Ambers is right. There was something about this speech that resonated. The specificity of the individuals involved. The moving nature of their individual paths. And a defense of their service that somehow makes the current wars more bearable, their cause more understandable, and their sacrifices less demoralizing. This doesn't make the case for those wars any easier, but it does reveal the quiet strength of a president who is a very different but, in my judgment, increasingly effective commander-in-chief.
It celebrates military courage and bravado:
Staff Sergeant Amy Krueger was an athlete in high school, joined the
Army shortly after 9/11, and had since returned home to speak to
students about her experience. When her mother told her she couldn't
take on Osama bin Laden by herself, Amy replied: "Watch me."
But it also teaches perspective:
In today's wars, there is not always a simple ceremony that signals our
troops' success - no surrender papers to be signed, or capital to be
claimed. But the measure of their impact is no less great - in a world
of threats that no know borders, it will be marked in the safety of our
cities and towns, and the security and opportunity that is extended
abroad. And it will serve as testimony to the character of those who
serve, and the example that you set for America and for the world.
Here it is in full. Somehow, the president seems to rise to these occasions, and remind us not just of these servicemembers' character, but of his as well:
"We come together filled with sorrow for the thirteen Americans that we have lost; with gratitude for the lives that they led; and with a determination to honor them through the work we carry on.
This is a time of war. And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community.
It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible.
For those families who have lost a loved one, no words can fill the void that has been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and caregivers. You knew them as mothers and fathers; sons and daughters; sisters and brothers.
But here is what you must also know: your loved ones endure through the life of our nation. Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched. Their life's work is our security, and the freedom that we too often take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that is their legacy.
Neither this country - nor the values that we were founded upon - could exist without men and women like these thirteen Americans.
And that is why we must pay tribute to their stories.
Today on the Dish we saw more details emerge on the Hood tragedy and listened to the words of the commander-in-chief. Andrew examined the tragedy at length and in the broader of context of 9/11. Marc Lynch and Greenwald also offered their thoughts, while some ugly rhetoric on the right surfaced here, here, and here.
Napoleon Linardatos and Frum tackled Continetti's puff piece on Palin, and a reader scrutinized her pregnancy story. Andrew confronted Dreher over civil rights tactics and a youtuber took down Maggie Gallagher, hard.
In other commentary, Saletan zeroed in on the combat ban, Kerry Howley profiled Kathleen Parker, Exum gunned for Seymour Hersh, Joe Klein discussed the three Americans accused of espionage in Iran, and Andrew praised, yes, the Clintons.
As our pledge drive for the window book continued, a few readers sawwhat we see on the future of publishing. A few more readers wound down our discussion on the children of soldiers. And our MHB was pretty sublime.
[Re-posted from earlier today. Number of pledges so far: nearly 1300]
We're now heading toward 1500 pledges to buy the Window View book, which makes a 2000 book offset print run feasible, which in turn means that the price is now headed way below $20. We're going to wait a day to nail the exact price down (it could go as low as $18, more than a third off the regular one-off price) - and the more of you who pledge the lower it will go. I don't know about you but crowd-sourcing a bargain is a pretty cool way to buy books. And to get a four-color coffee table/toilet book down below $20 means the chances of getting more regular print products even lower are now high. Imagine getting paperbacks for $10. That should send some shivers up the spines of the book publishing marketing industry.
You can preview the book here at Blurb.com, the print-on-demand company that is publishing it.
Publishing a novel has been my life-long fixation.
I've always been a hack, writing crap while getting paid to be a flak
(14 years in PR). So, when I got fired from my last PR job a year ago
I put my head down and wrote. The result was "Gone Postal" a political
thriller for The Daily Show crowd. After shopping it around, I found a
small press that was interested in publishing it.
Unfortunately, the
deal fell through.
For years I'd told myself if I couldn't get someone else to publish my
writing I wouldn't go the vanity press route. After coming so close
(and promising the thing to friends) I decided to go ahead and
self-publish (I used createspace). What with blogs, twitter, and all
the self-publishing vehicles available, it's ridiculously easy to
publish crap.
Somewhere in all that crap is the best crap no one's ever read.
A member of Koran school attends a special prayer school for
transgender Muslims or 'waria' on November 9, 2009 in Yogyakarta,
Indonesia. The Koran school, called 'Senin-Kamis' meaning
Monday-Thursday, the 2 days the school operates, was founded in July
2008 by 48-year old Maryani as a place for waria to pray. Islam
strictly segregates men from women when praying, leaving no-where for
'the third sex' waria to pray before now. There are now estimated to be
around 300 men who prefer to live as women in Yogyakarta, many of whom
work in the sex industry. By Ulet Ifansasti/Getty.
A poll came out today showing that Olympia Snowe (R-ME) might be vulnerable to a primary challenge from the right, even though the GOP would probably lose the seat if they forced her off the ticket. Yglesias thinks she will have to switch parties:
This means that when you’re thinking about whether Snowe will support a
bill or not, the issue ultimately comes down to not triggers versus
non-triggers, or employer mandates versus free rider fees, but whether
Snowe wants to remain a Republican or not. Based on this polling, a
Snowe who votes for a comprehensive health care overhaul is basically
not going to be viable as a GOP primary candidate. Conversely, a Snowe
who votes for comprehensive health reform and switches parties would
remain a very popular general election candidate with a safe seat.
The debate over new healthcare legislation now shifts to the Senate, at
a time when the majority of Americans are not convinced that a new law
would benefit either the national healthcare system or their own
personal healthcare situations in the long term. The overall advice
from the average American to his or her member of Congress at this
point tilts negative, although about a third of Americans initially say
they have no opinion on the legislation.
My own response would be: let's see what happens next.
Newsweek compiles a list of ten. Nick Hornby writes the entry for #10:
Levi Johnston flew blindfolded into a perfect—and perfectly
contemporary—storm. He found himself at the center of a swirling mess:
an inexplicable Republican misstep, the Christian right, an unstoppable
presidential campaign, Facebook, the bewildering pervasiveness of
modern media. If there are any other Alaskan teenagers who have somehow
managed to invoke that sorry lot after an evening (or two) of careless
lovemaking, I can’t think of them. A nut ad and a song are the least he
deserves for his troubles.
The grand strategy of al-Qaeda and its affiliated ideologues is, and
has always been, to generate a clash of civilizations between Islam and
the West which does not currently exist. Their great challenge is that
the vast majority of Muslims reject their theology, ideology, strategy
and tactics. That's especially true of American Muslims. They
therefore feel the need to change the environment in which Muslims live
in order to change their calculations about the appropriateness of
extremist identities and ideologies and actions.
“It’s not important to be perfect here, it’s important to act, to
move, to start the ball rolling, to claim the evident advantages that
all these plans agree with, and whatever they can get the votes for,
I’m gonna support. I think it is
good politics to pass this and to pass this as soon as they can. But I
think the most important thing is it is the right thing for America.
The worst thing to do is nothing," - president Bill Clinton, on the Hill today.
How many of us a year ago would have foreseen the fusion of the Clinton and Obama brands in this administration? It speaks well of both parties, it seems to me. And Hillary's globe-trotting role as a new kind of public diplomacy secretary-of-state is one the more astonishing things in the last nine months. What she did in Pakistan was quite something.
NBC's Leno experiment is a fascinating harbinger of
things to come. Fragmented TV audiences, especially in the 10PM slot,
are a Catch-22 for networks. Keep the current hour-long-drama model, and
they risk lose money. Or ditch the model for something with lower
expectations and lower overhead, and they risk losing affiliate support.
TIME magazine called Jay Leno the future of television. Everybody who works is television is probably hoping TIME magazine is wrong.
Reading Dana Priest's summary and then the document itself, it seems to me that in some ways, Hasan was airing an important debate. I don't glean from the notes for his lecture that he was necessarily an Islamist fanatic, merely that he could see how Islam could be seen as incompatible with military service in Iraq and Afghanistan. His view is pretty close to what many critics of Islam argue. Of course, the power-points cannot convey the tone of content of his actual remarks, so I may be wrong. But as a piece of analysis, it's admirably candid and very clear about Islam's total rejection of a separation between church and state. It seems to me from this evidence that his looming deployment, and the impossibility of a conscientious discharge, were contributing factors to his mass murder. The lecture almost reads like a cry for help, rather than a warning.
I was surprised at the number of Democrats who have solid pro-choice
voting records but who nevertheless voted for Stupak Amendment. And the
vast majority of these Democrats voted for, not against, passage of the underlying health care bill...
The party tipped to be the next British government is split on familiar lines:
Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, and Michael Gove, the education
spokesman, are staunch Atlanticists and supporters of military
intervention — “neocons” to their critics, although Dr Fox prefers
“neo-realist”...
Other Shadow Cabinet ministers think that the priority must be to
hand over to the Afghan Army and bring British soldiers home. “There is
a significant section of opinion in the parliamentary party that wants
the thing over as soon as possible — you can call it isolationist or
realist but it is there” one frontbencher says. George Osborne, an
instinctive neocon, has, colleagues say become an “economic realist”
who is struck by the cost of the war at a time when he must save
billions. William Hague hovers between the two positions.
There
is no end to the War on Terror and no way to prevent a 9/11 from happening
again.
What
I like about Obama is that he is trying to change how we view this conflict –
it isn’t nation vs. nation or ideology vs. ideology but rather an effort
to get the US out of the role of “The Great Satan” – that role
is a great recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and others and unfortunately there are
a seemingly endless supply of volunteers/suicide bombers. It will be a tough
mission but one that can and will pay dividends if he is given the time (and
support) to execute it.
Alternately,
we can spend trillions of dollars and lose thousands of lives (US and others)
but we won’t win as there isn’t a “loser” in this fight.
I don’t begrudge Crist’s conservative opponents their desire to compel
him to take positions that are even more in agreement with their views.
That is their prerogative, and it may even do some good on one or two
issues, but it is curious how Crist’s successful political tactics are
being held against him at a time when Republicans are no longer
governing very many large states and when the party has declined
nationally as well.
Greenwald questions whether the Ft. Hood shooting was terrorism:
[If] one accepts that broadened definition of "terrorism" -- that it
includes violence that targets not only civilians but also combatants
who are unarmed or not engaged in combat at the time of the attack --
it seems impossible to exclude from that term many of the acts in which
the U.S. and our allies routinely engage. Indeed, a large part of our
"war" strategy is to kill people we deem to be "terrorists" or
"combatants" without regard to whether they're armed or engaged in
hostilities at the moment we kill them. Isn't that exactly what we do
when we use drone attacks in Pakistan?
In a rare moment of agreement, Jonah Goldberg concurs.
If you live there, I'll be giving a lecture there tonight on the meaning of friendship at the Auer Performance Hall at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne at 7.30 pm.
There are several possible responses to the appalling news
that Iran seems to have brought espionage charges against three
American hikers who wandered across the Kurdish border. Taken together
with Iran's apparent decision not to agree to the nuclear treaty it had
agreed to, this is yet another signal of the Iranian regime going off
the rails. No doubt, assorted neoconservatives in the U.S. will want to
use this as an excuse to whack the Khamenei-Whomever government
rhetorically, economically and toss in some use of force threats as
well.
Which will give the regime exactly what it wants and needs: proof
that the Great Satan exists. I've mentioned before my favorite piece of
official graffiti painted on the old U.S. Embassy in Tehran: "On the
day the Great Satan praises us, we shall mourn." It always seemed a
classic bit of ju-jitsu to me: Want to make the Iranian leaders
uncomfortable? Praise them. Or, at least, don't play into their need
for a satanic enemy.
"[W]orld domination ... is the ultimate aim. And they talk about infidels and all this, but the truth is that’s what the game is. So you are dealing with not a religion. You’re dealing with a political system. And I think we should treat it as such and treat its adherences as such as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group," - Pat Robertson, on Islam.
As an acquisitions editor at a dead-tree old-style publishing house, I find your publication plan for the View From Your Window
book both commendable and very exciting. Much of my daily work
involves trying to figure out what audience there is for a given book,
how many copies we should print (i.e., reasonably expect to sell), and
how high or low the price should be given that print run.
The terrorism fears around this subject
should also remind us that the fear of a “save haven” in Afghanistan
continues to be an underscrutinized concept. Suppose there had been a
terrorist plot here? What role would a safe haven have played in it?
The key assets Hasan had, from the point of view of committing acts of
violence against Americans, were access to weapons and a physical
location inside the United States of America.
This is the reality that still haunts me with respect to 9/11. We assume that we have understood that event by now. And I once thought I did. It was a declaration of war and we had to fight back. We went to Afghanistan and removed the Taliban regime; we went to Iraq to prevent al Qaeda getting WMDs and to open up a democratic space where Islamism would falter. I supported both responses.
I worry now, as we peer through the wreckage, that we were simply trying to make our enemy a conventional one, so that we could defeat them by conventional means. Invade a country; change a regime; even use the military for endless attempts at nation-building to "drain the swamp" that brings terror to our cities. We'd beat them that way, wouldn't we? Our power was unrivaled, wasn't it?
So how are we where are we now? In Afghanistan, the Taliban has been empowered by the long occupation and the government is as corrupt as ever and fast losing its own people. Al Qaeda have simply moved to Pakistan where they remain safely as long as they duck drone attacks. In Iraq, we actually gave al Qaeda a new opening and had to spend billions and lose thousands of lives to push them back. Even now, we have no guarantee they will not re-emerge in a still deeply divided country when far fewer American troops will soon remain. And through all this, we threw away one core advantage: our moral high ground. Through torture and the mass killings of civilians, through allowing sectarian genocide in Iraq and giving the world Abu Ghraib and Gitmo as symbols of the new America, we even managed to blur the lines between civilization and barbarism. And in this struggle, our political leaders failed to keep the country united, or the alliance intact.
The awful truth is: what 9/11 revealed, and what it was designed to reveal, is that there is nothing we can really do definitively to stop another one. They had no weapons but our own technology. The training they had was not that sophisticated and the costs of the operation were relatively tiny. There were 19 of them. None of the key perpetrators has been brought to justice. Bin Laden remains at large. If you calculate the costs of that evil attack against the financial, moral and human costs of the fight back, 9/11 was a fantastic demonstration of the power of asymmetry to destroy the West.
My theory is that Hersh's journalism is a little like a 12-gauge
shotgun. He just lets it go, and something is bound to hit the target.
But each year, it seems, another inch is shaved off the barrel, so the
shot group gets wider and wider. Over time, fewer and fewer pellets
actually hit the target, but such is his reputation that people only
remember the articles of his that actually exposed something new and
none of the articles that, in retrospect, turned out to be just crazy
talk.
Over the weekend, I suggested that we should not be afraid to define those against marriage equality. Dreher counters:
Dropping the "Bigot" Bunker-Buster doesn't seem like a promising strategy to me in a country in which 49 percent of the people think homosexuality is immoral,
and in which a Mr. Nice Gay approach is slowly but steadily winning.
But we'll see. If that's the way they go, the anti-SSM groups ought to
make ads out of this footage of the way an enraged mob of No More Mr.
Nice Gays chased peaceful Christians out of the Castro district; the
Christians had to be accompanied by police officers for their own safety.
In fact, I was not in any way arguing that we should yell "bigot!" even more loudly. I was suggesting that we keep making the positive constructive case for marriage equality - that it's socially unifying, that it fosters responsibility and family, that it encourages people to look after one another rather than relying on government, that it's humane, that it helps give troubled gay kids hope, that it prevents divorces, and on and on. But in this war, we should not always be the ones on the defensive. We can and should also point out the hypocrisy and history of our opponents.
Is it not somewhat bizarre that the Catholic church, which has perpetrated and covered up abuse, rape and molestation of children on a massive, global scale, should be financing a campaign that says that it is some kind of abuse that gay kids know that they can have a relationship one day like their parents'?
The reader who wrote that the children shouldn't be surprised by their parents' arrival home because it adds on more time to their worrying is off base. When my son came home on leave and then permanently from Afghanistan we did not know when his exact date of arrival would be. We were given a window in which to expect him. He called me one day to say his leave would begin sometime in the next two weeks and it would take up to a week to get home. I heard from him 12 days later to let me know he was in Dallas and would land in Houston in about 3 hours.
Same thing when he was due home for good. Just got a call one evening saying he had landed at Ft. Bragg and was safe. I knew he was supposed to be home somewhere in the 30 day window but no idea when.
"Of course, most U.S. Muslims don't shoot up their fellow soldiers. Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we'll go back to allowing them to serve. You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you're right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it's used, and we'll welcome you back with open arms. This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism," - Director of Issues Analysis, Bryan Fischer, at the American Family Association.
The list of medals awarded to Sergeant Garza (no relation to the district attorney) tell of a good soldier. After two tours in Iraq, he shared a tight bond with unit members and missed them greatly when the Army sent him to a base in Georgia for additional training after a second deployment. He was troubled by a breakup with a girlfriend. And though he seldom spoke with his family about his combat tours, he once confided to his mother that he had a killed a person in Iraq. “He said, ‘It was him or me,’ ” Ms. Smith said. “But you could tell it troubled him.”
His family believes he did not get the care he needed, despite signs he had fallen into despair.
In June, he left the Georgia base without permission, and the Army tracked him to a hotel room in Paris, Tex. In a suicide note he sent to a friend before leaving, he said he wanted to end it close to his friends. Among his purchases was a shotgun.
Palin supporters have constructed an alternative reality in which
their heroine is wildly cheered by the American yeomanry, and despised
only by a small coterie of sherry-drinking snobs. No contrary evidence,
no matter how overwhelming and uncontradicted, can alter this view: not
the collapse in Palin’s support in just 5 weeks in 2008, not the
statistical studies that show her as the only vice presidential nominee
in ticket to have hurt her ticket, not her rampant unpopularity with
American women, not her own flinching from a second encounter with the
Alaskan electorate.
In this regard, Continentti’s comparison of Palin to William Jennings Bryan begins to look not only apt, but ominous.
"Wonder if he asked for a Koran yet," - Michelle Malkin on Nidal Hasan, who is apparently regaining consciousness.
The sad thing is that Malkin is not wrong to point out the strain of Islamism as a core motive for recent acts of terror, including the Washington sniper shootings. But her solution - the tarring of all Muslims - only helps the Islamists some more.
What is called "socialist" today was not so socialist a while ago:
You could plausibly claim that the reforms on the table today are more
or less what moderate Republicans were proposing under Clinton, just as
the Clinton reforms were not that far removed from what Nixon himself
wanted in the early 70s.
The world Parker actually wants is not a world in which women make
babies and men chop wood. It is merely a world in which one can walk
down an average city street and not be confronted by a 4-year-old in a
"Future Porn Star" T-shirt, a world in which most women do not own
stripper poles, a world in which most people do not know that
sex-equity experts even exist. It's a world in which most people don't
say "vagina" in polite conversation, vice presidents are expected to
know something about the country that elected them, abortion is
stigmatized but not illegal, and racial profiling is permitted but not
celebrated.
It is, in other words, precisely the world in which we actually
live. For all her railing against our decadent times, Parker is a
stalwart defender of the status quo, committed to the arbitrary
prejudices of our age -- recall her problem with men in jewelry -- and
skeptical of anyone whose ideology might challenge our present state of
affairs. She is literally a conservative, which means she is nothing of
a Republican.
It's not a new question but there are some new answers:
"The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as
120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this
gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who
was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the
industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number
is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.
Reihan compares political campaigns, past and future:
Conservatives delighted in the ideological exuberance of Howard Dean's
progressive youth, and they were unprepared for Barack Obama's slickly
post-ideological campaign that drew on the left's energy while running
a disciplined centrist campaign. We'll see if history repeats itself.
Like a lot of people, my gut tells me that Sarah Palin or perhaps Mike
Huckabee will be the Howard Dean of 2012. Of course, that would suggest
that the Republican nominee in 2012 will be the right's answer to John
Kerry, which is a prospect too disturbing to contemplate for very long.
The other piece of the new Trig-diagnosis story that doesn’t make sense is that I don’t know an ultrasound tech anywhere who would tell a person that there’s an abnormality. I’m bringing this up because I assume you and your husband haven’t been in this situation. They’ll tell you the gender (but they let the doctor confirm it). But no tech doing a real test on something that might be serious would tell you what they see.
I think "revenge" is a well-defined term, whereas "justice" is a bit of
whatever you think it means. Justice certainly requires that guilt be
certain, the crime clearly defined, and the offender aware of the law
and its general consequences before committing the offence. Malice of
forethought, and all that. All those being present, the question of
punishment is an argument over values, and many answers are possible.
William Petit Jr wants the death penalty for the men who tortured and
killed his family in his presence. The death penalty remains on the
books in the state of Connecticut, though it is rarely enforced.
Perhaps this should be one of those rare cases. But if so, we do need
what Sonny Bunch suggests: a generalised way to distinguish between
cases where guilt is truly certain, and those where it is probable. And
that doesn't seem to be on anyone's agenda for legal reform.
Here's a graph that puts the generational shift on marriage equality in stark relief:
A clear majority of the under-30s favor marriage equality in all but 12 states. This doesn't make defeats any easier, and it doesn't make those constitutional amendments any easier to reverse. But it does add some perspective and may help us keep our cool. We're winning where it counts. And the future will arrive some day.
Will Saletan wants the ban on women in combat scrapped:
The question isn't whether men are physically stronger than women on
average. Of course they are. The question is whether to translate that
average into a rule against women in combat. The 2009 Navy policy, for
example, states that women must be barred from jobs whose "physical
requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women
service members." Why should some women be excluded based on the
performance of others? Would you tolerate such an average-based rule
against any racial or religious group?
(Photo: Cadets in the graduating class of the United
States Military Academy at West Point participate in commencement
exercises on May 23, 2009 in West Point, New York. By Spencer Platt/Getty.)