder who’s behind the rallies? No. NeoNazis, Klansmen, Separatists, Militias, the Promise Keepers – these words make reporters’ antennae quiver. “Communist” does not.

Yep. Reporters are even worse. Fascists killed millions because they were evil. Communists killed millions because they were misguided. But what ideals! Just leave the table.

The Washington Post’s editorials keep getting better. Meanwhile, the New York Times sides with the French, Saddam, and a re-run of the 1990s.

I thought he couldn’t get more depraved, but he has. Here is the anti-American id, in all its hateful, poisonous resentment. Miffed at Andrew Motion’s poem, Harold Pinter has unloaded a new one. Here it is – specially for the Guardian. Don’t worry. He’d never write such bile about his old friend Milosevic or his new friend, Saddam. Sorry to ruin your morning coffee:

Here they go again,
The Yanks in their armoured parade
Chanting their ballads of joy
As they gallop across the big world
Praising America’s God.

The gutters are clogged with the dead
The ones who couldn’t join in
The others refusing to sing
The ones who are losing their voice
The ones who’ve forgotten the tune.

The riders have whips which cut.
Your head rolls onto the sand
Your head is a pool in the dirt
Your head is a stain in the dust
Your eyes have gone out and your nose
Sniffs only the pong of the dead
And all the dead air is alive
With the smell of America’s God.

Notice particularly the contempt for anyone with religious faith. The poison of anti-Americanism is spreading far and wide. I wonder one thing: do they understand that America actually has self-respect? And that America’s power can actually fight back against its enemies?

THE U.N.’S MOMENT OF TRUTH: Is this the League of Nations? The answer, I regret to say, is yes. If France, Germany and China succeed in ensuring that the war to disarm Saddam doesn’t have the sanction of the United Nations, then the U.N. is effectively dead as a viable international body. It will be shown to be palpably uninterested in ensuring that its own resolutions are enforced. Am I exaggerating? I wish I were. But it seems to me that our European allies’ current position is one of spectacular intellectual dishonesty. They declare that the U.N. inspectors merely need more time. How much more time? They don’t say. There is no deadline. There is never any deadline. Eleven more months, perhaps? They key premise to this argument is that they are satisfied so far by Saddam’s compliance. So let’s recap: vast gaps in his declaration to the U.N., discovered plans for a nuclear capacity, chemical warheads found that are unaccounted for, no real interviewing of scientists by U.N. officials. But the French are just pleased as punch. Do they have any proposals to make such inspections actually work? A vast increase in the number of inspectors, perhaps? Nope. Do they intend to support the military pressure on Saddam with their own troops? Nope. Germany has specifically disavowed such a course of action – ever. I’m left with the impression that they don’t want to do anything serious, but they don’t want anyone else to do anything serious either. Paris and Berlin know full well that the chances of the inspectors actually finding what Saddam has spent so much effort concealing is next to zero. And they also know that by delaying the potential war until the autumn, they will help keep the U.S. economy depressed (investment being crippled by uncertainty) and help the growing appeasement movement gain more strength. By then, war will become an even greater political risk for London and Washington, which is, of course, part of the Europeans’ plan. Schroder and Chirac want regime change – in Washington and London, not Baghdad. And they are using every ounce of their diplomatic influence to achieve that. You see? They can get off their butts now and again, if they need to. The time is surely coming, alas, when the U.S. and the U.K. will have to acknowledge that these European powers are now de facto allies of Saddam. Because they sure as hell aren’t ours.

Yes, this could well be the primary motive for some nations with regard to Iraq. I mean American and British blood at the hands of terrorists for French and Russian oil profits. Here’s an important piece about the conflicts of interest that plague Russia and France, among the chief advocates for leaving Saddam in power:

Since 1996, Russia has ranked first among nations doing business with Iraq under the oil-for-food program with sales exceeding $4 billion, and Russia still hopes to collect the $12 billion in cold-war-era debt owed by Iraq. In 1997, a consortium led by Russian giant Lukoil signed a contract worth an estimated $4 billion to develop the massive West Qurna oil field in southern Iraq. A contract Lukoil cannot start work on until the U.N. sanctions are lifted… Last year under the oil-for-food program, France sold $1.5 billion worth of goods to Iraq, the most of any nation. Major French companies like communications giant Alcatel and automakers Peugeot and Renault have landed lucrative deals in Iraq. France’s Total Fina Elf has exclusive rights to develop the Majnoon and Bin Umar oil fields which are believed to be the largest in the world and estimated to hold 35 billion barrels of oil; more than three times Total Fina Elf’s current reserves.

It seems to me that if we liberate Iraq, one of our critical post-war goals should be blocking any country that votes against us in the U.N. from having any economic access to a post-war Iraq. We need to tell them that now. Russian and French contracts with Saddam should be deemed null and void, and all future contracts reserved for true allies, i.e. Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, and a few others. Since France, Germany and Russia have done nothing to remove Saddam, why should they benefit from his removal? Fair’s fair, no?

JOE MILLIONAIRE’S A HOTTY: Yes, I must confess, the underwear pics won me over. My colleague, Michelle Cottle, on the other hand, has a cow about a reality show whose basic premise is that women often seek men with real financial resources. I take her point about misogynist stereotypes. Sure, many women marry for pure love, lust or good company. But a woman who may have to have kids isn’t crazy to want a husband who can earn a good living. This isn’t gold-digging; it’s self-protection. And prudence. Men are far less sensible. I realized this when it dawned on me that I found Mr Millionaire far more attractive when I realized he was a construction worker. Maybe Fox should do a gay version where the contestants for the guy’s, er, heart are first told he’s a construction worker and later given the awful news that he’s a millionaire merchant banker. They’d be crushed.

“Eminem may be the ‘people’s choice,’ but he is as harmful to America as any al Qaeda fanatic.” – Bill O’Reilly.

THE “BUG-CHASERS”: I read Drudge’s synopsis of the Rolling Stone piece arguing that one quarter of all gay male HIV transmission is now deliberate. The piece is not online, but the precis reads like Stephen Glass. Is there an actual study showing this? Nope. Just one doc mouthing off. Is there any evidence supporting such an extraordinary claim? None that I can see. There’s one lonely fact, though:

Dr. Cabaj estimates that at least twenty-five percent of all newly infected gay men fall into [bug-chasing] category. With about 40,000 new infections in the United States per year, according to government reports, that would mean 10,000 each year are attributable to that more liberal definition of bug chasing.

But those alleged 40,000 are for all cases of HIV transmission, and as anyone knows, gays form a declining proportion of those cases – maybe a little more than half at this point. So the only actual fact in the extract is obviously wrong. This urban myth was peddled in the 1990s and couldn’t get any traction. Is Rolling Stone that desperate for sales? I guess I’ll wait to read the piece.

DERBYSHIRE UPDATE: It appears that John Derbyshire’s most recent inflammatory remark has been removed from National Review’s website. For the record, Derb’s comment was as follows:

A friend in DC emails to tell me that there are 100,000 antiwar protestors on the Mall. I am reminded of watching the New York St. Patrick’s Day parade once with a friend of Ulster Unionist sympathies. As the massed ranks of Irish marched past, my friend sighed and said: ‘The things you see when you don’t have a gun!’

It seems NRO has standards, and insinuating you’d like to shoot dead your political opponents went a little over the line.