The Dish

A reader writes:

You have never been willing to publicly address the fact that Arabs have not and cannot govern themselves in democratic fashion. And, you continue to hammer away at America with these cheap shots. American soldiers have not "precipitated genocide" in Iraq. American soldiers are not in Iraq blowing innocent people up. (And, if it happens that American soldiers are guilty of harming civilians, it was either an accident, or the aberrant behavior of a psychotic. I could go on for another paragraph qualifying this qualifying parenthetical comment, but I hope that’s not necessary. The point is, the overwhelming majority of American soldiers sincerely want to do the right thing.)

What cause is ever so ‘just’ that it requires the deliberate, calculated destruction of innocent human life? Suicide bombers were not precipitated by American soldiers. They were precipitated by a willing population of angry, desensitized Muslim fanatics, consumed with hatred for outsiders, for infidels, and eerily possessed by a longing for glory — and group sex — in the hereafter.

The Arab muslim logic has always been as follows: if you (meaning infidels) were not in our country, nothing bad would happen. Any American worker who has ever been in an accident in Saudi Arabia, and perhaps any other Arab country knows, that if they are involved in an automobile accident that they are guilty, even if it is patently obvious that the offending party was the native Arab.

We like to think of Iraqis as educated. Secular. That was no doubt part of the reason we decided to invade. Maybe these Arabs can be our friends, we thought.  But that’s not  going to happen. These Arabs will not, we have found, rat out their own. There are no laws outside of the extended Muslim family. And the sheikh rules that family. Individuals trapped in this feudal closet can never take it upon themselves to make a "citizen’s arrest" in the name of justice and humanity.  That would be suicide. 

And it would be as foolish a concept as trying to establish a democracy in an all-Islamic nation. 

Free political discourse. 
A vibrant economy.
Islam.

Pick two.

Barack should be leery of Maureen Dowd’s advice, says Tom Bevan. I’d split the difference myself. I don’t think Obama should go for Hillary’s jugular. It’s not his style. But when she seems more anecdotal and conversational than he does (and she has recently), he needs to play down the seminar and pump up the sermon. But he shouldn’t over-think it or try too hard. The great gift Obama has is that, compared to everyone else, he seems like a real human being. Over-calculated rhetoric could derail one of his best assets. In the end, he has to hope others will see through the fathomless phoniness of HRC.

What an embarrassment for London. Not only is the Olympics logo epilepsy-inducing, it’s beyond ugly. The best summary:

"It looks as if the 80s has thrown up into 2012."

A reader writes:

You wrote:

"I don’t see how Darfur liberals can be so blithely indifferent to a looming genocide in Iraq that we have precipitated, while urging intervening to mitigate one elsewhere."

I think it goes something like this:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.

Iraq is beyond our ability to help. The likely genocide that is to follow was set in motion very early on in this war and our lingering there will do nothing to change that. Our presence there may be making things worse at this point because what resistance the Sunni could muster against that potential atrocity is spending it’s energy fighting us. On the other hand, there’s much that we could do in Darfur with even a modest effort.

Just no ground troops, please.

Cheney’s circle speaks.

The multinational company acquiesces in and enforces the oppression and segregation of women. Man, it’s a depressing story. So here’s something back at the Saudis, the Taliban, al Qaeda, and every vicious, woman-hating Islamist out there: a celebration of the beauty of unveiled women through the aeons of Western art. Check it out, it’s gorgeous.

Rudy decides to skip the Iowa straw poll in August.

Agreed. I just wish he hadn’t danced with Karl Rove.

Mark Steyn praises Rudy Giuliani for endorsing New Hampshire’s state motto, "Live Free Or Die." I love the motto too. But isn’t it exactly the opposite of what today’s GOP stands for? The entire premise of Giuliani’s positions is that, after 9/11, we should not live free in case we die. Last night, he spoke of two risible plots by total losers with no capability of doing serious damage as grave threats to America’s survival. The Fort Dix goons and the JFK plotters are among the most pathetic, puny enemies this country has ever known. But Giuliani speaks of them as if they were the approach of global catastrophe – and he demands that Americans surrender their most precious liberties in order to remain safe from them. Live free or die? Giuliani’s motto is: Live Under My Protection Or Die.

He eagerly supports the suspension of habeas corpus, he enthusiastically supports the torture of anyone the president drags off the street as a designated "enemy combatant," he has raised no objections to the "unitary executive" theory of presidential power, and he has never expressed the slightest interest in civil liberties. Au contraire. In his time as mayor, I don’t recall a single incident in which Giuliani ever preferred freedom to security. The man tried to prevent people from jay-walking because it was not safe enough. You want your life micro-managed by government? Giuliani’s your guy. The logic of today’s GOP in the war on terror, moreover, is the inverse of New Hampshire’s. In every choice of liberty versus security, the GOP now prefers security, without even publicly acknowledging the costs. And yet Mark Steyn sees no irony here. Do they really not see that their rhetoric on liberty is utterly hollow? Or have they just persuaded themselves that because they’re the ones taking our freedoms away, we have nothing to be concerned about?

Ana notices:

8:23 PM Gilmore ALSO STANDING. Mitt Romney totally flummoxed, can’t remember what polling said about standing versus sitting.

8:31 PM Romney’s decided to stand. He’s not going to apologize about becoming pro-standing. He’s been standing, in his heart, for a long time. Really, he’s a lifelong stander. Small varmint standing, mostly.

Heh.