The Whole Thing

New

  • Muck and Mystery
  • Deeds
  • IRAQ THE MODEL
  • Hammorabi
  • Fragmenta Philosophica

Blogroll

  • Anticipatory Retaliation
  • The Belgravia Dispatch
  • Belmont Club
  • BuzzMachine ... by Jeff Jarvis
  • Chief Wiggles - Straight from Iraq
  • Crumb Trail
  • The Daily Ablution
  • Daniel W. Drezner
  • Davids Medienkritik
  • EuroPundits
  • Harry's Place
  • Healing Iraq
  • Impearls
  • Innocents Abroad
  • INTEL DUMP
  • Iraq at a glance
  • IRAQ NOW
  • IsraPundit
  • Just Another Soldier
  • Kesher Talk
  • Man Without Qualities
  • THE MESOPOTAMIAN
  • Michael J. Totten
  • Miller's Time
  • No Left Turns
  • normblog
  • Oliver Kamm
  • One Hand Clapping
  • Power Line
  • Priorities & Frivolities
  • Rantingprofs
  • Roger L. Simon
  • Stephen Pollard
  • USS Clueless

Professional, Inevitable

  • Sullivan - Daily Dish
  • The Corner on NRO
  • Mark Steyn
  • Little Green Footballs
  • Lileks
  • Kausfiles
  • InstaPundit
  • Hugh Hewitt
  • David Warren
  • California Insider

About

Blog powered by Typepad

Blatant Appeal for a Clue

Seems that while I was away (actually, I'm still more or less away, see below), I received credit at the Kausfiles last Friday for being among the first to note that Howard Dean's problems are typical for a doctor. I wish I'd known - as I may have missed the opportunity to APPEAL BLATANTLY TO ALL AND SUNDRY FOR A JOB (or at least a clue)!

I've been unable to focus on blogging - or even to begin to consider the possibility of thinking about getting around to coming up with some semblance of a facsimile of even an imitation of a worthwhile post - while I'm focused on the job hunt and on re-locating, projects that also happen to involve liquidating the last remnants of an estate and helping my sister and her children move on. In short, I've got a lot on my hands. I'm still debating with myself whether or not I should fill this blog with notes on the subject: It would set a much different tone and involve much different content than I've previously offered here. I've also only realized that potential employers might very well come to this site in the process of performing their due diligence (noticed a couple of unusual searches landing on my referrer's page - who knows?). What really would I want them to see?

Hey, prospective employer person, if you and yours are Dean supporters or Bush haters or committedly anti-war... well, some of my best and most beloved friends and most interesting acquaintances are, too... As for myself, I've not just been on both sides of the fence over the course of my life - I've been all over the region.

If I can't come up with something new and current, I may polish up and post a piece I wrote on this last subject. Otherwise, I expect that I'll get right back to full-part-time blogging as soon as I'm re-situated. In the meantime, if anyone has a position and/or a place for a literate and really quite charming if he needs to be (and he does) blogger (who's even been Instalanched, Kausfiled, Buzzmachinated, Prof-ranted, and Hammorabied - talk about qualifications!) and his two doggies, let me know...

January 07, 2004 at 02:51 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

...faellt mir nichts ein.

Regarding Saddam, now in custody, nothing occurs to me at all - at least nothing that won't already have been said or posted or shouted - or messaged from the barrel of an AK-47 aimed into the air. I'm happy to let the Iraqis, the CPA, the US military, President Bush, the anchors, the correspondents, the experts, and whoever else have the floor while I sit back and soak up the details that emerge about this long-awaited event.

December 14, 2003 at 09:12 AM in Current Affairs, Current Discussion, Media, War, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

I'm Pretty Sure...

...there must be a scandal here somewhere.

If you click on the "Take 2" icon, you'll get the shocking video. If you wait until the credits (or fast forward), you'll see evidence of damnable untruths from you-know-who...

December 12, 2003 at 10:24 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Open War...

David's Medienkritik links to a story that deserves a lot more attention, in my opinion: Germany’s “Peace” Movement Actively and Openly Supporting Iraqi Terrorism. I know there was a similar story about similar activity in Italy a few weeks ago - activists raising funds for killers.

I'm not an expert on international law, but I believe that the United States - and other Coalition countries, too, for that matter - would be justified in demanding that such activities be terminated, and even of taking direct action themselves if the German civil authorities failed to do so. If this open support of war against the US and its allies is more than an ugly gesture - and possibly even if that's all it is - it may be time to make an example of someone.

December 12, 2003 at 09:29 AM in Current Affairs, War | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1)

Victor Davis Hanson...

...puts things in perspective as incisively as ever, but notes:

"We are beginning the third year of this multi-theater conflict, and it resembles the Punic War after the Carthaginian defeat at the Metaurus in 207 B.C."

C'mon, VDH! I mean, like, everyone knows thaaaat!

December 12, 2003 at 09:09 AM in Current Affairs, War | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Probably Not the Worst Exaggeration in Two+ Centuries

As we well know, there are many devices in wide usage that Al Gore did not invent - among them the phrase that this or that Bush policy is the "worst ever." Such charges depend for their impact on the absence of interest, knowledge, or active intelligence among the already-persuaded or easily persuadable. Thus, even though evidence of recovery has reduced the frequency of "worst economic performance since Herbert Hoover" charges, the Democrats continue to describe post-Y2K job losses as the worst ever under a sitting president, homing in on that segment of the electorate so unfamiliar with economic matters that they would blame a president for a recession that began prior to his having been elected. Similarly, Gore's recent statements about the decision to remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power seek that segment of the electorate whose ignorance of history is matched only by the hypocrisy and moral dereliction of their would-be leaders.

Though Gore's remarks on Dean’s behalf have been reported widely, rightwing masochists may wish to sample the toweringly condescending, preaching to slow ESL schoolchildren flavor of Gore's stumpish statement directly, and may still be able to find a video at the C-SPAN site (Iraq comments begin at 20:22 of the RealPlayer file). Print quotations cannot convey the growling Gore guttural on words like "matter" ("no minor myaaaater"), off which his plangent pseudo-populist rhythms pivot. For those of us who have been dreading the prospect of a yearlong Dean campaign not least on aesthetic grounds, watching Gore in action is a reminder of just how unpleasant things might have gotten. For the rest of you, here is what Gore said after he and Dean had, in the words of CNN's Jeannie Moos, "spent the day holding hands, looking like twins in their blue ties, unbuttoning in unison":

I realize it’s only one of the issues, but, my friends, this nation has never in our two centuries and more made a worse foreign policy mistake than George W. Bush made in putting our troops into that quagmire in Iraq. It was a horrible judgment, misjudgment, and therefore it is not a minor matter to me that the only major candidate for the nomination of my party that had the good judgment, experience, and good sense to feel and see and articulate the right choice was Howard Dean.

This description of President Bush's Iraq policy outbids even Wesley Clark's claim that it represents America’s "greatest strategic blunder of the post-war era," but the two statements provide similar difficulties for anyone trying to figure out what, if anything, they are really supposed to mean. One problem is that the argument is being made from within the world's pre-eminently successful nation. The old saying meant to express the cynicism underlying politics, diplomacy, and war - "worse than a crime, it was a mistake" - applies less well to the United States than to most nations, for virtually everything that the United States has done in in the world has, in objective terms, sooner or later worked out alright, at least for the US. Our real, unsalvageable foreign policy mistakes have been the ones that ignore or contradict the country's unifying moral vision: the refusal to accept Jewish refugees during the Nazi years or, later on, to take direct action against the death camps; more recent failures to act in Rwanda, or earlier in Yugoslavia; or, more on point, the failure to defend Iraqis who partly at our urging rose up against Saddam in 1991, and who, along with their wives, children, and elders, died in the hundreds of thousands.

The narrowness of the Gore-Dean-Clark strategic vision is as dangerous as its moral blindness is unforgiveable. Thus, equally on point but less exclusively a moral "mistake," the long policy of compromise, complacency, and retreat in the Middle East - from Lebanon, through Somalia, through Saddam's ceasefire violations, through the first WTC attack and the embassy bombings, among many other provocations - arguably did great harm to American interests, inviting escalation up to the events of 9/11/01. The Democrats now loudly promise more of the same, beginning with the handover of responsibility in Iraq to the UN - the kind of simultaneous strategic and moral failure that led a retreating United States to involve itself in WW I, create the League of Nations, but then flee the scene. There have been so many lies and distortions spread around Chile, Vietnam, Cambodia, and other Cold War episodes, that I hesitate to pass judgments, but bringing down Mossadegh in Iran in favor of the Shah may have been another such two-sided blunder, with dire effects on our own interests and on the entire region - beginning thirty years before Ronald Reagan sent Marines to Beirut, and still being endured in the present day.

Democrats like Gore and Dean dispute the relevance of Iraq to the "War on Terror," but this argument is a position, not a fact, regardless of the state of evidence regarding Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda. What seems undeniable to me is that, just as 9/11 represented one of the worst attacks by foreigners on US soil since the War of 1812 (arguably another great American blunder), and bespoke further dangers as great or greater than any the republic has faced since its founding, the strategic response has entailed some of the most ambitious goals that US policy makers have ever set before us, and some of the greatest risks that they have ever taken. In this context, it is far too early to declare the Bush policy either a success or a failure. At this stage even a merely preliminary overall assessment would remain subject to reversal by the next news alert.

How the Democrats' imaginary President Gore or the Republicans' nightmare President Dean would really have responded to the strategic challenges of our times, if either had been in office rather than President Bush, is an unanswerable question, but we can draw the outlines at least of what the Democrats want us to believe they would have done - and I hope to make an examination of this alternative scenario and its larger implications the topic of a future post. In the meantime, on Iraq specifically, it's worth recalling that, a few years ago, Gore was willing to claim that failing to march on Baghdad to finish Gulf War 1 was also a mistake. What's changed for him, other than political convenience? In his endorsement speeches Gore shrugged a concession regarding Saddam - admitting that we were "all better off without him." In other words, he believes that this worst of all mistakes did some real good for "all" of us. Obviously, Gore assesses the costs - either those already incurred or those he's seen in his perfect vision of the future - as too great. If so, then he may be seeking to re-invent JFK's famous call to the defense of freedom as "bear only small burdens, only at a low price." Or maybe his statements are so vacuous, so desperately unserious that they’re offensive - even if Iraq is "only one of the issues."

December 10, 2003 at 05:56 PM in Current Affairs, War | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack (1)

Reality Really Bites

Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, Ted Kennedy, and Wesley Clark are all appalled, shocked, scandalized by the new RNC ad entitled "Reality": On MEET THE PRESS, Daschle called it "repulsive and outrageous," and stated his belief that the Republicans "ought to pull the ad." "We all want to defeat terrorism," he said, but "to chastise and to question the patriotism of those who are in opposition to some of the president's plans I think is wrong." Ted Kennedy spoke of an "attempt to stifle dissent." Clark spoke of the president violating his "pledge... to not exploit 9-11 for political purposes."

The 30-second ad in in its entirety runs as follows:

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
CHYRON: Strong and Principled Leadership
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power."
CHYRON: Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"
CHYRON: Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others.
CHYRON: Call Congress Now
CHYRON: Tell them to support the President's policy of preemptive self-defense.
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ED GILLESPIE: "The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising."
CHYRON: Ed Gillespie
CHYRON: Chairman, RNC
CHYRON: The Republican National Committee paid for and is responsible for the content of this advertising. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. www.gop.com

As Professor Dauber has patiently ranted at Ranting Profs, strongly disagreeing with someone else's "model of strategic defense" is not the same as impugning their patriotism. This argument would be valid - indeed, it should be self-evident to anyone who claims to favor any discussion of policy alternatives at all - even if the ad mentioned the Democrats, or for that matter even mentioned 9/11, or for that matter came right out and said, "Those Democrats, especially Daschle, Kennedy, Clark, Kerry, and Dean are pushing a totally back-assward response to 9/11 that would destroy the country if followed." Of course, the ad does not even mention 9/11. It doesn't even specifically identify those calling for "retreat," or make any statements about anyone's love of country. All in all, it's kind of soft, even cerebral, as 30-second political ads go. Osama Horton it's not.

When the ad was first unveiled last week, I watched Donna Brazile on CNN move in the space of one sentence from bemoaning the supposedly unfair attack to noting that the Bush excerpts came from a speech "proved to be a pack of lies." Ms. Brazile must have been thinking of the Summer talking point that falsely accused Bush of lying about the supposed Iraq-Niger uranium connection. Recycling this old Bush-lied lie was not enough for her: She chose to compound it. Since then, up to today's political shows, Democratic leaders, candidates and consultants have all been offering variations on the same theme. Someone, somewhere in the Democrat braintrust seems to have decided that counterattack, rather than active defense of Democratic policy alternatives, was the way to go. They don't seem to mind that this unanimous response amounts to the entire party standing up, raising their hands, and shouting, "It's us! We're the ones in favor of retreat and putting our national security in the hands of others! All of us!"

What the Democrats otherwise ALL seem to be saying is that it's okay - totally peachy and anyone who disagrees is squelching free speech - for them to accuse Bush & Co. of wasting lives in Iraq through incompetence and corruption, of intentionally letting Osama go free, of lying over and over again on matters of the highest life-and-death importance, of destroying the Constitution, of, as Clark would have it especially, committing the greatest strategic blunder since Napoleon marched on Russia (if not since Alcibiades went after Syracuse), and on and on and on day after day after day - but that any response at all, even if it's just a few generalizations describing the Bush strategy, excerpts from widely seen speeches, and suggestions that those who disagree might be WRONG in a way that might MATTER, goes beyond the bounds of acceptable political discourse.

Yeah, that sure sounds fair!

What the Democrats are really afraid of is that Bush has not yet begun to fight, and, even more, that he may not have to fight very hard. They know that they are on the wrong side of contemporary history, that what Marxists might call the "political conjuncture" simply does not favor them: Bush is heading into '04 with the incumbent advantage, the united party advantage, the recovering economy advantage, the in-party during wartime advantage, and the traditional Republican financial advantage. Much could of course change between now and November of next year, but these factors as well as long-developing social, economic, and demographic trends suggest at least the possibility of an historical re-alignment that puts the Democrats in long-term minority status, if it doesn't sooner or later send them the way of the Whigs.

If they were just a little bit more grown-up, intelligent, credible, or honorable in their apparent desperation, it would be easier to forgive and even feel sorry for them.

November 23, 2003 at 05:19 PM in Current Affairs, War | Permalink | Comments (101) | TrackBack (0)

Case Continued

The Department of Defense has responded to Stephen Hayes' "Case Closed" story on links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Some Bush critics have been trying to spin the DoD's release as a denial, but, if the leaked memo had seemed to blow open some DoD scandal, equivalent language would have amounted to one of those famous "non-denial denials." As Josh Chafetz at OxBlog has pointed out, the release appears "very carefully crafted so as to avoid contradicting any claims that Hayes actually made." Indeed, all it really indicates is what Hayes himself notes with some impatience and perplexity: That for some reason the Bush Administration has not wanted to engage on this issue.

There are several reasons why this last might be so. Investigation, interrogation, and exploitation of this and related intelligence are still ongoing, and the administration is focused elsewhere. As for political purposes, if opinion polls can be trusted, the populace in general does not especially need to be persuaded that there are or were links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. If Bush and co. wanted to launch a propaganda counter-counteroffensive, or, as others have put forward as motivation for the leak, blow Howard Dean or Jay Rockefeller or Carl Levin or even Al Gore out of the water on this issue, they wouldn't leak the info to a conservative weekly, they'd go elsewhere - direct to the Post or NYT if they really wanted to work through leaks.

There's still every reason to believe that Bush and his team like Nurse Ratchet as the Democratic frontrunner, and are comfortable with seeing the Democrats overcommitted to the left on the War on Terror. For the present, the memo should remind wobbly supporters that there is a lot of ammunition stored up for when the real fight commences: In the unlikely event that the Democrats ever gain traction on their actually rather ludicrous claim of no links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, then Bush will be ready to respond.

November 16, 2003 at 11:22 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack (1)

Nurse Ratchet for President

I still find it hard to believe that Dr. Dean is the Dems' frontrunner. It's one of the strongest pieces of evidence - along with recent election results and declining voter identification - that the Democrats are making a bid for long-term minor league status. The frequent comparison to George McGovern is deeply unfair to McGovern, who, for all of his faults, was a man of substance and long service to his country when he ran for President in '72. He also was a helluva lot more congenial than the doctor.

Last week, Dean had one of his typical not-ready-for-the-Big-Show moments on CNN while being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer. Professor Dauber was also watching, and has already pointed out that Dean got the Al Qaeda-linked terrorist group Ansar al Islam confused with a very different group, the Mujahadeen al Khalq (anti-Iranian Marxist-Islamists who are so weird that even the French cracked down on them). What was typical about the rookie error was not only that it reflected Dean's lack of familiarity with the subject matter, but that it came in the context of a stubborn refusal to back down on a prior claim that Al Qaeda had "no" presence in Iraq prior to the war. Blitzer then brought forth part of the growing body of evidence that Saddam's links to Al Qaeda were in fact quite extensive prior to the war, focusing on long-standing Administration claims. As usual, Dean refused to give an inch, or even a millimeter: He seems to believe that conceding any evidence of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-associated groups would be too much for his larger argument to stand (he may be right).

I felt while watching that Blitzer knew Dean was blowing it, but decided not to go in for the kill. Maybe he didn't want to appear argumentative. Maybe he thought he had already been argumentative enough in challenging Dean on the prior assertion. Still, whatever the explanation, it was disappointing, but it's business as usual at the new, touchy-feely CNN. I never thought I'd miss Bernie Shaw.

As for Dean, it's not just that he's so often wrong, but that he's so insistently, abrasively, condescendingly self-assured about it. To switch metaphors away from baseball, as a character type he seems to be the kind of doctor that the movies and TV have always hated - the egotistical surgeon unwilling to consider an alternative to a scheduled operation, the set-in-his-ways GP insisting on a fatal misdiagnosis. You'd think that at least the Hollywood Left would notice that their standard-bearer gazes down at those who disagree with him in the manner of "Rocket" Romano or Nurse Ratchet, but they just don't seem to recognize the bad guy when he's one of their own.

November 15, 2003 at 10:17 AM in Current Affairs, Media | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

The Divergence

Inspired by some discussion at Europundits - click on "nadas" underneath Nelson Ascher's latest essay - I intend to begin blogging some notes on the widening divergence of American and European interests, a subject matter that inevitably touches as well on the Islamists, the international Left, and pretty much the whole thing.

Needless to say, it's a huge subject. Rather than try, at this time, to address it comprehensively, I'll attack it in pieces, beginning today with a series of raw comments originally posted as responses to Ascher's essay and to the discussion it engendered. I intend to revise, expand upon, and possibly re-organize the posts over time, and will allow them first to appear as rough drafts. Questions, disagreements, and suggestions will be welcome - either in the comment section or by e-mail.

November 14, 2003 at 01:13 PM in Current Affairs, The Divergence, War | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)

»

Recent Posts

  • Escape from NoHo - Part 1
  • Blatant Appeal for a Clue
  • Light posting...
  • ...faellt mir nichts ein.
  • I'm Pretty Sure...
  • Open War...
  • Victor Davis Hanson...
  • Probably Not the Worst Exaggeration in Two+ Centuries
  • A Moving Announcement
  • Ahlan wa Sahlan to Visitors from Hammorabi!

Categories

  • Current Affairs (18)
  • Current Discussion (3)
  • Journal (1)
  • Media (9)
  • Science Fiction (2)
  • The Divergence (7)
  • War (26)
  • Weblogs (8)
See More

Archives

  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003

Recently Discussed

  • John Barnes: Kaleidoscope Century

    John Barnes: Kaleidoscope Century

  • Peter Watts: Maelstrom

    Peter Watts: Maelstrom

February 2004

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29            
Subscribe to this blog's feed