Beinart Fallout

Peter Beinart recently published a piece in The New Republic about the need for the Democratic Party to fully commit itself to being a party which prioritizes the fight against global terrorism to the extent that they are willing to root out those elements of the party who do not take the cause seriously. From what I have gathered in the week or so of aftermath, the piece was well-received on both sides of the spectrum and has generated an enormous amount of discussion in the blogosphere. I say it is well-received in the sense that people feel it is a discussion worth having and that Beinart's contribution was thoughtful and made some interesting historical parallels, but you can read some interesting critiques by Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum .

Marshall's main quibbles seem to be with Beinart's historical parallels to the early days of the Cold War. For the details, read Josh's post, but suffice it to say that his argumentation leads to the point that it is neither necessary nor helpful for the party to start purging people who do not believe the war on terror should be a top priority. On a practical note, he points out that the Dems got 48% last month and can't afford to be purging anyone at this juncture, but his reasoning isn't only pragmatically based. I think it's a well thought-out post and worth the few minutes to read.

The Kevin Drum post left me a bit worried, however. If I give him the benefit of the doubt I would say that he was trying to make a couple of the same points as Josh and used careless wording, but it's hard for me to defend blunt statements like this:

That's the story I think Beinart needs to write. If he thinks too many liberals are squishy on terrorism, he needs to persuade us not just that Islamic totalitarianism is bad — of course it's bad — but that it's also an overwhelming danger to the security of the United States.
...
Bottom line: I think the majority of liberals could probably be persuaded to take a harder line on the war on terror — although it's worth emphasizing that the liberal response is always going to be different from the conservative one, just as containment was a different response to the Cold War than outright war. But first someone has to make a compelling case that the danger is truly overwhelming. So far, no one on the left has really done that.

Beinart has done the party a great service, but there is certainly going to be a great load of squeamishness in the near future while the party airs its "dirty laundry" and endures some infighting. Kevin Drum is not even on the left fringe of the party, and yet his comments epitomize the challenge that the party faces if it cannot convince more of the party base and those even further to the left of the base that the war is worth waging. If Kevin Drum is a centrist, then this could end up being 40 years in the desert.

And if you're wondering, here's the view from the right . I would say it's pretty devastating.

Update: The Base fires back [Pierce via Eschaton]. And more Atrios here. I will say that not a lot of elections will be won by defending Michael Moore at all costs. Not that I necessarily support Beinart's purge proposal, but there are plenty in the Democratic Party who have had it with disingenuousness on both sides.

A Matter of Physics

I wasn't surprised when Drudge started focusing heavily on this story about the Tennessee reporter suggesting that some soldiers he was embedded with ask Rumsfeld about the lack of armor for their vehicles. In classic Drudge style, it was an attempt to deflect a scandal by focusing on a small detail that should be irrelevant to the larger issue, but which nonetheless ends up getting picked up by the rest of the media. It was especially troubling to see people trying to sweep soldiers' legitimate concerns under the carpet by pointing out that their questions had been encouraged by a journalist, but, like I said, I expect these things from Drudge.

But check out the shocking way that Yahoo/IBD reports the story, beginning with the headline "Setting up Rummy":


Setting Up Rummy

Thu Dec 9, 7:00 PM ET

Ibd

Media: A GI confronts Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld in Iraq (news - web sites) -- a story that somehow made major newspapers' front pages. Only problem: It was staged.

The GI was reportedly irate over a lack of adequate armor for military Humvees. His question played well to the media's basic bias, showing a clueless Rumsfeld left stammering for an answer and finally deferring to a three-star general to respond.

The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, among others, gave it front-page play. TV networks and National Public Radio gave it prominent airtime. Quite a coup for a lone questioning GI.

Except, as it turns out, the question wasn't authentic.

That's right, it wasn't an authentic concern - not for the soldier who asked the question nor for the hundreds of gathered soldiers who clapped and hollered in approval. There's more:

What was portrayed as soldiers' genuine anger was, in fact, a staged media event.

Those soldiers really had us going! The idea that they would be angry about the lack of equipment, which can lead to more horrific injuries [warning: link very graphic]. Turns out that they can't actually think for themselves and that some small-beat reporter made them do it. Figures - liberal media.

Scalia

The man in line to become Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court had some interesting things to say about separation of church and state a few weeks ago; a shame that the media didn't report more widely on these controversial remarks:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Monday that a religion-neutral government does not fit with an America that reflects belief in God in everything from its money to its military.

"I suggest that our jurisprudence should comport with our actions," Scalia told an audience attending an interfaith conference on religious freedom at Manhattan's Shearith Israel synagogue.

This coming from a self-described originalist, i.e. someone who believes the constitution should only be interpreted as it was written, not in any contemporary context. You only have to go as far as the first item on the Bill of Rights to get Scalia the only answer he should need :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But this part of Scalia's speech displays an even more dangerous ignorance:

In the synagogue that is home to America's oldest Jewish congregation, he noted that in Europe, religion-neutral leaders almost never publicly use the word "God."

But, the justice asked, "Did it turn out that, by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America? I don't think so."

I guess when you're raised Catholic like Scalia was that they don't teach you about the Catholic church being complicit in the Holocaust. I wonder if any Jewish leaders in the synagogue where Scalia was speaking brought this up. And for the life of me I have no idea what the thinking behind his argument was.

Dealing with the Minority

Just as crazy, Bill O'Reilly:

That's why nobody sticks up for Christmas except me. Did Peter Jennings stick up for Christmas last night? I don't believe he did. How about Brian Williams, did he? Did Rather stick up for Christmas? How about Jim Lehrer -- did he? Did Larry King -- hello -- I love Christmas -- did he? No.

Hilarious. This is the kind of kookiness that has always made me think that O'Reilly is essentially harmless: he's a blowhard, a bit off his rocker, and good for a laugh, but the seemingly anti-Semitic comments he made and the fallout from that scandal are distressing. One might have expected an apology for careless remarks or something along that line, but you get this:

Remember, more than 90 percent of American homes celebrate Christmas. But the small minority that is trying to impose its will on the majority is so vicious, so dishonest -- and has to be dealt with.

Not even his professed love of Barbara Streisand can get him out of that hole.

On a more general note, I am guessing there must be many other people who find it odd that there seems to be so much overlap between the people who are repeatedly stressing that we live in a Christian nation and those who consider themselves more patriotic and more American than many of their countrymen. Are freedom of religion and separation of church and state unAmerican?

Coulter and Carlson

Two bat-shit crazy Republicans have a go at Canadians while the cameras are rolling.

Rummy Q&A

For an administration that hates dissent, being on the receiving end of blunt criticism from its own army members must be quite uncomfortable, as the usual response of "these critics just hate America" somehow doesn't cut it.

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly two years after the start of the war that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

Now that Rumsfeld has somehow managed to resolve his own job security issue, maybe he can get around to some other miscellaneous security issues.

Conason

Joe Conason has some good commentary on the issue of Republicans taking advantage of the oil-for-food scandal as an opportunity to completely discredit the UN. I think that John McCain makes the point as concisely as it can be made, when asked about Senator Norm Coleman's demands for Annan's resignation:

Asked whether he believes that Mr. Annan should step down, the Arizona Republican and outspoken hawk replied, "No. I think that we should have a full and complete investigation and then make decisions like that. Am I disturbed when I hear that his son was on payroll? Of course I’m disturbed about it, and apparently Kofi Annan was [disturbed] also." He added, "I think Coleman is kind of a symptom of some dissatisfaction within Congress about the U.N.—but no, I think we need a full and complete investigation, and there’s plenty of time to decide whether people should keep their jobs or not."

The key phrase there is "a symptom of some dissatisfaction within Congress about the U.N.". I am very much in favor of investigating the oil-for-food scandal to its fullest, particularly regarding the alleged bribery payments from Iraq to French officials, but the Republican outrage is not a new one and it does not have its basis in the oil-for-food scandal; this is a decades-old manifestation of GOP anti-internationalism, which is why I made the comparison to John Birch below. The idea that Annan has been proven to have done something meriting his resignation is ridiculous and dishonest.

More $

The Onion has some helpful information about the decline of the dollar.

$

Scary stats for the buck here, especially against the euro and pound. When I lived in Dublin the dollar and the euro were equal. It wasn't that long ago that the pound was worth about $1.60 as opposed to the nearly $1.95 that we're seeing now. The really frightening thing is that the dollar probably won't continue to devalue at a gradual pace, but rather it could plummet dramatically if people begin to dump their dollar holdings and opt instead for the euro. From what I understand, the Asian markets alone can determine this.

Readings

The Economist discusses the plight of the dollar .

The Financial Times discusses how many conservatives in the US are trying to use the oil-for-food scandal to destroy Annan and the UN itself. The GOP, John Birchers through and through.

Krugman's back when you need him most, this time rhapsodizing on Social Security.

Fear the Crackdown

So baseball is set to get serious about the steroids problem, and it shouldn't be hard to improve on the soft guidelines currently in place, which are something along the lines of:

First offense: no reading on team flights
Second offense: zerbert from Dusty Baker

More commentary here and here .

Iranian Youth

Promising.

Limits

I see a future in niche credit cards. A card that won't work in Wal-Mart? That won't make an online donation to the Republican party?

The Beeb

After seeing the Musharaff quotes with full context in that interview, I have to say I'm pretty dismayed. The line about him "agreeing with the BBC" is pretty accurate. The interviewer said something along the lines of "what with Iraq and Abu Graib, the irony is that the war on terror has made the world less safe," to which Musharaff replied "absolutely" and gave the quotes in the post below. Again, he's right that the war on terror has not adequately addressed the causes of terrorism, and that the war in Iraq has made the world more dangerous, but the war in Iraq does not equal the war on terrorism. The Iraq war was a blunder that from even a strictly strategic point of view doesn't make sense for the US and its allies, as it is depleting our resources for fighting terrorism and is turning into a quagmire. The disappointing thing is that Musharraf himself didn't differentiate between the two struggles, as he is a key ally in the war on terrorism who obviously sees the Iraq war as a dangerous distraction.

As for the interviewer, her ostensible statement of fact leaves a looming question that has probably entered many people's minds when coming face to face with someone who opposes the war on terrorism as a whole: what would you have us do?

3 Years

Musharraf made waves during his recent visit to the US by stating that the war in Iraq has made the world less safe and by admitting that the Pakistani government has no idea where bin Laden is. Visiting London today, he has apparently stated that the war on terror has made the world less safe. When I first saw this headline I thought that the newspaper had got the quote about Iraq wrong, but no, it's from a BBC interview to be broadcast tonight:

Visiting Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) here on Monday that the war on terror had made the world less safe and was not addressing the underlying causes of conflict.

In an interview with the BBC Newsnight that will be broadcast late on Monday, Musharraf used the word "absolutely" when it was suggested to him that the world was less safe partly due to the campaign against terrorism.

I don't have a problem with his answer in the sense that he was just pointing out that the focus of the war on terror has not been on terrorism's underlying causes, which is true, but I was more shocked to read that Musharraf "agreed with the BBC" that the war on terror has made the world less safe. I'll withhold further comment till I see the context of the Q&A, but I'll make the general note that I wish my TV license fees were going toward something a little more even-handed. The show should be available here after 22:30 BST.

The comments Musharraf made while in the US made me think back to the Fall and Winter of 2001 and the war in Afghanistan, a war which I supported but strongly criticized in terms of its carrying out. At the time I wondered why the US and coalition countries were not interested as much in putting boots on the ground and specifically using more special forces along the Afghani/Pakistani border as they seemed to be in destroying infrastructure from the air, causing much collateral damage. In the short-term, the strategy they used seem to be sufficient, in that the Taliban was overthrown and a new government was put in place without a protracted battle as we are seeing in Iraq. In the long-term I think that my criticisms still hold, as bin Laden and his associated are still hiding, the Taliban still exists in pockets of the country and Karzai has been said to be "the mayor of Kabul." The US moved on to "shock and awe" in Iraq and has never been able to fully commit to stabilization in Afghanistan. It's too bad that of the two wars Bush has waged, we are mired in the one that was unjustified to begin with.

Incompetence

"That is clearly a disappointment," [Rumsfeld] said looking back at his first term.

It's been made clear over the last few weeks that no amount of incompetence can get you fired from the Bush administration if you are blindly loyal to the president and never admit a mistake, so the worst elements of the last four years will just get carried over into the next four years. Bush doesn't realize that people might actually respect him if he showed signs of learning from his mistakes. But then, he can't remember any.

Christmas Numbers

From Newsweek :

"I don't want to be too simplistic, but our faith is somewhat childlike," says the Rev. H. B. London, a vice president of James Dobson's conservative Focus on the Family organization in Colorado Springs. "Though other people may question the historical validity of the virgin birth, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we don't." London's view has vast public support. A NEWSWEEK Poll found that 84 percent of American adults consider themselves Christians, and 82 percent see Jesus as God or the son of God. Seventy-nine percent say they believe in the virgin birth, and 67 percent think the Christmas story—from the angels' appearance to the Star of Bethlehem—is historically accurate.

Who We Are, What We Do

There seems to be an argument developing in the US, roughly along partisan lines, about whether the US has incurred the wrath of so much of the Muslim world because of our actions and policies or whether it is simply because of who we are and the principles we stand for. It's no secret that Bush takes the latter point of view, espousing the much-derided post-9/11 view that "they hate us for our freedom." Sidney Blumental, bolstered by a new study by the Pentagon, adheres more to the former view. Many scoundrels on the right would no doubt argue that such a viewpoint is tantamount to justifying terrorist actions against us, which it in no way is; in fact, such criticisms perfectly exemplify the weakness of the neoconservative conversation in the US. Think of Fukuyama being labelled an anti-semite by Charles Krauthammer for arguing that many neoconservatives see US foreign policy through the lens of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and you begin to understand that such a movement - the neoconservative movement - has ceased to be a serious intellectual school of thought when merely broaching such topics is considered at best taboo and at worst deserving of such personalized scorn and hatred.

As far as the issue of why many Muslims see the US they way they do, I think it is something of a cop-out to say they hate us solely for who we are. It suits the right-wing agenda to say that that is the case, because of course when someone hates you for who you are there is nothing you can do to change that relationship, there is no way you can lessen that hatred because it supposedly stems from something inherent in you; thus there would be no need for self-reflection. I am completely supportive of the war on terror (not to be confused with the war in Iraq) and believe that there is much anti-West sentiment in the Muslim world that is not related to such tangible issues as the Palestinian conflict, but to pretend that terrorism is never motivated by policies or actions taken against Muslim populations is simply naive and, of course, dangerous.

Positive Freedom

This commentary by Julian Baggini is helpful in its depiction of two types of freedom and how American-style conservatism /libertarianism is limited in its conception of freedom to only one type. The ideal of "negative freedom" is actually an aspect of conservatism that I respect to a point, but read Baggini's commentary to see what is missing. His take on the British left starting to sound like the American right is pretty original too.

A Few Million Man Hours

In an article on the issue of removing dams to protect endangered salmon, this passage jumped out at me [my emphasis]:

"Endangered fish, the opinion said, can be protected by a variety of measures, including carrying fish around dams and building weirs - a new type of weir that works like a water slide - to ease young fishes' journey through dams as they swim downstream to the ocean."

Is this part of Bush's job creation program?