Saturday, September 1, 2007

01 Sep 2007 11:45 pm

Sovereignty: Unclear On The Concept [hilzoy]

01 Sep 2007 09:47 pm

Two Larrys [Jamie]

Today, at the National and Lesbian Gay Journalists' Association annual convention in San Diego, I had a chance to see the irascible legend Larry Kramer riff on gay politics in America. He delivered his usual points (but in his always entertaining fashion): that straight people hate gays, that gay people are complacent about their second-class status ("just don't be so fucking passive!"), and attacked the gay rights movement in general and the Human Rights Campaign in particular for being weak and ill-managed. A friend remarked that Kramer has the proper diagnosis of, but not the best tactics for, gay America.

But Kramer has a trenchant and historically-informed perception of how gay people are portrayed in the mainstream media, and he's willing to call out people and institutions, friend or foe, for their irresponsibility and unfair treatment. Kramer mentioned an Iowa judge's decision Thursday to overturn a state law banning gay marriage, a story that appeared on page A9 of Saturday's New York Times and A18 of Friday's Times; and hardly at all on television news. Meanwhile, the Larry Craig drama has been on the front page of the Times for several days this week and non-stop on CNN and Fox. No one can accuse the Times of having an anti-gay bias, but it's nevertheless reflective of the paper of record's poor news judgment to prioritize the sexual peccadilloes of a particular U.S. Senator over a major gay civil rights victory in a mid-western state.

01 Sep 2007 09:18 pm

Pete Seeger renounces Stalin [Jamie]

To quote John Edwards, "Better late than never."

01 Sep 2007 08:58 pm

What maketh a neo-con? [Jamie]

There's been a lot of discussion on the blog about the use--and abuse--of the label "neo-con." Which has got me thinking--what is it that causes people to label others this way? And why is it that people who would never consider themselves neo-conservatives are labeled as such?

Today, it seems that a "neo-con" (at least in the fevered imaginations of the net-left) is someone who frequently calls attention to the unprovoked aggression of despotic regimes (e.g. Iran and Syria), the violation of human rights in other countries, and advocates the moral superiority of democratic countries in international affairs. A "neo-con" is now anyone who dares make an issue out of the aggressions and inhumanity of despotisms without explaining them away, and for advocating America do something about these aggressions and inhumanities. It is for this reason that so many on the left attacked Bayard Rustin in the 1970's and 1980's when, in addition to speaking out about racial injustices in the United States and condemning Reaganomics, he also spoke out, vociferously, against the PLO, Robert Mugabe, and the Sandinistas. But Rustin was hardly a proper neo-conservative, even if he happened to write the occasional article for Commentary and helped found the Coalition for a Democratic Majority. And so, simply for stating uncomfortable realities about the world, someone is called a "neocon" (which in today's political discourse--not just left-wing discourse--is akin to labeling someone a "pinko" in the 1950's) and readily dismissed.

Continue reading "What maketh a neo-con? [Jamie]" »

01 Sep 2007 08:20 pm

Labor and Iraq [Jamie]

My colleague Brad Plumer calls me out for stating that, "Whereas once the AFL-CIO had a large and effective international office, you'd be hard-pressed to hear, for instance, what they're doing for Iraqi trade-unionists." He's right that I give short shrift to the AFL-CIO's international support for trade unionists, particularly in Iraq, and I apologize for and regret the oversight. And he's absolutely right about the Bush administration's moronic spurning of Iraqi trade unions, "which were one of the few dedicated anti-insurgent, anti-Baathist organizations in the country."

But I still stand by my larger point, which is that whereas anti-totalitarianism used to be the animating ideology of the AFL-CIO and Cold War liberals (both domestically--when the AFL fought tooth and nail against entryist communists, and internationally, in support for higher defense budgets and beating--not living with--the Soviet Union), the AFL has now become part of the anti-war faction of the Democratic Party, calling for immediate withdrawal, and abandoning Iraqi trade unionists to their fates.

For an example of what position American labor might take on the war, they ought to look across the pond to their British comrades, particularly Labour Friends of Iraq, a group composed of Labour MPs which supported the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds and that opposes a coalition withdrawal:

History will not forgive us if we fail to give solidarity to Grassroots Iraq as its long-suffering people seek a federal, democratic, pluralist, and unified Iraq, in which there is full respect for the political and human rights of all.

The group's director, Gary Kent, wrote yesterday in Progress, a publication affiliated with the Labour Party:

Why can't more progressives start seeing who are its real enemies and friends in Iraq? Instead, some seem stuck in a time-warp circa February 2003 when millions marched to prevent the invasion of Iraq. The war easily toppled Saddam which most Iraqis welcomed but the American military proceeded to start losing the peace with great stupidity.

One of the most important gains has been the renaissance of a new civil society after decades of fascist-type rule. Labour Friends of Iraq (LFIQ) concentrates its efforts on supporting the Iraqi trade union movement.

...It's perfectly understandable that those who opposed the invasion maintain the integrity of their arguments. It's quite another to effectively adopt an "I told you so" stance and sit on one's hands at the expense of the workers' movement, women's organisations and elected Iraqi parliamentarians and parties.

It's obscene for a minority to back insurgents who murder union leaders and would destroy civil society.With or without foreign troops, a surge of solidarity with the unions and others is needed. It's the very least one would expect from progressive internationalism.

01 Sep 2007 05:46 pm

More Ouch! [hilzoy]

A few points in response to Jamie's last post, which I will put below the fold so as not to distract from more substantive posts.

Continue reading "More Ouch! [hilzoy]" »

01 Sep 2007 04:48 pm

Compassion Now for Larry Craig [Steve Clemons]

Larry Craig won't be Idaho's Senator after September 30th.  He made his resignation announcement today.

There has been a lot of ridicule of Craig in the last several days -- much of which was deserved given his well-preened anti-gay persona, but now he's out. He's terminated one of the big contradictions in his life.  Now he has others he'll have to deal with.

Two things come to mind immediately after hearing his decision to resign. 

First, I am reposting Tom Toles' cartoon again -- particularly in commemoration of Andrew Sullivan's and Aaron Tone's wedding last Monday.  The Republican moderates -- the "main streeters" -- should use this opportunity to unwind their party's ridiculous objections to broader institution building (read: marriage) between committed same sex couples.

Toles (c) 2007 The Washington Post. Used by permission of Universal Press Syndicate. All rights reserved.

Second, there are a lot of people living dual lives.  When those lives finally clash, the answer is not ridicule -- but rather compassion.  Larry Craig has to sort this out -- but so do many, many others who have more than one track defining who they are.

Craig will soon be a former Senator.  I recommend he go spend time with one of the most enlightened Republican Senators on these subjects, Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who has done a lot of thinking about the gap between straight and gay worlds, particularly the political dimensions and all of the variations of identity between "gay" and "straight".

Simpson is one of the best counselors and friends Larry Craig could reach out to right now.

-- Steve Clemons

 

01 Sep 2007 03:12 pm

Ouch! My Intellectual Irresponsibility. . .[Steve Clemons]

I have little interest in escalating the tensions heating up on Andrew Sullivan's excellent blog.

But let me respond to this sizzling couple of lines from Jamie's note to Hilzoy and me today:

I understand how throwing around the word "neocon" (and McCarthyite calls or "Purging the neocons from the American soul"), as Steve regularly does, is now standard practice in some quarters as it provides a helpful substitute for actual argument, but providing red-meat to the nutroots doesn't make it any more intellectually responsible.

I use the term "neocon" because I feel as if I know precisely what it means, to whom it should be applied, and what the broader agenda and objectives of the neoconservative movement are.  We may disagree about the place that neoconservative politics belongs in our national security debates, and I do believe that Jamie has been providing a "sideways defense" for the neocons.  I thought my own commentary was pretty diplomatic towards Jamie.  If not, apologies as I didn't mean to rile him on a personal level.

For those who want to read a bit more on the mis-application of the term "neocon", read my "Norman Ornstein's Neocon Problem."

But thanks Jamie for your insinuation that I am intellectually irresponsible.

01 Sep 2007 02:42 pm

A raft of accusations [Jamie]

Let's begin the reply to Hilzoy's broadside with her most stunning claim: "Despite George W. Bush's attempts to paint al Qaeda as a totalitarian group bent on imposing a Caliphate on the world, al Qaeda is not a totalitarian organization." Al Qaeda doesn't need the likes of George W. Bush (notice how it always comes back to him) to "paint" it as "totalitarian," it is totalitarian. I suggest she read Paul Berman's Terror and Liberalism for more on the totalitarian roots and aims of Al Qaeda, or review any of the published and widely available statements of Osama bin Laden and his deputies.

She then states that "al Qaeda's natural allies are not totalitarian regimes but failed states."  There's no question that al Qaeda tries to exploit failed states as sanctuaries and safe havens, but claiming that al Qaeda is "allied" with them is a bit like saying it's "allied" with the equator.

Now, since we're all being "charitable" with one another, perhaps what Hilzoy meant to say is that al Qaeda's natural allies are the unfortunate people who live in failed states. But this, too, is not quite right. Last I checked, the ranks of al Qaeda were not choked with Haitians, Chadians, or Timorese.

Al Qaeda's natural allies are those who share its Islamist totalitarian vision for the future. Osama bin Laden went to Afghanistan not because it was a failed state, but because it was a Taliban-run Islamist state. At the same time, this ideology is transnational and can survive without overt support from a state sponsor -- just as communism existed for several decades before the Soviet Union came into being.

It's also telling that in Hilzoy's extensive list of "our central foreign policy problems," there is no mention of al Qaeda or radical Islamism at all. She does mention "the risk of further destabilization in the Middle East and Pakistan" -- a strange, but revealing, formulation. For Hilzoy, as for many on the left, there's no agency, no ideology, no actor behind this destabilization, except, of course, America, George W. Bush, and the criminal neocon cabal.

Continue reading "A raft of accusations [Jamie]" »

01 Sep 2007 11:28 am

Iraqi Refugees [hilzoy]

01 Sep 2007 12:29 am

Zimbabwe: When Price Controls Fail... [hilzoy]

Friday, August 31, 2007

31 Aug 2007 10:20 pm

Progress In Iraq (Not!) [hilzoy]

Continue reading "Progress In Iraq (Not!) [hilzoy]" »

31 Aug 2007 05:56 pm

More On "The Antitotalitarian Left" [hilzoy]

Continue reading "More On "The Antitotalitarian Left" [hilzoy]" »

31 Aug 2007 02:30 pm

Purging the Neocons from the American Soul [Steve Clemons]

Jamie Kirchik has just published a missive about the lessons that the modern political left should be drawing from Bayard Rustin's life and twisting political course, and I need to respond to him more fully later today as I think he's fundamentally mistaken about the tectonics of today's foreign policy/national security establishments.

But what needs to be said up front is that this nation's neoconservative moment has yielded the most serious abandonment of the principles and ideals that comprise America's sense of self.  The neocons, for whom I think Kirchik provides a sideways defense, have been complicit in helping to justify the massive expansion of executive branch authority in our government and have promulgated rationales that have led to abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the inclusion of torture as a tool in interrogations, extraordinary rendition, suspension of habeas corpus for those accused but not found guilty of being enemy combatants, and the assertion that the unitary executive can't really be held accountable for these historically  un-American acts.

To be fair to Kirchik, he doesn't say he is a neocon and suggests that Rustin was not either, but the article he wrote both tells the story of a socially-liberal political nomad who nonetheless was the liberal-turned-hawk kind of Scoop Jackson democrat on national security issues that many other neocons would look like as well.  And the fact is that the neocon crowd that took far too easily the helm of the foreign policy establishment away from the realist and liberal internationalist players in this game are almost entirely responsible for the dramatic erosion of America's national security portfolio.

There are so many levels of failure during what has largely been an alliance of pugnacious Jesse Helms-revering nationalists like Dick Cheney and John Bolton and ideological neoconservatives like Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz that it is hard to run through it all here.

But to sum up the disaster, the Bush/Cheney neocon gamble of showing all the world our limits in taking on a classic thug like Saddam Hussein punctured the mystique of American power.  Superpowers achieve their goals by leveraging mystique and the possibility of what they might do or not do.  Shorn of that mystique, America has become far weaker.  Allies are now not counting on America as much as they once were -- and enemies are moving their agendas.

The global equilibrium has been thrown off, and to fill the voids left by the collapse of confidence in America's ability to achieve its objectives, other nations are rushing in to maximize their security or to try and restore balance.  Whether its Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, or South Korea -- all allies in one way or another -- all are changing their behavior.  And the neocons (or neocon-sympathizers) -- who Jamie Kirchik  thinks are somehow the ones who understan d "grit" better than the rest of us -- are responsible.

One thing that gives me some hope is that America's civil servants -- whether working at the CIA, the State Department, the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency, or within the Department of Justice broadly -- want out of the "Darkness at Noon" detainee practices promulgated by Vice President Cheney and his team and embraced by numerous neocons.

Scott Horton at No Comment provides a DoJ example and gives a great follow-up to Emma Schwartz's expose at US News & World Report that "a large part of the attorney staff at the Department of Justice are refusing to appear on behalf of the Department and make arguments or write briefs connectied with Guantanamo."

Horton also writes:

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, there are certain circumstances when a lawyer is not ethically permitted to appear and advance arguments that a client wants him to make. One is when the client is appearing in court advancing claims of fact that the lawyer knows to be untrue. Another is when the client wants to make arguments as to law which are not well grounded in the law, or in a good-faith argument for its reversal, modification or reinterpretation.

In connection with Guantanamo, the Justice Department already has a very long track record of prevarication in submissions to courts. So much so that the Fourth Circuit, the most conservative Court of Appeals in the country, recently raked it over the goals for making misleading statements. And indeed, Judge Michael Luttig, often considered high on the short list for a Supreme Court appointment under the Bush Administration for his tightly held and extremely conservative judicial values, went out of his way to indicate that he felt Justice Department lawyers had been misleading the court over detainee treatment issues. Similarly, on the law, the Justice Department has lost three straight cases before an extremely conservative Supreme Court on detainee treatment issues, and is preparing to lose a fourth.

Jamie Kirchik bemoans the rise of the "liberal realists" as a counter to the neocons -- but what may be happening is that the Bill Kristol-led neocons harmed this nation during their time at the wheel and those with a conscience, those who understand what checks and balances are about, what habeas corpus means in a justice system, who understand accountability for tragedies like Abu Ghraib are bouncing back to the norms this country has traditionally embraced.

The norms of a nation aren't really "knowable" unless observed under stress.  Our recent history has tarnished our ability to motivate and animate others on everything from human rights to transparent and just government.

It's easy to be for the rights of victims when there is no crime to consider.  It's easy to wax on about democracy, the rights of minorities, and checks and balances in government -- but unless America itself demonstrates these when shocked and challenged, then the rest of the world won't believe them when we are out "promoting democracy". 

Most conservative and liberal idealists understand that.  So do conservative and liberal realists.  It's the neocons, Jamie, that have taken this nation down a good number of notches.

-- Steve Clemons

(for those at the American Political Science Association Annual Conference in Chicago or in the city, I'm blogging in the fantastic lounge of the Sheraton Hotel next to the Chicago River.  I've met a number of folks here today who noticed that I was guest-blogging for Andrew this week, or who were familiar with The Washington Note.  Stop by if you like.)

31 Aug 2007 12:29 pm

Americans Discover Corruption in Iraq [Steve Clemons]

David Corn has gotten hold of a secret report -- still in draft form -- outlining the concerns that the US military and foreign service have about a "norm of corruption" in the current Iraqi government. 

One wonders how holier-than-thou Americans can be here given the rampant corruption we have allowed in no-bid contracting in Iraq and even around the billions in recovery funding for the Katrina tragedy.

Corn writes:

As Congress prepares to receive reports on Iraq from General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and readies for a debate on George W. Bush's latest funding request of $50 billion for the Iraq war, the performance of the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has become a central and contentious issue.

But according to the working draft of a secret document prepared by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, the Maliki government has failed in one significant area: corruption. Maliki's government is "not capable of even rudimentary enforcement of anticorruption laws," the report says, and, perhaps worse, the report notes that Maliki's office has impeded investigations of fraud and crime within the government.

The draft -- over 70 pages long -- was obtained by The Nation, and it reviews the work (or attempted work) of the Commission on Public Integrity (CPI), an independent Iraqi institution, and other anticorruption agencies within the Iraqi government. Labeled "SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED/Not for distribution to personnel outside of the US Embassy in Baghdad," the study details a situation in which there is little, if any, prosecution of government theft and sleaze.

Moreover, it concludes that corruption is "the norm in many ministries."

A couple of quick thoughts.

First, in an environment in which there is a second economy of influence or money, the cause is usually that there is no trust in the first economy.  Rules and contracts are not enforceable in Iraq, and self-dealing becomes highly rational and important for survival when everyone else is doing it -- and when there is a sense that the whole enterprise may collapse at any moment.  That is certainly true of Iraq.

So, corruption occurs -- and in some circumstances, rational self-dealing can be useful because it helps to influence and sway the behavior of major stakeholders in Iraq's political system.  We can hem and haw about the morality of corrupt government officials, but the more efficacious tactic would be to bribe them ourselves if we care about what they do.

But that requires us to be able to set clear objectives of what we are trying to do, apply resources to the effort, and see it through.  America does not seem to have that ability -- and seems to insist on operating with the delusion that we are dealing with good guys who actually care about the Iraqi nation. 

We are not.  Those in Iraq, at the helm now, are self-dealers on the whole -- who care about power among their clan and sectarian identity.

And we are only realizing now that they are corrupt?  I had thought we were bribing them all along but just weren't very good at it. 

We need to get out.

-- Steve Clemons

31 Aug 2007 12:07 pm

Whither the anti-totalitarian left? [Jamie]

Anti-totalitarianism was once an animating feature of the Democratic Party, and the American left in general. It was FDR who led the United States against Fascism, Harry Truman who aided anti-communists fighting in Turkey and Greece and John F. Kennedy who stated that the United States "would pay any price, bear any burden" to defend freedom abroad. The American labor movement played a crucial role in fighting communism (both domestically and internationally), with the AFL-CIO's Lane Kirkland, the "Champion of American Labor," at the helm.

What has happened to this spirit? That's a question I ask today, in reference to Bayard Rustin, one of the most enigmatic, independent-minded, consistent--yet barely remembered--heroes of 20th century liberalism (he also happened to be openly gay, an aspect of Rustin's life that Andrew examined here). A social democrat to the end, he joined other liberals (many of whom would eventually become neo-conservatives) in supporting Scoop Jackson for president in 1976, formed the Coalition for a Democratic Majority to fight the McGovernite wing of the party and was a founding member of the Committee on the Present Danger. He was also a strong supporter of Israel and one of the few black American leaders to warn of the dangers that a Zimbabwe led by Robert Mugabe would bring to bear.

Vietnam certainly played a large part in turning the left against muscular, progressive internationalism, as the war split traditional liberals from leftists. For the latter, America had become unredeemable because of its involvement in Indochina. The Soviet Union and the United States were morally indistinguishable, in this analysis, and the "Free World"--a term sneered at by many on the left--was no longer worth fighting for, if it ever had been in the first place. Rustin was part of a coterie of liberals, along with American Federation of Teachers head Al Shanker (profiled Monday by Freedom House's Arch Puddington in the Wall Street Journal) who rejected the left's rejection of America.
 

Continue reading "Whither the anti-totalitarian left? [Jamie]" »

31 Aug 2007 11:02 am

An expanding industry [Jamie]

As Larry King played in the background of my hotel room last night, I heard that the former wife of a gay politician would be appearing shortly to discuss l'affaire Craig. Oy, I sighed, it's totally going to be media-shy Arianna Huffington, who, when Jim McGreevey came out, established something of a cottage industry as the go-to spurned wife of the gay (or in her case, "bisexual") political husband for television bookers everywhere. But it turns out that Larry's guest was Dina Matos McGreevey. Arianna must have been so pissed! Will there be a face-off between Huffington and McGreevey for the attentions of TV producers? And who knows? Maybe in two years, when the next inevitable Republican closet case emerges, Suzanne Craig will be on TV to peddle her book.

31 Aug 2007 10:24 am

"The Poltroon and the Groom" [Jamie]

Rick Rosendall takes a step back and puts Larry Craig into perspective.

31 Aug 2007 09:25 am

Double-Standards Watch [Jamie]

This cartoon, making fun of Jerry Falwell, was syndicated in newspapers across the country.

This cartoon, making fun of Islamic fundamentalists, gets canned.

Meanwhile, of course, the Catholic League is complaining that cartoons offending Catholics aren't banned too.

Will the fecklessness before perpetually-aggrieved Muslims ever end?

Thursday, August 30, 2007

30 Aug 2007 09:31 pm

Who's Up and Who's Down after ElBaradei Report [Steve Clemons]

Here is a pdf copy of the "Restricted Distribution" report by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran."

These concluding clips from the Summary underscore that ElBaradei sees Iran moving in a positive direction and setting its nuclear program up for high level transparency that had not been previously the case:

22. The Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has been providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and facilities. However, the Agency remains unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran's nuclear programme.

It should be noted that since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, including pursuant to the Additional Protocol, for example information relevant to ongoing advanced centrifuge research.

23. The work plan is a significant step forward. If Iran finally addresses the long outstanding verification issues, the Agency should be in a position to reconstruct the history of Iran's nuclear programme. Naturally, the key to successful implementation of the agreed work plan is Iran's full and active cooperation with the Agency, and its provision to the Agency of all relevant information and access to all relevant documentation and individuals to enable the Agency to resolve all outstanding issues.

To this end, the Agency considers it essential that Iran adheres to the time line defined therein and implements all the necessary safeguards and transparency measures, including the measures  provided for in the Additional Protocol. 

24. Once Iran's past nuclear programme has been clarified, Iran would need to continue to build confidence about the scope and nature of its present and future nuclear programme. Confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme requires that the Agency be able to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, equally important, regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, through the implementation of the Additional Protocol. The Director General therefore again urges Iran to ratify and bring into force the Additional Protocol at the earliest possible date, as requested by the Board of Governors and the Security Council.

This last section, however, is what the United States and France are crying foul over and which remains a major obstacle to more political progress:

25. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued with the operation of PFEP, and with the construction and operation of FEP. Iran is also continuing with its construction of the IR-40 reactor and operation of the Heavy Water Production Plant.

What is happening now is that there are now at least three, if not more, divergent international tracks in confronting Iran on its nuclear program. 

The IAEA track -- which the Iranians themselves have now just applauded (which does raise questions actually) -- is citing enough progress on transparency and possible cooperation with international nuclear protocols that the IAEA is at odds with the third round of economic sanctions that the U.S. and France are trying to rally against Iran.

Then inside American and some European circles, Iran's failure to suspend its enrichment program requires toughened sanctions, each round of which becomes tighter -- harming both Iran as well as firms in nations applying the sanctions.

And third, the neoconservative crowd simply wants to suspend all negotiations and begin bombing.

At a minimum, ElBaradei's report probably stalls somewhat the neoconservative effort to start yet another war -- but I think that the sanctions noose that Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns is feverishly working on will continue.

And if there was a God that had ElBaradei working on one side of the process and Burns on the other -- with the neocons somewhere very, very hot -- I'd think that that was a brilliant good cop/bad cop strategy. 

Unfortunately, I don't think that such order and design exist in our universe.

-- Steve Clemons

30 Aug 2007 09:00 pm

Benchmarks: Then And Now [hilzoy]

30 Aug 2007 08:14 pm

The GAO Report On Iraq [hilzoy]

30 Aug 2007 04:15 pm

The Problem With Fredos [Greg]

"I often remind our fellow citizens that we live in the greatest country in the world and that I have lived the American dream. Even my worst days as attorney general have been better than my father's best days."

--from Alberto Gonzales' resignation statement.

Even a determined Gonzales-hater might find this statement somehow poignant, given his family's hardscrabble background. But what Mr. Gonzales evidently fails to understand is that he has diminished our collective American dream, alas. He diminished it by dismissing the Geneva Conventions as "quaint", by allowing a horrific torture policy to take root, by his banana-republic like late night visits to John Ashcroft's hospital room, by ignoring Congressional subpoenas, by authorizing illegal wiretapping programs, by firing qualified United States attorneys in an apparent putsch, and on and on.

Still, I will confess to a measure of sympathy for the man. Much like Harriet Miers, he was so supremely underqualified for his position, so spectacularly beyond his depth, that he should never have been put in such a difficult position. Instead Bush's bovine obsessiveness with loyalty--basic competence be damned-- has focused the brutal kleig-lights of international opprobrium on old friends like Harriet and Alberto. Like Brownie, say, they will become key examples in the history books of the rampant cronyism and incompetence of this Adminstration.

Their legacy thus sealed, one wonders, is Bush even cognizant of how he's effectively besmirched his friends by trying to elevate them to realms they should have never occupied to begin with? I suspect not, as the President's capacity for self-criticism appears somewhere between minute and non-existent. Instead, he's doubtless bitterly nursing his grudges, rankled that Senators like Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer dared to challenge an Attorney General whose sycophancy to the President was so complete as to render the Department of Justice a wholly discredited arm of Government, one where Administration lawyers dutifully genuflected before David Addington and John Yoo's youthful exuberances.

In the end, I suspect Gonzales simply couldn't tolerate the punishing mortification anymore, the spectacle of his gross incompetence playing out so harshly on the national stage. And so he finally summoned up the courage to confront the President, that one time, if only to try and salvage whatever crumbs of dignity he had left, likely pleading with Bush to set him loose. Put differently, his only act of rebellion came at the very end, not on the important issues of the day that so badly sullied our democracy and highest traditions, but because Gonzales could no longer abide a crushing humiliation that had by then become total.

Ironically evincing a smigden of backbone only in a bid to persuade Bush to allow him to move off stage to spare himself further such misery, this belated act of banal self-preservation sadly came far too late. By then our collective American dream had been badly tarnished. Still, if it is part of the price of him leaving, let us allow him to fancifully imagine he is still somehow living his. All told, it's a small price to pay as we begin to clear out the rot left in the wake of this baleful Administration.

(Cross-posted at Belgravia Dispatch)

30 Aug 2007 01:54 pm

What would Barry do? [Jamie]

John Dickerson asks a good question:

We don't have to guess about what Goldwater would do. During the 1964 presidential campaign, he faced almost precisely the same issue. In October, the Goldwater campaign learned that Walter Jenkins, LBJ's closest aide, had been arrested on a "morals charge" in the YMCA bathroom. According to J. William Middendorf's account of that campaign, A Glorious Disaster, Goldwater's aides wanted to use the scandal against Johnson, who was well ahead in the polls. Jenkins was not only a security risk—open to blackmail— but long before he was arrested, there were allegations he'd used his influence with then-Vice President Johnson to get an Air Force general who had been busted on a morals charge reinstated. The Goldwater aides even tried out slogans: "Either way with LBJ." Goldwater insisted that they make no use of it. The story never came up during the campaign.

This may say more about Goldwater's personal decency than it does about his governing philosophy. Jenkins had served in Goldwater's Air Force Reserve Unit, and as Goldwater later wrote, "It was a sad time for Jenkins' wife and children, and I was not about to add to their private sorrow. Winning isn't everything. Some things, like loyalty to friends or lasting principle, are more important." Mitt, you're no Barry Goldwater.

Which reminds me of the best put-down ever in the history of American politics:

30 Aug 2007 01:34 pm

More Poor Policy: Special Designation of Revolutionary Guards

Regular readers of Belgravia Dispatch likely sensed my dismay when the Administration floated that Iran's Revolutionary Guards were going to be declared a foreign terrorist organization. (Actually, a "specially designated global terrorist", seemingly something of a sui generis category born of breezy 'transformationalist diplomacy' that apparently allows the largest branch of a sovereign state's army to be designated a foreign terrorist group. And, yes, in case you're wondering, this doesn't really logically fit into this more established listing of foreign terrorist organizations, which I guess is more "quaint" now).

Beyond the sloppiness, however, the policy itself is unlikely to have any material financial impact on the Guards, but will very likely help dash any meaningful chance of fruitful diplomatic dialogue with the Iranians on issues like the nuclear dossier. As Ray Takeyh explains in yesterday's FT:

...the US has no trade linkages to Iran that it can sever, and European companies are unlikely to adhere to yet another set of American sanctions. Moreover, given the murky and ambiguous nature of the Revolutionary Guards' business enterprises, it is difficult to suggest in a conclusive manner whether a company is really operating on their behalf. As such, the type of information and intelligence that is needed for targeted sanctionsis unlikely to be available.

While the economic ramifications of the new policy will probably be in-adequate, its political impact is likely to be considerable. Past and present Guardsmen permeate Iran's security network. The staff of Ali Larijani, Iran's national security adviser and chief nuclear negotiator, is composed mostly of Revolutionary Guards. Iran's policy toward Iraq and Afghanistan is also under the purview of the Guards.

Despite their attempts to arm and train Iraqi Shia militias and advance Iran's nuclear programme, the Guards have not opposed negotiations with the US. Indeed, it would be inconceivable for talks on the nuclear issue or Iraq to have proceeded without the Guards' approbation. The administration's attempt to coerce and put pressure on this organisation is likely to trigger its antagonism towards further dealings with the US.

So we merrily continue to go down a road where conflict with Iran increasingly looks to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is hugely troublesome, not least because--as Anthony Cordesman has pointed out--the repercussions of such a conflict could be disastrous. Cordesman lists potential Iranian retaliatory moves including (with some tweaks for context/language):

1) Iranian retaliation against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan using Shahab-3 missiles armed with CBR warheads; 2) using proxy groups including...Sadr in Iraq to intensify the insurgency and escalate the attacks against US forces and Iraqi Security Forces; 3) turning the Shi’ite majority in Iraq against the US presence and demanding US forces leave; 4) attacking the US homeland with suicide bombs by proxy groups or delivering CBR weapons to al-Qa’ida to use against the US; 5) using its asymmetric capabilities to attacks US interests in the region including soft targets: e.g. embassies, commercial centers, and American citizens; 6) attacking US naval forces stationed in the Gulf with anti-ship missiles, asymmetric warfare, and mines; 7) attacking Israel with missile attacks possibly with CBR warheads; 8) retaliating against energy targets in the Gulf and temporarily shutting off the flow of oil from the Strait of Hormuz; and 9) stopping all of its oil and gas shipments to increase the price of oil, inflicting damage on the global and US economies.

And yet, as Glenn Greenwald notes, no one really seems particularly alarmed about such a prospective debacle. What to say? I mean, whether on civil liberties issues (as Hilzoy describes to devastating effect here) or on the foreign policy side of things (we all know we're 'surging' now through March '08, don't we, whatever September festivities aside, as this report strongly indicates?), one feels compelled to ask, where is the effective opposition?

I know, I know. Larry Craig has wandering toes, and we're busily chronicling the travails of the blow-dried, bow-tied vigilante class roaming malls off "M" Street. But really, and speaking of "grit" as we've been doing here these past days, what about the abysmal meekness and unseriousness we are manifesting as a nation in refusing to attentively broach any number of issues of critical import to the future direction of this country?

(Cross-posted at Belgravia Dispatch)

30 Aug 2007 11:48 am

In wonderful company [Jamie]

Leon Wieseltier put it best when he referred to Norman Finkelstein--the hysterical, Hezbollah-loving, soon-to-be-late-of DePaul University political science professor--as "poison, he's a disgusting self-hating Jew, he's something you find under a rock." Finkelstein has built a career on defaming Holocaust survivors as greedy liars out to rob noble Swiss bankers, all the while using "I'm Jewish!" as a defense. The wife of the neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier Ernst Zuendel once said, "I feel like a kid in a candy store… Finkelstein is a Jewish David Irving." You get the picture. But if you don't, read Omer Bartov's review of Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry in the New York Times.

Well, it looks like Professor Finkelstein has some company under that rock: Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky and, perhaps more surprising, ostensibly respectable academic figures like Tony Judt and John Mearsheimer, author of the conspiratorial The Israel Lobby.

In June, DePaul University denied Finkelstein tenure. Of course, his defenders are all weeping the tears of those victimized by academic "censorship" (because, as we all know, it's leftists who are "censored" on college campuses). Ultimately, however, it was not Finkelstein's political views--odious as they are--that did him in, but his shoddy scholarship and unprofessional behavior. As DePaul's president wrote at the time, Finkelstein did not  ''honor the obligation'' to ''respect and defend the free inquiry of associates.'' DePaul has canceled Finkelstein's class, but the good professor says he may carry out a "hunger strike" in protest. He'd be doing the world a favor if he did.

These academic heroes have joined an outfit called the "DePaul Academic Freedom Committee," the mission of which is to "preserve academic freedom for our faculty on campus." Ali, Chomsky, Judt and Mearsheimer will be convening a teach-in at DePaul in October to protest on behalf of Finkelstein. Though now lacking an academic perch (DePaul is the third university from which he has been fired) Finkelstein won't be out of a job for long; I imagine the Iranian mullahs, Hizbollah or Hamas would love nothing more than to have an energetic, American Jewish spokesperson to make their respective cases (though perhaps he's more effective advocating for them in an unofficial, unpaid capacity). If they don't come through, Finkelstein can always go climb back under his rock. 

One expects these sorts of theatrics from Ali and Chomsky. But Judt and Mearsheimer have revealed much about themselves--and their intellectual motivations--by choosing to advocate for a Hezbollah propagandist and hero of neo-Nazis.

30 Aug 2007 11:45 am

The Republican Hypocrisy Problem [Steve Clemons]

Toles (c) 2007 The Washington Post. Used by permission of Universal Press Syndicate. All rights reserved.

30 Aug 2007 10:50 am

Not even funny [Jamie]

I'll admit, the New York Post is a guilty pleasure. It's the first paper I buy whenever I'm in the city. Like most of its readers, I take it for what it is, and enjoy it for a few minutes on the subway. It's fun and understands its role as a tabloid, which is to say, it has a sense of humor. One of the best Post headlines was a front-page spread showing Yasir Arafat's grieving wife at his funeral: "THE FAT LADY SINGS."

But New York magazine shows that the Post's coverage of the Larry Craig fiasco--perfect fodder for the tabloid--isn't even funny. You can click on a link in the Post's news story to take their "Are you a gay senator?" test, which just traffics in old stereotypes. "Do you sing show tunes in the car between political events?" it asks. Who's writing their jokes, Carlos Mencia?

A little media analysis: The Post differs from its rival, the Daily News (full disclosure: I've interned at the Daily News), in that it's not just trying to reach New York's working class, but also (if not primarily) its taste-makers, investment bankers, lawyers, media types, that is, professionals working in very, very gay-friendly environments. I imagine this affluent readership would have no problem with some tongue-in-cheek laughs at Larry Craig's expense. But picking on gays in general and doing so in a way that just isn't funny won't endear the Post to the audience it's trying to court.

30 Aug 2007 02:35 am

Uh, No [hilzoy]

30 Aug 2007 02:05 am

Democrats: Grow A Spine [hilzoy]

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

29 Aug 2007 11:30 pm

Katrina: Two Years Later [hilzoy]

29 Aug 2007 04:20 pm

The "Donut Hole" Endorsement [Steve Clemons]

A new, interesting blog -- Wonkosphere -- monitors how much 'buzz' is flying around the blogosphere on the various presidential candidates. Interestingly, Ron Paul places second at the moment behind front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Obama is third.

Chris Dodd runs in seventh place but beats Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Brownback, and Kucinich.  Gravel is not on the list -- and oddly, neither is Joe Biden.

But one must guess that Chris Dodd's "Wonkosphere Ranking" will probably surge given the just announced endorsement of him by the International Associaton of Firefighters.

The most recent analysis of the Dodd endorsement came to me from an observer of unions and politics who has given me permission to quote his comments from a private listserv:

My theory [on the Dodd endorsement]?  It's a case of the Althusserian "absent center" with Dodd as the donut hole. 

The Firefighters don't want to make the "wrong" choice between the three candidate that can win -- Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

They like Edwards like the rest of the movement but don't think he's going to win, and don't want to piss off the Hillary machine. But they also don't want to seem paralyzed and ineffectual.  They want to be players.  So they pseudo-aggressively endorse someone, but don't piss off any of the big three by picking one of them against the other two. 

After Dodd drops out following Iowa or New Hampshire, they see the lay of the land and jump to the likely winner.

Sounds very plausible to me. 

29 Aug 2007 03:01 pm

More Grit [Jamie]

I agree with much of Hilzoy's eloquent essay from 2005, but I don't think the points she raises are mutually exclusive from the ones in the email I posted. In other words, one can oppose the incompetent managing of the Iraq War and still believe that the West lacks "grit" in terms of the greater war against Islamic extremism. I think that's the point my correspondent was trying to raise.

I still don't understand why the email I posted generated such vitriol (judging from the inbox). I imagine it's because people think my correspondent is making an oblique case for remaining in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. But my correspondent makes the explicit point that his message is not about "stay[ing] in Iraq forever," but rather the consequences of a strained, U.S.-U.K. partnership. He too agrees with Hilzoy's critique of Bush. He's concerned about America's image in the world, because he considers it to be an "indispensable nation." It was Madeleine Albright who came up with that appellation. How many Democrats believe this today?

 

Continue reading "More Grit [Jamie]" »

29 Aug 2007 02:54 pm

Tucker's Traumatic Bathroom Experience [Steve Clemons]

I will avoid today discussion of the reasons why so many men chose to look for sex partners in public bathrooms, gyms, and the like over the last few decades.  Most engaged in this kind of sex would probably have preferred socially supported venues for relationship and sexual development -- in the clubs, restaurants, public places galore that the heterosexual world has to walk together, to talk, to hug, to kiss, and to 'do it.'

Andrew Sullivan has much better dexterity with this subject than I do -- but it is disgusting that while so many are now cringing at the thought of gay man having tearoom sex that they are at the same time so obsessive about trying to stop same sex marriage between committed individuals.

Tucker Carlson brought this home in an interview he did yesterday in which he got "bothered" in a public restroom when he was a high school student and then got a buddy and went back to beat up the guy before he was arrested.  To be fair to Carlson, we haven't yet heard whether the "botherer" grabbed Tucker's crotch or just tapped his foot under the stall. 

But Carlson's comment that he chose to beat up the trespasser "after the fact" in a vigilante action says much.

This from Media Matters:

On the August 28 edition of MSBNC Live, hosted by MSNBC general manager Dan Abrams, Tucker Carlson, host of MSNBC's Tucker, asserted, "Having sex in a public men's room is outrageous.

It's also really common. I've been bothered in men's rooms." Carlson continued, "I've been bothered in Georgetown Park," in Washington, D.C., "when I was in high school."

When Abrams asked how Carlson responded to being "bothered," Carlson asserted, "I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and ... hit him against the stall with his head, actually."

Read the full transcript (or watch the video clip) which is pretty disgusting, not just because Tucker Carlson, self-described as "the least anti-gay right-winger you'll ever meet", admits to beating up someone trolling for sex in a public bathroom -- but because Dan Abrams and Joe Scarborough just laugh.

Someone should go look for evidence of the arrest that Tucker Carlson mentions.

-- Steve Clemons

Update:

Tucker Carlson responds:

Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.

Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That's absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn't angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.

Sorry Tucker -- guess I misunderstood the banter and your comments here:

ABRAMS: Tucker, what did you do, by the way? What did you do when he did that? We got to know.

CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and --

ABRAMS: And did what?

CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!

[laughter]

CARLSON: And then the cops came and arrested him. But let me say that I'm the least anti-gay right-winger you'll ever meet --

Tucker -- use your fame and opportunity for influence more wisely.  You conflate your views toward gays with a bad bathroom experience with someone who came on to you.  What lessons do you think you convey in your banter with Scarborough and Abrams?  Vigilanteism is cool. Gays lurk in bathrooms -- watch out! It's OK to assault someone after they have done something inappropriate.

I'm sure you were shocked -- but you turned your opportunity to educate Americans as the "least anti-gay right winger" into frat boy banter.  But thanks for the clarification.

-- Steve Clemons

29 Aug 2007 02:39 pm

Bush's Apocalyptic Rhetoric [Greg]

In President Bush's recent speech to the American Legion he continues to ratchet up the war of words with Iran, notably speaking of the region potentially being under "the shadow of a nuclear holocaust" because of Iran's nuclear program. I find this rhetoric very incendiary, very uneven, very dangerous. Of course, we expect this from the disgraced ideologues surrounding Vice-President Cheney. But I hope people like Bob Gates and Steve Hadley and Josh Bolten have the courage to speak truth to power so that the United States government pursues a policy short of war vis-a-vis Iran. After all, their reputations are on the line if they let this President blunder into a catastrophic conflict with Iran. These are dangerous times, and there are very few individuals tasked with protecting the national interest at the highest levels of government. Here's hoping historical perspective and tempered reason will ultimately prevail among them. The stakes are very high, and we have rarely in our history had an Administration as reckless as this one charged with the public trust. It is time for some of our most senior public servants to finally summon the courage to face down the seeming propulsion to messianism passing as policy-making that has infected this Administration.

(Cross-posted at Belgravia Dispatch)

29 Aug 2007 02:26 pm

This isn't helping [Jamie]

The United States and its ally, the EU, has supposedly been trying to pressure Iran to halt its nuclear development via economic sanctions. So what's this all about?

29 Aug 2007 01:32 pm

The Mullahs crack down on...procrastination [Jamie]

...by blocking facebook. But seriously, while American college kids use it to post drunken party photos and find out who's-hooking-up-with-whom, Iranian students were using it to bring about a democratic revolution. Iran, apparently, fears "that virtual  organizing could help opposition movements."

29 Aug 2007 01:11 pm

The Fall of 1955 [Jamie]

In the fall of 1955, 12 men were arrested in Boise, Idaho for "infamous crimes against nature." Over a decade, it had been alleged, some of the city's most prominent men operated an underworld gay prostitution ring with hundreds of teenage boys. A story in Time, published after the scandal emerged, characterized the feelings of the day : "Boise, Idaho (pop. 50,000), the state capital, is usually thought of as a boisterous, rollicking he-man's town, and home of the rugged Westerner." How shocking, then, that there could be gay people living there. One of the more humane participants in this episode was the chief of the state's Department of Mental Health, who, rather than advocate that the men face jail time, offered that, "One alternative might be to let them form their own society and be left alone."

There's a documentary film about this episode called "The Fall of '55."

Initial claims that over a hundred boys were abused were exaggerated; only four or five boys were involved. But lives were ruined, gay men fled the city, and the sexual witch-hunt left a stamp on the state. Larry Craig is just one of the more public victims of the cultural atmosphere in this country that portrays homosexuality as disgusting and something of which to be ashamed. There are many, silent sufferers like him. You could see his shame in yesterday's press conference, and that the specter of Boise, 1955 has hung over Larry Craig all his life.

29 Aug 2007 01:09 pm

Speaking of Grit....[Greg]

I hadn't planned on posting the below YouTube of Bill Kristol being passionately challenged by a caller during a C-Span show as I think it's several months old (I had only put it over on my site, along with brief commentary). But given Jamie and Hilzoy's discussion about "grit", I found it more relevant, somehow. I guess I'd ask Jamie, and I don't mean this snarkily, is the woman caller in the YouTube not manifesting enough "grit"? Is it wrong of her to plaintively cry: "(p)lease bring my husband home"? Is it wrong of her to emotively complain "we're tired"? Is it wrong of her to challenge Kristol by pointing out that her husband relays supposedly friendly troops we are training and equipping in Iraq then turn around and plant IEDs meant to harm our men behind their backs? Finally, is it wrong of her to say: "(w)e can't want it for them more then they want it for themselves", not least given the ongoing fiasco that is national reconcilation in Iraq, let alone minimal accommodation even, which is a critical prerequisite for any serious progress in Iraq?

I know for a certain middle-aged set stricken by nostalgie for the guts and fortitude and sweat of the bygone days of classical Athens and such (think the ever more amusing VDH, say) not enough "grit" will be shown until we are fire-bombing Isfahan a la Dresden, but I thought Jamie might have a more 'contemporary' outlook, shall we say. Let's show a little more humility around here, no? There are some real sacrifices going on in this country, day in, day out. And I'm afraid very few of us in these cyber-echo chambers are really exemplars of leading the charge in terms of convicingly showcasing "grit", all told.

29 Aug 2007 11:05 am

Impeach. . .Haley Barbour [Steve Clemons]

Americans want a good impeachment, but the will is just not there yet to seriously go after the President or Vice President -- and I think these would be losing propositions in any case. 

But what about Haley Barbour?

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour -- former Chairman of the Republican National Committee -- would be a great exercise in impeachment for the numerous Katrina-related ethics violations and beyond that he has been party to.   Here is the impeachment clause from the Constitution of the State of Mississippi.

Bloomberg's Timothy Burger deserves a Pulitzer for all that he is digging up in the muck of the Haley Barbour administration's contracting decisions in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.  Burger writes on August 15th:

Many Mississippians have benefited from Governor Haley Barbour's efforts to rebuild the state's devastated Gulf Coast in the two years since Hurricane Katrina.

The $15 billion or more in federal aid the former Republican national chairman attracted has reopened casinos and helped residents move to new or repaired homes.

Among the beneficiaries are Barbour's own family and friends, who have earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from hurricane-related business. A nephew, one of two who are lobbyists, saw his fees more than double in the year after his uncle appointed him to a special reconstruction panel.

Federal Bureau of Investigation agents in June raided a company owned by the wife of a third nephew, which maintained federal emergency-management trailers.

Meanwhile, the governor's own former lobbying firm, which he says is still making payments to him, has represented at least four clients with business linked to the recovery.

To take Barbour's ethics blurriness a few notches further, it appears that Barbour has had a Bill Frist like problem of not being blind about what was inside his blind trust. 

According to Burger in an article just out today:

Continue reading "Impeach. . .Haley Barbour [Steve Clemons]" »

29 Aug 2007 10:46 am

Craig and Guilt [Jamie]

A reader compares Larry Craig to former Spokane Mayor Jim West, whose support for anti-gay policies came to haunt him when revelations over his own sexuality hit the papers. PBS's Frontline did a documentary about him, which you can watch here. Our reader writes that rather than feel schadenfreude over Craig's (and West's) downfall, gays--and liberals, more generally--should welcome them into the fold.

I breath the air of freedom because of gays who struggled for rights, and we gays nearly breath the air of equality thanks to our continued persistence. Craig and West were stuck in a place from which they saw no escape and are mortal beings who made mistakes.

I wish the gay community would shelter them from these storms; would extend welcoming arms as I believe our community has always welcomed people; and say to the Christianists: if you will cast him out, then we will take him in (not that Senator Craig will come running to the next Pride event, but it is the gesture and tone that is most important I believe).

It seems to me the Christianists calling for Craig to be tossed overboard are far from their Christian teachings of love, truth, tolerance and acceptance. I had a flash of anger today listening to Mitt Romney say, "He's no longer associated with my campaign, as you can imagine. He resigned just today. And you know, he was one of those who was helping my effort, and I'm sorry to see that he has fallen short."

For political points Mr. Romney is going to dump his friend flat and then thrash him on national television. When Larry needs someone to stand by him the most, Mitt is getting as far away from him as he can.

It was the D.C. thing to do, not the Christian thing to do.

I too feel a strange bit of sympathy for Craig--as I feel sad for any man of his age who has had to live a lie for so long. Like most gay men, I think I can understand what he's going through, but I was an adolescent at the time--not 62. But Craig has only compounded his own misfortune by hurting others. He has a perfectly anti-gay voting record. If he was closeted but didn't use his powers to harm gay people, then there would be cause to sympathize. But Craig now claims that there is a "cloud over Idaho" because of his own alleged attempts to solicit sex in a restroom. How myopic. Craig's own, individual actions do not suddenly cast a pall over his entire state and, more ominously, Craig seems to be implying that to be considered homosexual is to have a "cloud over" one's dignity. It's no surprise that he feels this way.

Craig could have done what Jim McGreevey did and just come out of the closet (but not simultaneously claim that homosexuality was the cause of his ethical wrongdoing). And, of course, Mitt Romney's kicking Craig while he's down is everything we've come to expect from the former Governor with the movie-star good looks who will do and say anything to get elected.

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, my friend Dale Carpenter has more on why, if you don't necessarily feel sympathy for Craig, you ought at least question the police powers used to arrest him.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

28 Aug 2007 11:08 pm

More Grit [hilzoy]

Continue reading "More Grit [hilzoy]" »

28 Aug 2007 09:17 pm

Tallulah's Foot Tapping Under the Stall [Steve Clemons]

Too bad Senator Craig did not read up on the granddaughter of Senator John H. Bankhead, Tallulah Bankhead, who had this to say about her foot-tapping experiences under bathroom stalls:

There was the time she was in Washington for a Democratic Convention honoring her "divine friend, Adlai Stevenson"  . . .And during a long speech by some senator she had to go to the john, but found when she was settled in for the duration that there was no toilet paper at hand. "So I looked down and saw a pair of feet in the next stall. I knocked very politely and said: 'Excuse me, dahling, I don't have any toilet paper. Do you?' And this very proper Yankee voice said: 'No, I don't.' Well, dahling, I had to get back to the podium for Adlai's speech, so I asked her, very politely you understand, 'Excuse me dahling, but do you have any Kleenex?' And this now quite chilly voice said: 'No, I don't.' So I said: 'Well then, dahling, do you happen to have two fives for a ten?'"  (from People Will Talk by John Kobal)

(Ed note: Just learned that an enterprising blogger beat me to the reference by a few hours. . .but still fun.)

28 Aug 2007 05:15 pm

Serious about Syria [Jamie]

Over at contentions, "Rudyard Kipling-lite" Max Boot offers a spirited response to Greg's post below on "Syria Hysteria."

Greg, as Max notes, elides the fact that the NIE report stated that Syria had cracked down on "some" Sunni extremists, certainly not all. Saying that Syria's half-hearted and hardly systematic attempts to arrest Islamic militants on their way to Iraq should relieve us of worry, as Greg seems to state, is a rather selective interpretation of Syria's selective cracking down on extremism. Greg then notes that Syria is providing aid to "non al-Qaeda groups." But since when was supporting non al-Qaeda terrorist groups mutually exclusive from supporting al-Qaeda? Syria has had no problems providing aid to both Hamas (Sunni) and Hizbollah (Shi'a). And, more importantly, if Syria is supporting groups undermining American efforts in Iraq, why should it matter if those groups are formally al-Qaeda affiliated?

Max is right on the crucial point, which is that Syria and Iran have effectively declared war on us. Make of that what you will. But it's not "warmongering" to simply state the fact that two rogue states are themselves complicit in unwarranted acts of warmongering against the United States and a nascent democracy in the Middle East.

28 Aug 2007 01:34 pm

Old Gay Culture vs. New Gay Culture [Jamie]

No, it's not Donna Summer vs. the Scissor Sisters. It's Larry Craig vs. Andrew Sullivan. A reader writes:

Every time there is another "outing" of an openly anti-gay politician, I am surprised that the media are so perplexed.  Is there, in fact, irony that a guy who argues professionally against gay families, is engaging in extra-familial sex with other men?  A gay guy who aligns with the straight folks politically!

I would say, "not at all ironic."  It's merely part of the Death of Gay Culture.  The current political wars are a re-alignment.  It used to be gay vs straight.  But now it's the old gay culture against the new gay culture.  Larry Craig cruises for sex in bathrooms, he's part of the old gay culture.  His lifestyle is threated by gay marriage: more guys sitting at the boarding gate with their husbands means fewer in the airport washroom.  His lifestyle is threated by gays in the military: more sailors with boyfriends on shore means fewer available underneath the dock.  Craig, West, and Haggard are the death throes of the old gay culture, desperately longing for the good old days.

In other words, say goodbye to anonymous cruising and say hello to more weddings. I think there's a limit to this analysis --as men will always be men-- but the the normalization and stabilization of gay life (epitomized by gay marriage) over the past 30 years has only helped gay male culture mature.

Indeed, this scandal could not have arrived at a more opportune moment. The same day that Andrew--who has spent much of his intellectual life advocating for gay marriage, when many in the gay rights movement were trumpeting separatism, the necessity of being "queer," and other such indulgences--gets married, a United States Senator --who has been a loyal foot soldier in the movement to deny gays (perhaps, like himself) civil rights-- is revealed to have allegedly sought out sex with an anonymous man in an airport restroom. Perhaps there is no greater comparison between the stability of being comfortable with who you are and the self-denial and self-hatred of the closet. It's not just the "old" gay culture of anonymous sexual encounters vs. the "new" gay culture of monogamy; it's self-loathing vs. self-affirmation.

You can read Andrew's opus on "The End of Gay Culture," here.

28 Aug 2007 12:05 pm

"Manufacturing Dissent" [Jamie]

Last month at the Jerusalem Film Festival, I caught the anti-Michael Moore documentary "Manufacturing Dissent" (I also caught the sweetly nostalgic "Rocket Science," which you really ought to see, especially if you were a high school debater). The film was produced by two Canadian, self-described liberals, who began as fans of Moore's movies but in the process of investigating his claims, came to see that he is a self-aggrandizing fraud. The movie is not a right-wing hit job by any means, but a meticulous, carefully constructed case that demolishes not just crucial arguments Moore makes, but also the cynicism behind some of his artistic decisions.

You can watch some long excerpts here.

28 Aug 2007 10:00 am

What to Make of the ADL? [Jamie]

In the past, I've defended Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, for what I considered to be unfair attacks on his character and methods. But his behavior in recent weeks--refusing to acknowledge the Armenian genocide, firing his organization's New England head for calling the national ADL's policy "morally indefensible," and then lamely stating that the events which took place during World War I were "tantamount to genocide"--has been unconscionable. Michael Crowley of TNR has been doing some excellent reported work about the cash and influence nexus of the Turkish lobby on Capitol Hill.

For pragmatic reasons, a sense of the Congress resolution acknowledging the Armenian genocide may not be such a great idea. Turkey is an important ally in the Muslim world. Would it really be worth hurting that relationship over a resolution that, however morally just, bears no force? A few weeks ago, however, a legislator told me that if such a resolution really did offend the Turks to the point that they would hamper American military maneuvers out of Incirlik Air Base or by fooling around in Kurdistan, then maybe our relationship with Turkey is not all it's cracked up to be in the first place.

But at the end of the day, these realpolitik considerations should have no bearing on a civic organization committed to humanitarian goals, which is what the ADL claims to be. Yes, it is part of the ADL's mission to defend Israel (and, it bears noting, to debunk Holocaust deniers)--but the ADL is not a mere extension of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Pussyfooting on the existence of the Armenian genocide works against everything for which the ADL claims to stand.

Jewcy, which called for Foxman's dismissal last month, has published a withering cartoon imagining what would happen if a 92-year-old survivor of the Armenian genocide managed to raise $500 million for the ADL.

28 Aug 2007 08:03 am

Syria Hysteria [Greg]

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman recently wrote in the pages of the (pre-Murdoch!) WSJ:

...the Damascus airport is the point of entry into Iraq for most of the suicide bombers who are killing innocent Iraqi citizens and American soldiers, and trying to break America's will in this war. It is therefore time to demand that the Syrian regime stop playing travel agent for al Qaeda in Iraq. When Congress reconvenes next month, we should set aside whatever differences divide us on Iraq and send a clear and unambiguous message to the Syrian regime, as we did last month to the Iranian regime, that the transit of al Qaeda suicide bombers through Syria on their way to Iraq is completely unacceptable, and it must stop.

We in the U.S. government should also begin developing a range of options to consider taking against Damascus International, unless the Syrian government takes appropriate action, and soon. Responsible air carriers should be asked to stop flights into Damascus International, as long as it remains the main terminal of international terror. Despite its use by al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists, the airport continues to be serviced by many major non-U.S. carriers, including Alitalia, Air France, and British Airways. Interrupting the flow of foreign fighters would mean countless fewer suicide bombings in Iraq, and countless fewer innocent people murdered by the barbaric enemy we are fighting there.

At a time when the al Qaeda network in Iraq is already under heavy stress thanks to American and Iraqi military operations, closing off the supply line through which al Qaeda in Iraq is armed with its most deadly weapons--suicide bombers--would be devastating to the terrorists' cause. Simply put, for the U.S. and our Iraqi allies, defeating al Qaeda in Iraq means locking shut Syria's "Open Door" policy to terrorists. It is past time for Syria to do so.

Where to begin? Perhaps the recently published NIE, which states:

Syria has cracked down on some Sunni extremist groups attempting to infiltrate fighters into Iraq through Syria because of threats they pose to Syrian stability, but the IC now assesses that Damascus is providing support to non-AQI groups inside Iraq in a bid to increase Syrian influence.

Well of course the Syrians, like the Saudis, Jordanians, Turks, Iranians, and indeed all of Iraq's neighbors, are going to provide support to Iraqi factions they deem friendly to them. But note the NIE, the most authoritative judgment on national security issues produced by the Government, states explicitly that Syria has "cracked down" on Sunni extremists, and is providing support to non-al Qaeda groups.

But what is most fascinating about Lieberman's zealotry is its sheer ignorance, how devoid of any historical context it is. Does he remember Tom Friedman's "Hama Rules", born of the Hama Massacre? Hafez Assad brutally put down a domestic rebellion of the Muslim Brotherhood back in 1982, as the Alawite ruling elite feared the growth of Sunni extremism in their midst. Indeed, the Alawites in Damascus are not fans of Islamic extremists, because said extremists view the Alawites as heretics. So the notion that Bashar Assad plays "travel agent" to al-Qaeda is just laughable. And regardless, if Damascus International were really the Grand Central Station of al-Qaeda for the entire Middle East, per Lieberman's hysterical accounting, the 'blowback' would likely ultimately prove severe, and Assad's regime could well be toppled (in this Lieberman and al-Qaeda may have common cause).

Continue reading "Syria Hysteria [Greg]" »

28 Aug 2007 07:53 am

Medieval Europe Recognized Civil Unions [Steve Clemons]

Someone send this article to Larry Craig:

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.

Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.

Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize," Tulchin writes in the September issue of the Journal of Modern History. "And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures.

For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term "affrerement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.

In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained.

28 Aug 2007 04:38 am

America in the World? [Steve Clemons]

Give her a break.  It was a tough question.