Moral Clarity

This week, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld gave a speech inwhich he insisted that critics of the Iraq War did not understand the terrorist threat and were like British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin, who wanted to appease Nazi German. Mr. Rumsfeld went on to say that many Americans are "morally confused" about who is right and who is wrong.

Rummy has a point. People are morally confused.

So let me clarify a few rights and wrongs of the kind you learn in second grade.

It is wrong to invade a country that poses you no threat. It is wrong to imprison men without due process and without charging them with any crime. It is wrong to torture people. It is wrong to impose your form of government on a people who have no desire for it. It is wrong to tap people's phone lines without a warrant. It is wrong to scare people into accepting your rule. It is wrong to attack your opponents patriotism or morality. It is wrong to let other people die for your mistake and it is wrong to use the misdeeds of others as an excuse for your own misdeeds.

A Response to David Brooks

David Brooks, the NYT's resident cuddly conservative, dedicated his column this week to tattoos. Body art is ubiquitous according to Brooks, and yet another example of the masses adopting a practice from the margins of society and thus, making it entirely meaningless. Brooks concludes that the betatted masses have simply fooled themselves into thinking they are expressing some sort of individuality, when in reality they are simply conforming to the dictates of the broader culture. Masses = fools. Brooks = wise. We have been here before.

Brooks is not all wrong. I must agree that the sheer number of per capita tattoos has increased in the last decade. I must also painfully agree that many folks sport body ink that, upon inquiry, has absolutely no meaning to them whatsoever. But you cannot shake the impression that Brooks is just another guy without a tattoo, without an i-pod, and who doesn't run triatholons who likes to write about how silly and deluded the people who have tattoos, have i-pods, and who run triatholons are.

One gets the impression that many of Brooks' insights are the product of keen observations from the safety of an enclave where people share his biases and prejudices -- maybe Westchester County, maybe Connecticut. Somewhere with lots of gabardine. So it is here. David Brooks failed to identify what is perhaps the defining feature of a tattoo.

Tattoos are permanent.

It lasts. Like it. Hate it. Grow tired of it. Share your life with someone who doesn't like it. Tough. It is there. And that stubborn permanency is what distinguishes a tattoo from virtually everything else in 21st century America. The inked masses Brooks finds so... misguided... live in a world inwhich over 50% of marriages end in divorce, careers and entire industries disappear with ease. Cities are washed away and our leaders morph from compassionate conservatives to war time presidents on the strength of carnage of their own making. Our supposedly enduring constitutional values are compromised at every convenience. Our age and even our genders are subject to medical redefinition.

Yet the tatt endures.

For every sorority sister sporting a flower on her ankle and every gym rat with some barbed wire, you find -- should you actually engage the phenomena and not just google it --some more authenticate examples of the genre. Tattoos that memorialize a lost friend or family member. Tattoos the reflect a defining moment, a religious or ideological commitment. Advice worth remembering. Outward signs of inward commitments. This thing that I will not let go of. This thing that will remain with me. This thing that, despite the gyrations of that weird amalgam of politicos, media moguls, and international money changers, that rule our world, will remain attached to me. This thing that will outlive ambition, passions of the flesh, and ideas of the moment.

It is strange in a way. David Brooks is a conservative. He hates the transitory. Loves the enduring. He is suspicious of the intellect. Trusting of the soul. You would think he would have more appreciation for the simple commitment of ink suffused in the skin.

We Need a Hero

As you know this site is always on the lookout for heroes. People who at personal risk make decisions that transcend the obvious, the accepted wisdom, and short term gains. This week, we salute Lt. Ian Fishback, a West Point graduate, who defied the overheated atmosphere of an army at war and reported violations of the Geneva Convention (including beatings, mock execution of family members and sexually themed torture)by US forces in Iraq. In this months Esquire, Lt. Fishback states:

It is infuriating to me that officers are not lined up to accept responsibility for what happened ... It should've started with the chain of command at Abu Ghraib, and anybody else that witnessed anything that violated the Geneva conventions or anything that could be questioned should've been standing up saying "This is what happened. This is why I allowed it to happen. This is my responsibility... That's what you learn at West Point.

I guess a dishonorable war eventually sucks the honor out of all of us...

Andrew Young Has Left the Building

This week, Andrew Young, civil rights icon and former UN Ambassador left his post at "Working Families for Wal Mart" a group dedicated to countering persistent criticism of the world's largest retailer. Young's resignation came after he made anti Semitic and anti Arab remarks in a Los Angeles newspaper interview. In the wake of the news, Young issued the following statement, "While I have resigned my post with Wal Mart, I will continue the struggle for the right of multinational corporations to pay poverty level wages while sitting on astronomical profits. Rest assured, my career as an apologist is not over, Andrew Young will shill again."

You Should Need a License to Vote ..

I recently saw a Zogby poll of American troops serving in Iraq. Over half believe that we invaded Iraq,m in part, "to retaliate for Saddam Hussein's role in the 9/11 attacks." Similar polls show that many Americans believe the same thing, or believe Saddam Hussein had links to Al Queda.

Even the Misleader in Chief has stated:

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th,"

(GWB on "Meet The Press")

Furthermore the 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no evidence that Iraqi officials ever met with, or supported members of Al Queda.

I can understand different interpretations of facts, but I sense a sort of willful disbelief in patent falsities.

Republican Strategy Memo

This weekend the Chicago Tribune published a memo from the National Republican Campaign Committee. I think we can see where things are going. I re-publish it below.

MEMO
To: GOP Campaigns
From: NRCC Communications
Re: Vigilance in the Global War on Terror
Date: August 11, 2006
_________________________________________________________
Recent events have reminded us that we continue to operate in a pivotal phase in the Global War on Terror.

In the days to come, you should move to question your opponent's commitment to the defeat of terror, and in turn, create a definitive contrast on the issue.You will certainly benefit from bringing into stark focus the cut-and-run, surrender message that Democrats coast to coast are currently -- and foolishly -- embracing.

To aid you in this effort, we are including three key votes related to the War on Terror as well as materials provided by the RNC.

As always, please feel free to contact the NRCC Communications Division at (202) 479-7070 if you have any questions.

Swift Boat Murtha

I see that RNC Chair Ken Mehlman has sent out an e-mail attacking Rep John Murtha as a "defeatist." Two points: 1) Mehlman's mass e-mail relies on a story from a Florida paper that was later retracted. (The paper admitted they misquoted Murtha.) 2) It is strange that Republicans pitch themselves to vets as the party who honors military service and respects the opinions of the military, but yet viciously attacks any veteran (Kerry, Cleland, Murtha) who opposes their war making. It seems like the uniform gets respect only insofar as it provides cover or a photo op.

Big News from GB & Conn

I suspect that the administration is going to use yesterday's arrests as part of a campaign to shore up the war in Iraq. For my own part, I do not think the news works well for the Administration. One wonders whether Al Queda (assuming they are responsible) would have been able to manage this type of plot were we pursuing and harassing them throughout the world instead of wading around in Iraq. In short, it appears as though our true enemy still lurks about years after 9/11.

In other news, I saw one editorial arguing that Joe Lieberman's defeat in Conn. signaled the radicalization of the Democratic Party by the anti war fringe. Fringe? Radicalization? According to polls, over 60% of the public want out of Iraq. What is radical about that? What is fringe about an opinion held by the majority of Americans. (Of course, Karl Rove can make jaywalking sound like anarchy, so stay tuned for the spin.)

Some Joe Polls

According to an exit poll in Connecticut (published by Political Wire) about 40% of those who voted for Lieberman opposed the war in Iraq. However, a majority of primary voters said they thought Lieberman was too close to the President. The poll suggests that it was opposition to the President -- and not opposition to the war --that carried Lamont's victory. This is an interesting bit, particularly as pundits struggle to paint Lamont's victory, and anti war sentiment, as products of the fringes and not the mainstream.

A Nation of Victims -- Part Deux

This week, the President offered another justification for the invasion of Iraq:

"The lack of freedom in [the Middle East] created conditions where anger and resentment grew, radicalism thrived, and terrorists found willing recruits. We saw the consequences on September the 11th, 2001, when terrorists brought death and destruction to our country, killing nearly 3,000 innocent Americans ... "

So September 11 was the result of the lack of freedom in the Middle East. Hence, if we bring something called freedom to the Middle East all will be well. This is a flawed utopian analysis on three levels.

First, the statement ignores that many of the dictatorial regimes in the area (Saudi Arabia, Iran under the Shah, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the disputed territories held by Israel, arguably Egypt) that created such a "lack of freedom," were client states of the U.S, not pawns of Al Queda. As Pat Buchanan, (of all people) has mentioned, Al Queda did not target us on a whim. They did not stumble across a copy of the Constitution and decide to eliminate us. We have been in their backyard for years. We have exercised an incredible amount of influence over events in the Middle East, at times even replacing governments we did not like, taking sides in regional wars, and providing aid and weapons to favored nations. Given the history of the Middle East, it is not surprising that many Arabs identify the U.S. as the muscle behind their situation.

Second, the folks we are most concerned about in the Middle East are not freedom lovers. They are radical Islamists dedicated to the creation of a Muslim theocracy. They are not upset because they are not free. In fact, they are upset when democracy or anything else Western creeps into their corner of the world. Given the well documented world view of jihadists such as Osama Bin Laden, it seems questionable to attach the growth of his movement to the fact that freedom has been thwarted in the Middle East. It seems even more questionable to suggest that democracy, particularly the kind imposed at gun point, will do much to alleviate the situation.

Third with regard to Iraq, "resentment" did not grow in Iraq, radicalism did not "thrive" in Iraq, and Iraq had no hand in bringing "death and destruction to our country." Iraq was an authoritarian secular state, whose military pretensions had been cut off at the knees by U.N sanctions. They had a pitiful standing army and no store of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was hostile to the goals of Al Queda and other Muslim radicals. In short, even if you are willing to buy the idea that jihadist's anger at the lack of freedom in their countries led to an attack on the U.S. that provides no justification for an invasion of Iraq.

Lastly, one cannot help but note the irony in the President's portrayal of the U.S. as a helpless and innocent victim of Muslim extremism. The U.S. is the most powerful nation on Earth. We are many things, but rarely victims. We author our own destiny on a level other countries envy. In short, we are a hard sell in the victim role.

More interesting though is another irony. Conservatives and Republicans hate it when anyone claims to be a passive victim. They do not believe in societal victims of poverty or racism, and instead preach "personal responsibility," "personal accountability" and "self reliance." However, when it comes to foreign affairs, we like to think of ourselves as the proverbial damsel in distress, threatened by events beyond our control, and acting only to repel the unprovoked aggression of others. There are people around the globe, in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East, who may find that a little hard to swallow.

Condi Steps Up .... Not

This morning the State Department announced that it had completed a draft U.N Resolution calling for a multinational force in Lebanon. The draft drew considerable criticism from the Arab world because it does not require that Israel pull out of Lebanon, what seems like a rather reasonable and obvious request. Condelezza Rice responded that " we will see who wants peace..."

That is the most disingenuous piece of spin. Who wants peace? This from a Secretary of State that waited six days to make any move on the Israeli invasion and then waited another week before actually doing anything. In the meantime, Southern Lebanon was demolished and hundreds of innocent Lebanese killed, all because we wanted to give our ally more time to soften up its enemy.

I remember when Jimmy Carter was award the Nobel Prize for the Camp David Accords. I remember when President Clinton brokered the longest cease fire in modern Middle Eastern history. Now we have abandoned the role of peacemaker in favor of acting as a set up man for our client state, Israel. The change in character from peacemaker to partisan is cynical to say the least and likely would have been unnecessary had we not decided to assume the role of occupying army in Iraq.

I fear that by siding with Israel in such an obvious way -- to the detriment of Lebanese civilians -- we simply solidify our enemies' criticism of us.