The Denial Endures

Greenwald simply gapes at the fact that president Bush can give a speech with these words in it:

When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they had a clear understanding of tyranny. They also had a clear idea about how to prevent it from ever taking root in America. Their solution was to separate the government’s powers into three co-equal branches: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Each of these branches plays a vital role in our free society. Each serves as a check on the others. And to preserve our liberty, each must meet its responsibilities — and resist the temptation to encroach on the powers the Constitution accords to others.

One has to ask: is the president an idiot or just shameless? I truly can’t see a third option, except such clinical denial of reality that he should be removed from office for incapacity.

Obama A Natural Republican?

A reader writes:

I have always thought that Barack is a natural conservative and that he might do well in the Republican party, albeit the sparse Rockefeller wing. I think his conservative trait manifests itself in both his foreign and domestic policies as well as his personal style as a politician. On foreign policy, I will describe Barack as a rational hawk in the mold of the elder Bush and Powell.  The way he has handled his opposition to the Iraq war speaks to this.  Even though he opposed the war from the start, he has been careful not to sound stupidly anti-war like the folks on the far left and has given the military and the commander-in-chief the benefit of the doubt by mostly funding the war. His position of appropriately escalating the conflict in Afghanistan is also consistent with this view.

On domestic policy, I think Barack struggles to fit into the big government wing of the Democratic party.  His experience as a community organizer informs him about the limits of what government can do.

For example, in education, he believes that no amount of federal spending can help without strong parental involvement.  Even his urban agenda is somewhat conservative in nature — identify at-risk pregnant women and provide assistance and support to them so that their children are prepared to lead independent lives instead of becoming a part of the welfare state.  I think you observed it when you said in your essay that "I attended an Obama speech in Washington on tax policy that underwhelmed on delivery" — his heart is not simply where he thinks there is a government hand-out for every problem.  Notice how far behind he lags Hillary and John Edwards when it comes to developing new programs.  Even on the issue of health insurance, his conservative demeanor is very clear — he is the only one among the top three not to require a mandate.

Personally and stylistically, I also see him as a good fit for the Republican party. Unlike some folks on the far-left, he actually beliefs that there is a role for faith in the public square and actually enjoys talking about his faith. He also values consistency as a strong character trait which leads me to wonder if he can ever do well in the Democratic party where he has to answer to all of their interest groups?

I don’t agree with all this, but I do agree that Obama is not a classic leftist: far too interesting and nuanced for that. His opposition to the Iraq war was largely realist and pragmatic.

Clinton And Sleaze

Novak has some troubling inside scuttlebutt. There’s no way to know if it’s legit, bluff or just another attempt by Clinton to intimidate her way to the nomination. But if I were Hillary Clinton, I don’t think I’d be eager to start a media war over the details of people’s personal lives, if that’s what this is about. When you are married to Bill Clinton, and when the world has decided to ignore, for now at least, the details of his personal life since he left office, best to leave the dirt alone, don’t you think?

Pundits For Rudy

Ponnuru counts them:

The Giuliani bandwagon includes conservative commentator John Podhoretz, New York Post columnist Ryan Sager, American Spectator reporters Philip Klein and Jennifer Rubin, and the editors of the New York Sun. Several writers affiliated with NR or National Review Online are also on board. David Frum and David Pryce-Jones are formally affiliated with the Giuliani campaign. Richard Brookhiser has endorsed the former mayor’s run, as has Lisa Schiffren. Deroy Murdock regularly turns out supportive commentary.

Murdock is the columnist who argues that Americans should be proud – proud – of torturing prisoners. Just an appetizer for next year if Giuliani wins the nomination. it will be a campaign, I predict, whose central pillar will be deporting immigrants, waging war, and torturing prisoners. And it will have a powerful resonance for the Fox News base.

Why We Need The Laws Of War

Norm Geras makes what is increasingly a minority case among Americans:

The intentional targeting of civilians is a war crime, and not just the use of nuclear weapons against them. That is why terrorism is a criminal act. So is the carpet-bombing of population centres. I also agree that one shouldn’t treat international law as if it were a system without blemishes, imperfections, problems – to be remedied and improved upon….

On the other hand, to dismiss the concept of crime from the conduct of war would amount, in effect, to allowing that war may be lawless – fought without moral restraints of any kind, only strategic ones. …Whatever the deficits of international law may be at present, the world would be a different, and a worse, place if there were no laws of war and no concept of war crimes.

Norm is responding to this.