More Blame to Spread Around

Here is what the President said yesterday by way of explaining why Iraq is such a mess:

We overestimated the capability of the civil service in Iraq to continue to provide essential services to the Iraqi people. ... We did not expect the Iraqi army, including the Republican Guard, to melt away in the way that it did in the face of advancing coalition forces."

Wait a minute. I have quite a distinct memory that it was Paul Bremer (Head of the CPA) and company who decided to disband the civil service and the army. The decision was controversial at the time because analysts were concerned about precisely this scenario. Bremer went ahead with the decision because he thought the civil service and army were still loyal to Saddam.

Also, isn't it a little silly to, in effect, argue that the Iraqis are somehow to blame because they did not step up after we decimated their country with an invading force.

Chevy

According to the Detroit News, the new Chevy ad - the one with John Cougar Mellancamp singing over images of American history - are controversial because they use divisive images from our past to sell trucks.

Two thoughts. First, I notice that the Mellancamp lyric about standing and fighting is superimposed over both an image of Muhammad Ali and a Huey landing in the Vietnam jungle. Who is it that thinks the decision to "stand and fight" in Vietnam was a good one? Second, the overall goal of the ad is to associate Chevy with all things American. In fact, in the News, Chevy stated that they were playing to the patriotism of its blue collar truck buyers. This is the same company that now produces almost as many cars abroad as it does here. This is the company that has been offshoring its supply base as fast as it can. These moves have been devastating to a large segment of America's middle class.

I guess Chevy just wants to be associated with America, they don't actually want to support Americans.

Jonah Goldberg -- The Verbal Incontinent

This morning, Jonah Goldberg (columnist, National Review Editor), openly admitted in his column that the Iraq Invasion was a mistake. Nothing too interesting there. I suspect Jonah was simply getting lonely, what with only the guys at the Weekly Standard to keep him company -- and they keep forgetting the rules of Uno. The diatribe that followed, however, was remarkable for two reasons.

First, Goldberg takes the peculiar position that, while he now concedes the invasion was a mistake, everyone else who holds that position was and is wrong. They were wrong because they are peaceniks who oppose U.S. interests, they were wrong because they did not buy the cherry picked intelligence used to justify the invasion. (Goldberg conveniently calls the process of selecting pro war intelligence a "global intelligence failure.") So, Jonah was right to favor the invasions and now right when he says it was a mistake. And others were wrong to oppose the invasion and now wrong to say it was a mistake. Apparently, the sun shines benevolently on Jonah's intellect. He is never wrong, particularly when he is right about being wrong.

Perhaps more interesting than Jonah's peculiar method of reconciling diametrically opposed positions -- in a way quite flattering to him -- is Jonah's reason why he was right to support the invasion. You see, it was fully in line with America's "interests." Fascinanting. So as long as something is in our "interest," no other justification need be offered, no moral qualms need be overcome. The Goldberg Doctrine will come as hearty news to North Korea, who has decided that a nuclear weapon is in their "interest." It will come as happy news to Hamas, who believe that a Middle East free of Israel is in their "interest." Israel will also be comforted, as they have always thought that an Israel free of Arabs would make life a lot easier.

One does not have to be a genius to see the problem of conflating one's "interests" with what is right. But that is where the rest of he anti-war movement parts with Jonah. The rest of the movement realizes that there are certain values that transcend any country's interests. The preservation of life and sovereignty to name just two. There is nothing noble or redeeming about sacrificing those values, or the lives of others to pursue your "interests." Human beings are an end. They are not a means. You cannot sacrifice them just because you had a nifty idea about democracy in the Middle east or a fear about weapons of mass destruction that was justified only in a kind/sort/maybe type of way.


I wrote this as though the fallacy of Mr. Goldberg reasoning is self evident. The trouble is that for a great mass of Americans, it is not.

Less Prayer .. .More Thought

I see that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs praised Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld by saying that he "leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country."

At approximately what point in our history did prayer, or other divine communications, become a proxy for actual thought? Exactly when did we start to think it was a good idea to think that god speaks to our leaders and that their actions are somehow divinely inspired? When did we decide that being a man who claims to talk to god is better than just being a man who is smart about things?

Rumsfeld's tenure has been, quite literally, a bloody mess. He failed to take action in the face of a looming threat from Al Queda and he has turned the country of Iraq into a den of chaos strewn with corpses. He has repeatedly violated international law and even the most basic concepts of human rights. Don't tell me this guy talks to god. With a resume like this, this guy is having a one way conversation with the chandelier.

It is one thing when you use your idea of god to condemn the conduct of others in the pious manner that has marked the last six years. It is one thing when you use god as a Precinct Captain to get out your vote. But it is a new low when god becomes but your all purpose excuse for everything.

We Are Running out of Fingers Here

I notice that the dominant reaction to the N. Korean nuclear crisis from the Adminstration is to blame China for not stepping up and to scold them for not enforcing sanctions.

I am pretty sure that a two year old could have figured out that China was only going be of marginal help here. While they do not want a nuclear N. Korea, they also like having a stooge regime in place there. They are not about to destabilize Kim Il Jong.

First the Clintons and then China. Who to blame next? Is its those bastard renegades in Alsace Lorraine again?

It Never Seems to Stop

In a lot of corruption stories, the news ends with an indictment. Not so with Jack Abramoff.

This weekend, it seems Abramoff spilled more vile juice about his contacts with Ken Mehlmann. Mehlmann is now the head of the RNC, before that he was in the White House's political shop. In the latter capacity, Abramoff's records show that Mehlman agreed to pressure a State Department official to fire an underling who was giving one of Abramoff's clients a hard time. The official was fired. Mehlmann went to a U2 concert with some buddies on Abramoff's dime. Not suprisingly, Mehlmann now has "no recollection" of the concert or the influence peddling.

This story really has two deeply disturbing elements: 1) blatant quid pro quo bribery and 2) Republicans at a U2 concert (Listen to the lyrics guys, they are against everything you are for.)

More Finger Pointing

I see where the GOP, particularly, John McCain has decided that the North Korean fiasco is really the fault of President Clinton. Two thoughts -- 1) Bill Clinton stopped being President in 2000. It is now 2006. It really doesn't look good to reach that far back to place blame. In fact it looks weak. 2) As I recall, President Clinton threatened to put 37,000 troops on the ground and 400 planes in the air in S. Korea if N. Korea did not put their nuclear rods back in their reactors where they could not cause any harm. He put a 250 man expeditionary force there to show he was serious. North Korea tucked away their nuclear ambitions.

In 2000, Colin Powell announced he was going to continue the dialogue with N. Korea with any eye toward a permanent non proliferation deal. The very next day he had to retract that statement because the Bush Administration announced there would be no negotiating with North Korea. (A fact that greatly embarassed the President of our ally, S. Korea, as he had gotten a Nobel Prize for his policy of open dialogue with the North).

Was Clinton right? Don't know. Would the same gambit work now? Don't know. Would Powell have succeeded? Don't Know. But I do know that there is really no way you can hang any of this mess on President Bill Clinton.

Get Your Lies Straight

The old adage (is it an adage, or advice) that if you tell too many lies you will have difficulty keeping them straight is being played out in Washington. In the Foley scandal, Speaker Dennis Hastert keeps getting contradicted by his fellow Republicans, namely Boehner (R Oh) and Reynolds (R NY) who claim they alerted Hastert to Foley's proclivities long ago.

In the Abramoff scandal, Karl Rove has fired his chief assistant because it seems that there were some... 800... contacts between the White House and Jack Abramoff, including numerous little perks for Rove and his family. Rove's office had initially proclaimed that Abramoff was not "someone we know anything about."

(By the way, all props to Rove who did the firing on a Friday evening, thus avoiding the news cycle. Malignant though he is, KR plays old school.)

For What It is Worth

According to the latest tracking numbers, Fox Bloviator Bill O'Reilly's audience has decreased 26% since 2005. MSNBC Sportscaster-Cum-Pol Keith Olbermann's audience has increased by 97%.

Amish 1, Mainstream Culture 0

We have always looked at the Amish as some quaint throwback culture -- harmless but ultimately anachronistic. After the killings of Amish schoolchildren in Pennsylvania last week, I suspect the smug is on the other foot. Amid their despair, I suspect many Amish feel vindicated in their beliefs about the corrupt and sociopathic nature of the society the English have built here.

I read that the Amish, while famously private, have opened the funerals of their children (and the attendant coffers) to the family of the accused, believing that the victims of this crime go beyond those being buried. The Amish have also been open with their forgiveness, perhaps is keeping with their belief that vengeance is just another bullet in the same gun that started this horrible episode.

Here in the mainstream culture, violence is becoming America's first resort, and vengeance and judgment color virtually every decision we make. While the Amish will continue to live on the margins of our sophisticated and civilized society -- and they certainly will not be appointed to government positions anytime soon -- this round goes to the Amish.

On This Day in History

On this day in 1981, Republican strikers at the Maze prison outside Belfast called an end to their hunger strike. While the imprisoned strikers were not successful in all their demands -- particularly return to the status of political prisoners -- the hunger strike and the death of its leader, Bobby Sands, months earlier built world wide sympathy for the Republican cause and forced the British government to improve conditions at the Maze.

And From the Further Right...

This mornings WSJ suggested that Republican leaders in the House failed to act against Rep. Foley because they were under the sway of liberals who had convinced them to be tolerant of homosexuals.

I know many liberals who are tolerant of homosexuality. I know no liberals who are tolerant of the sexual abuse of minors. In case you have not noticed, most of the leading child protection advocacy groups are run by ... liberals. I would say this is a shameful attempt to deflect blame, but it could only be shameful if it worked, and it is far too transparent to work.

Seems like the WSJ turned over its right -wing -but -usually -sophisticated editorial page to some hacks from the RNC. Take it back now boys before you make yourself look more foolish.

And from the Right

Here is Rush Limbaugh trying to blame the Foley Scandal on someone other than Foley: "In their hearts [liberals] and minds and their crotches, they don't have any problem with what Foley did..."

I thought being a conservative meant taking personal responsibility and not blaming other people for your problems.

In other news, Tony Snow, White House Press Secretary terms Rep. Foley's e-mails "naughty messages." Asking a 15 year old boy if "I make you a little horny," and telling him about your "wood" is not naughty. It is a crime.

Sssshhh... Ix Nay on the Condom Tay.

This weekend's Wash. Post, contained an article about a group called Democrats for Life (DFL). These folks, headed by Rep. Mark Ryan (D. Oh) were all set to push a bill that dropped the abortion rate --they hoped -- by about 95%. Trouble is, to meet these lofty goals, DFL would need to emphasize contraception, the only proven method to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

One might think that in this day and age, it would be easy to build a coalition around such a utilitarian idea. You would be wrong. Ryan's bill lost half its backers once he atarted talking about contraception, most of them religious groups. Now there are two competing bills and the chances of either passing is reduced.

This is really a story about an opportunity wasted. There are many Americans who believe that abortion is an ugly thing all around, and that decreasing abortion rates is a legitimate goal. This is, I think, a fairly reasonable and common position. Unfortunately, progress on this idea is stalled by folks who believe that you should not have sex without risking pregnancy (and disease). This is, I think, a fairly antiquated and reactionary idea, probably only held by a tiny sliver of the American population.

As the DFL found out though, the latter shackles the former and the whole episode ends up to be an illustration of how a small set of zealots can undermine what would otherwise be a perfectly attainable goal, a goal that might have actually united Americans rather than divided them. a goal that would have reduced the number of abortions while maintaining a the right to privacy we all enjoy. The episode also shows that much of what passes as the pro life movement is not really concerned with abortion. (They had the chance to take a huge bite out of the abortion rate and took a pass.) It appears instead, that, for reasons difficult to discern, they want to regulate sex generally. I suppose that is permissable --whacky, intrusive and perhaps unconstitutional -- but permissable. I guess I just wish they were honest about it.