- Jan 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Feb 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–28
- Mar 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Apr 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- May 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Jun 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Jul 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Aug 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Sep 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Oct 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Nov 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Dec 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
Friday, May 25, 2007
Star Wars Blogathon
Posted by on 5.25.07 @ 6:56PM
It's a cornucopia of geekdom. (Warning: At least one item on that list is non-family-friendly.)
If you're introducing your kid(s) to Star Wars for the first time, don't miss Adam Ross's post on what order to watch the movies in.
Clarification
Posted by on 5.25.07 @ 5:28PM
A couple of readers take issue with my assertion in today's dweeb-out that "U.S. railroads were nationalized in 1970." I was referring to the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, which spawned Amtrak. Under this law, the government took over passenger service from the private railroads. I did not mean to suggest that U.S. railroads were entirely nationalized, and should have been clearer.
McCain Fires Back at Obama
Posted by on 5.25.07 @ 2:08PM
After Mitt Romney and John McCain criticized Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama for their votes against the Iraq funding bill, Obama
issued a response that included the follwing jab at McCain:
"This country is united in our support for our troops, but we also owe them a plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe the course we are on in Iraq is working, but I do not.
"While Senator Obama's two years in the U.S. Senate certainly entitle him to vote against funding our troops, my service and experience combined with conversations with military leaders on the ground in Iraq lead me to believe that we must give this new strategy a chance to succeed because the consequences of failure would be catastrophic to our nation's security.
"By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket."
Ouch!
And good for McCain. This is indicative of a few things.
Clearly, it benefits McCain to pick a fight with a leading Democrat
on his strongest issue with the Republican base at a time when he
is being savaged on immigration. It also provides a bit of a
preview of how Republicans (particularly McCain) can attack Obama's
inexperience. Should be interesting to see how the young Senator
responds.
Blackburn Jumps to Thompson
Posted by on 5.25.07 @ 11:43AM
Any doubts former Sen. Fred Thompson isn't getting into the race have probably flown out the window based on the news this morning that Rep. Marsha Blackburn has jumped off the Mitt Romney Bandwagon and endorsed Thompson. Given that Blackburn is friends with Thompson and from the same state, the endorsement isn't a surprise. But the timing is. Thompson isn't announced yet. This leads us to believe that Blackburn must know something other folks don't. Otherwise, why so publicly go out on a limb and embarrass the Romney camp? According to Romney insiders, Blackburn was slated to help run the "Women for Romney" operation and was in line to be a key national surrogate for the campaign down south. This isn't a huge blow to that campaign by any stretch. But it is an interesting little twist to a race that is getting more interesting by the hour.
Paul Chesser Abroad, Part III
Posted by on 5.25.07 @ 11:35AM
Paul reports this time from a "sleepy haven" near the Vietnamese border.
Valor Unmatched
Posted by on 5.25.07 @ 10:15AM
Jeff Emanuel's story on our site today is the most important story anybody will read in a long, long time. It is the type of story that ought to be on the front page of all the big daily papers. That our major dailies do not see fit to publish stories like this is an indictment of their judgment, their values, and yes, their patriotism. My hat is off to Jeff, and to the four fallen heroes about whom he writes. If you haven't read his article yet, do so, NOW.
Photo to Vote? Oh, yes!
Posted by on 5.25.07 @ 9:53AM
In a case that might make its way to the Supreme Court, the 7th Circuit rightly approved Indiana's requirement that voters must show a photo ID at the polls. I wrote about it today in the Washington Examiner.
Reagan Said Rudy Was 'Crazy'
Posted by on 5.25.07 @ 8:31AM
It appears the Gipper has injected himself into the presidential race from the grave. I picked up a copy of the newly released Reagan Diaries and found the following in an entry from Tuesday, June 14, 1988 :
Bernstein Confirms Brock: The 5:15 a.m. Connection
Posted by on 5.25.07 @ 2:49AM
From Carl Bernstein's new book on Hillary Clinton, as reported in today's page one Washington Post story:
The women who also figured in Bill Clinton's life in Arkansas make a return appearance in the book, most notably Marilyn Jo Jenkins, a power company executive he fell in love with and almost left his wife over, according to Bernstein. Jenkins has been linked to Clinton before -- she was spirited into the governor's mansion at 5:15 a.m. for a final, furtive meeting with him the day he left for Washington to assume the presidency -- but Bernstein's account makes clear her pivotal role.
From David Brock's Troopergate report in the January 1994 American Spectator:
After the presidential election, Bill instructed the troopers to clear women through the outer Secret Service blockade on the street by falsely identifying them as staff, or as cousins of the troopers. Shortly before the Clintons left Little Rock for Washington, Roger Perry said, one of the troopers (whom I also interviewed) told him that he had arranged for the AP&L [Arkansas Power & Light] employee to arrive at the governor's mansion at 5:15 a.m., dressed in a trench coat and a baseball cap at Clinton's instruction. The trooper told Perry he had told the Secret Service that she was "staff coming in very early." Clinton had arranged for the trooper to bring the woman through a basement door, which opened into a game room, where Clinton was waiting. The trooper said he was instructed to stand at the top of the stairs leading from the basement to the main floor of the residence and to alert Clinton if Hillary woke up, according to Perry.
Thompson In Connecticut
Posted by on 5.25.07 @ 12:19AM
Fred Thompson appeared on Thursday night at the Connecticut Republican Party's annual fundraising dinner. He sold out the joint in Stamford, and it sounds like he hit a home run.
Ryan Sager of the New York Sun, who quickly is becoming the lead 2008 campaign reporter -- not a commentator, though he does that on his newly expanded blog space, but a real reporter -- had the initial report first. You can read it here.
According to Thompson advisers, this was intended to be more of a campaign style speech, and is leading into what should be an interesting Virginia Republican event in Richmond next weekend. Party Chairman Ed Gillespie expects to have close to a 1,000 attendees at his event. A real rally by any standards. The Connecticut event had sold more than 700 seats.
Thompson hit on what appear to be core themes to his early foray: national security, lower taxes, smaller, more competetent government, and the need for conservatives rally to the flag and help the Republican Party charge the political hill for victory.
He stumbled at a couple of junctures last night, signs that he's still getting comfortable with his material, which appeared to be written on a few notecards. As with his recent efforts, he seems to be speaking less from a script and more from the heart, all good. But folks should remember that Thompson hasn't been on the campaign trail in close to five years (he chose not to seek re-election in 2002). He's getting his sea legs back.
And judging by recent poll numbers -- Thompson, for example is burying Romney and McCain in Florida -- and straw poll results (he lapped the competition in the Georgia GOP straw poll last weekend), once he shakes the rust off, he will be ready to hop into the primary race.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Homophobia? That's So Gay
Posted by on 5.24.07 @ 8:47PM
Bob Shrum says John Edwards once confessed to being uncomfortable around "those people." Glenn Reynolds is surprised; he writes that "surely Edwards has been around plenty of gay people in his life." Come on, Glenn, that's just a stereotype -- not all high-end hair stylists are gay.
Ben Smith notes some anger at Edwards emanating from the Washington Blade, a gay-oriented newspaper. I find it fascinating that the Blade's managing editor uses the phrase "unsophisticated masses" without a trace of irony.
Re: More Ron Paul
Posted by on 5.24.07 @ 3:44PM
"Blowback," as it's called, is a controversial thesis, but it does explain why Osama bin Laden goes after America and not, say, Switzerland.This is a favorite rhetorical trope of anti-interventionists: If only we had a neutral foreign policy like Switzerland, terrorism would never have come to our shores. But it's simply not true that Switzerland has never suffered an attack by Middle Eastern terrorists. The Swiss were targeted twice in 1970 by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Everyone aboard Swissair Flight 330 was killed by a bomb in the cargo hold. Those aboard Swissair Flight 100 were luckier -- it was merely hijacked, taken to Jordan, and (along with several other planes) blown-up on the ground after being emptied.
Granted, the PFLP is not quite the same as bin Laden; they are nominally a secular, Marxist organization, albeit one that is allied with Islamists in attacks on Israel. But the attacks on Swissair put paid to the naive notion that we can count on terrorists to leave us alone as long we leave them alone.
Laffey 4 Rudy
Posted by on 5.24.07 @ 1:42PM
Giuliani gains another endorsement from a Club for Growth-type conservative, Stephen Laffey, the man best known for his failed primary bid against Lincoln Chafee. Rhode Island obviously isn't a major primary state, and this isn't a huge endorsement, but it's another feather in Rudy's cap as he makes his pitch to fiscal conservatives.
Meanwhile, down in the South, the Giuliani campaign announced a number of endorsements in Georgia, including the speaker of their House of Representatives, Glenn Richardson.
UPDATE: Jonathan Martin notes that even though he isn't in the race, Fred Thompson's roster of Georgia support is deeper.
Bush Like Nails on Chalkboard
Posted by on 5.24.07 @ 1:27PM
I keep wanting to rally around President Bush, both because I think conservatives' fates are tied up with his (whether we like it or even deserve it, or not) and because I think his heart is in the right place.... but listening to President Bush's press conference was (excuse the cliche) like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard. The reasons are numerous. First, he just has an odd way of talking. He has a weird habit of emphasizing random words in the middle of sentences, usually big words, in a way that suggests (pause) that he is not sure if his listeners will understand such a big word unless he brings (pause) it to their attention. It's really annoying.
Second, he continues to misrepresent the immigration debate, and thus lose any chance to attract fence-sitters to his side. Again today, he suggested that the opponents of his immigration plan want us instead to do a massive manhunt and forcibly and quickly deport all 12 millions illegals -- and then says that, well, of course that's an impossible task, which is why his opponents are wrong. But not even the anti-immigration hardliners at National Review have ever suggested doing that. Again and again and again, the mainstream anti-illegal immigration folks have said their preferred option is to get tough on border enforcement and get tougher on employers who hire illegals, and let the rest of the problem work itself over time by mere attrition. That is NOT a massive deportation scheme. For Bush to continue to insist that mass, forced deportation is his opponents' only alternative is like sticking a hot fork in their eyes. And, since a large percentage of them are people who otherwise are among the last holdouts SUPPORTING Bush on other matters, his insult to their motives and their intelligence is particularly ill advised. At the very least, the way to win skeptics is not to mischaracterize the other side's position. (To be clear, I am not an anti-illegal hardliner: I favor the Pence plan, which the National Review folks bashed last year [I still think they misunderstood it] as if it, too, amounted to cheap amnesty -- which it manifestly did not.)
Third, Bush repeats the same, tired talking points about Iraq at every press conference. No matter how the questions about Iraq are phrased, and no matter what the latest news from Iraq is, the president says the same things over and over again. As in, listen to the generals and not the politicians. If they don't fight us there, they'll follow us here. Etcetera etcetera etcetera. He's like a broken record. It's just not effective. It makes people tune him out. Heck, I support the surge in Iraq, yet his broken-recorditis makes ME tune him out. There are plenty of other ways to make the case. He needs to try a few of those other explanations on for size.
Fourth, Bush continues to defend the indefensible Alberto Gonzales. Let's cue up a cheesy Shanie Twain song: Okay, so he's loyal to a friend. That don't impress me much. Even if Bush IS going to stand by Gonzales, the way to do it is not by merely saying that he has "done nothing wrong" (meaning illegal), but instead to try to make a case (it's a tough case to make, by the way), through concrete example, that Gonzales is doing a good job. Furthermore, he continues to dismiss the ongoing investigations as "just political theatre," when the truth is that while political theatre and cheap shots by some Democrats are part of it, there are serious questions about both judgment and competence at issue and it is a president's job to show concern about failures of judgment and competence and to insist that those failures be corrected. By treating the inquiries as a mere nuisance, Bush further corrodes public faith in his commitment to administrative excellence.
Look, Bush delivered on tax cuts. He delivered two good Supreme Court justices (after one very false start) and some good appellate judges. He advocated personal accounts in Social Security, and earlier this year he proposed a very thoughtful new health care plan. He rallied us after 9/11, he overthrew the Taliban, he got rid of Saddam Hussein, he has stood tall for a "culture of life," and he has done other good, conservative things.
But Lord Almighty, the man doesn't learn from mistakes, doesn't hold appointees to high standards, doesn't listen well even to constructive criticism, and hasn't yet learned how and when to take the fight to the Left without quickly retreating behind repetitive platitudes.
We conservatives are left to grieve for what might have been.... or, in the alternative, to redouble our own efforts to promote the conservative principles that Bush either has abandoned or, more often, has failed to adequately explain in public. The question for us isn't whether or not to back Bush, it is whether or not to do the work to carry our own cause. Where Bush is at least trying to support that cause, it then behooves us to carry him along with us as well. As I've said before, quoting Ben Franklin, we shall all hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately.
More Ron Paul
Posted by on 5.24.07 @ 11:40AM
Jim Pinkerton comments on Paul and our Newsmaker Breakfast in his Newsday column today.
Paul Chesser Abroad, Part II
Posted by on 5.24.07 @ 10:35AM
Our man in southeast Asia, Paul Chesser, now in Cambodia, reestablishes contact, from what remains a country seemingly forever in recovery from the Khmer Rouge's ravages.
Useful Reagan
Posted by on 5.24.07 @ 9:53AM
Duncan Currie has a good piece in the Weekly Standard about the uses and misuses of Ronald Reagan.
"Gonzo" and Obama
Posted by on 5.24.07 @ 9:34AM
A few quick AM potshots:
1. Alberto Gonzales isn't fit to wear the moniker Gonzo, however much his tenure as AG may seem too dangerous for mass production and too weird to die;
2. You'd think that all this Turn the Page stuff from Obama would mean a "new" approach to fighting jihadery, but then you get this "a butterfly flaps its wings in China and US vital national interests are at stake" speech, this massive feint toward a "Government's got to move" approach to foreign policy. What gives?
The Obama Generation
Posted by on 5.24.07 @ 8:55AM
I attended a Barack Obama event for young professionals last night held at a trendy lounge in the waterfront area of DC. The event was titled Generation BO and was held at a place called H2O, so there was a certain irony in that. The crowd was more energetic than I've seen it at recent Obama events I've attended, chanting "O-BA-MA!" in anticipation of his entrance. Perhaps that had to do with the age of the audience and the loud, pulsating music. For the most part, Obama stuck to his standard stump speech about replacing cynicism with hope and optimism so we can meet the challenges of our generation: health care, education, energy independence/global warming, and leaving Iraq "so we can start focusing on the real war on terror and ignorance and poverty." A refrain in the speech is it's "time to turn the page," which works well for Obama. I fear that in practice that would mean a de-emphasis on fighting terrorism. Objectively speaking, however, given Bush's low approval ratings, it's clear that the country does want a change, and of the major candidates, he's the most representative of change. The three Republicans have stuck with Bush on the Iraq War, while John Edwards ran in the last election, and Hillary Clinton, well, she's a Clinton.
Joe Carter's Open Letter to Fetal Humans
Posted by on 5.24.07 @ 8:13AM
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Goodling Good; Gonzo Must Go
Posted by on 5.23.07 @ 5:32PM
Former Justice Department official Monica Goodling came across as a straight shooter today in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee -- a straight shooter who got in too deep on the politics of things and lost her way a little, but not with malicious intent. She was very candid today, and she probably deserves donations to the legal defense fund that will belatedly be set up on her behalf.
That said, her testimony again made now-departing Deputy AG Paul McNulty look bad, indeed really bad, as she asserted that his testimony to Congress was (perhaps unintentionally) incomplete and that, despite the story he told, she herself did not mislead HIM when she assisted in the preparation for his testimony. Not only that, but the subtext of her story was that he was a major practitioner of the cover-one's-own-a** school of politics.
But she also told a tale that puts AG Alberto Gonzales in an even worse light than he already has been in. She said that Gonzo, at an inappropriate time, began to tell her about his own recollection of how things went -- in what she characterized as probably an innocent conversation, but one which made her uncomfortable because it could APPEAR that he was indirectly trying to "coach a witness," namely her.
Gonzo already has been shown to be out of touch, incompetent, and, in the case of the hospital-room visit to former AG John Ashcroft, insensitive at the very least. President Bush keeps saying Gonzo should stay because he "hasn't done anything wrong," as if the only test of an AG's fitness is whether or not he broke the law or directly violated an ethics rule. The test of fitness should be higher than that, though. Fitness for office involves competence and good judgment and effectiveness. Gonzo fails on all three counts. DoJ is, by many reports, hobbled by the ongoing brouhaha, and morale is reportedly quite low. The American people cannot be well served under such circumstances.
Here's what Bush should do: He should send an emissary to Sens. Leahy, Kennedy and Schumer and say this: Look, I know you Democrats have threatened to hold up the confirmation of any new AG nominee until we hand over every single thing you demand in terms of e-mails, etc., relating to the US Attorney flap (even though there isn't much left that we haven't already turned over). But I MIGHT be prepared to let Gonzales go, FOR THE GOOD OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, so that we can get DoJ back up and operating at full strength, IF AND ONLY IF you agree not to hold a new nomination hostage to the USAttorney flap. By holding up a new nomination, you would not be harming me; you would be harming the American people. No matter what dispute you have with me, the citizenry deserves a fully staffed, well managed DoJ. If you do NOT tie the two issues together, we can move ahead with fixing what is broken in the department, and you can get another political scalp for your wall.
The Dems should accept that bargain. And, if they are smart, they will not obstruct a new nominee if he is qualified and sufficientily independent from the Bush inner circle or has sufficiently impressive independent qualifications that he can inspire public confidence. Among those who fill that bill are SEC Chairman Chris Cox, former Deputy AG Larry Thompson, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
What Monica Goodling and so many others have described over the course of the past three months is a Department of Justice in circumstances of Keystone Cops writ large. The public is not being well served. Replace Gonzales now!
Straight Razor Shave
Posted by on 5.23.07 @ 5:28PM
I enjoyed this bit over at Gotham City Insider about the joy of a baber shop--find one "run by old men who look like they walked to Brooklyn on their hands from Ellis Island," the insider recommends--straight razor shave. Here's a small excerpt:
Romantic machismo ideas, spaghetti Westerns and various American gangster movies have led a certain group of young men to believe that a shave with a straight razor is a ticket to Valhalla. This is 99% true. It's actually a ticket back to the old world where things meant something; and people took their time. The straight razor shave is, quite simply, a timeless ritual, a classic. Classic like a good hat, a good watch and some good shoes. Classic like holding the door open for a lady, waiting for her to sit down at a table before you eat and buying her moms some flowers.
Well, It Was Covert
Posted by on 5.23.07 @ 3:54PM
The intelligence community really can't keep a secret, can they?
UPDATE: Mitt Romney is upset with ABC. But aren't the leakers, much more than the reporters, the ones who should know better?
Rudy and the Immigration Bill
Posted by on 5.23.07 @ 3:23PM
I'm going back and forth on whether Rudy is "blowing smoke" on the immigration bill or not. On the one hand, as Liz Mair notes, the bill does contain biometric ID cards. It contains a touchback provision. It does provide for some information gathering about who is here. Giuliani has supported past versions of McCain-Kennedy that either did not have such elements or did not go as far as the current bill. Why the concern now, other than politics?
On the other hand, the bill's requirement that criminal/terrorist background checks for Z visa applicants be completed by the next business day does seem to make it easy for people to slip through the cracks. Given that perhaps 40 percent of illegal immigrants actually enter legally but then overstay their visas, there is no guarantee Z visa-holders will even pursue the path to citizenship. Some critics still think the tamper-proof card and employment verification sections are too weak. The security triggers aren't very demanding.
Giuliani could be looking for an excuse to oppose the bill without flip-flopping on earned citizenship. Or he could really be concerned about how tough the security provisions are. It all comes down to technical issues -- which is why Giuliani is emphasizing the bill's complexity.
Freudian Slip Blinders
Posted by on 5.23.07 @ 12:06PM
Why, in an otherwise excellent report that should have appeared on page 1 and not page 12, does today's Washington Post refer to brutes attempting to enforce China's one-child policy as "family planning officials"?
Rudy: Immigration Bill Is A "Hodgepodge"
Posted by on 5.23.07 @ 11:46AM
From the AP:
Meanwhile, Liz Mair, who considers Rudy her preferred candidate, argues that he's just "blowing smoke" by opposing the bill on security grounds.
Romney Rebound?
Posted by on 5.23.07 @ 11:05AM
Byron York tries to get to the bottom of the apparent Mitt Romney surge in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Boehner Calls Immigration Bill Piece of Doo Doo
Posted by on 5.23.07 @ 9:57AM
Okay, that's not exactly what he said, but this is a family-friendly blog. For the adult version, check out Hotline.
Re: Beirut and Paul
Posted by on 5.23.07 @ 9:46AM
Jim, I'm not arguing that Reagan's Lebanon intervention "is a good model for the war on terror." I agree that it was an ill-conceived mission in which Marines essentially became sitting ducks for terrorists, and at the time, withdrawing was the right thing to do. My point is that even in that case, in which there was a broad consensus that we needed to pull out, the act of withdrawing had disastrous long-term consequences. It demonstrated to terrorists that with all our military strength, if they caused some casualties, they could get us to surrender. The Beirut withdrawal (along with our pullout from Somalia) was an important part of the narrative that bin Laden constructed to convince his followers that terrorism works. If Paul is going to cite Reagan's pullout from Lebanon to demonstrate that Reagan came to terms with the irrationality of the Middle East, if he's going to lecture us on how we need to pay more attention to what the terrorists are actually saying, it's only fair to look at the flip side and see what they say when we withdraw. And it's worth keeping in mind as we contemplate what to do in Iraq. The scope of the Iraq intervention is much greater than Lebanon, our commitment of soldiers is much larger, and thus a defeat there is likely to have even more disastrous repercussions. Opponents of the war argue, correctly, I believe, that we went to war without giving enough thought to what would happen once we toppled Saddam. There is a danger now that in their desire to see us wash our hands of Iraq, opponents of the war are not adequately considering the consequences of withdrawal. That is not to say that this should be the ultimate trump card in any argument about what to do with regard to Iraq, but we should seriously be considering the consequences of leaving in the cost-benefit analysis of what to do there. If we can't win, we have to consider ways to make it as little a victory for al Qaeda as possible.
In a broader sense, I'm not arguing that when contemplating military action, we shouldn't consider how it would be perceived by those who live in the region, or whether it could motivate more terrorists than we could eliminate by taking such an action. But Jim is making an argument that's much more rational than Paul's. Paul is an extreme non-interventionist who is arguing that if we go back 50 years and imagine an alternate universe in which America never got involved in the Middle East, we'd be safer today. But that would mean that during the Cold War we would have faced an Iran that would have been controlled by a Soviet-friendly government instead of one friendly to the U.S., it would have meant Soviet domination of the entire Middle East during the Cold War (given that Israel would have been weaker or perhaps even non-existent), and Saddam raking in oil money from Kuwait to fund WMD programs that we know he had in the early 1990s. The world is a complicated, messy place that often forces us to choose between many undesirable options. Paul has the advantage in that his extreme non-interventionism has never been tried, so he can point to problems in the world that are the result of the world being messy and say that if only we had never meddled in the affairs of others, we'd be safe. Saying that we should be more cautious in our foreign interventions is one thing, but Paul thinks we can pretend we're still living in the 19th century.
What R. Paul said Paul W. said
Posted by on 5.23.07 @ 8:08AM
is part of a TCS Daily piece by Gregory Scoblete called "It's OK if
Ron Paul is Right" (published May 18). To wit:
Paul Wolfowitz - hardly a blame-America-firster - defended the removal of Saddam Hussein explicitly on the grounds that it would assuage one of bin Laden's grievances. In an interview with Vanity Fair the former Assistant Defense Secretary said that U.S. forces stationed in Saudi Arabia had "been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina." Wolfowitz was correct, of course...
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
America's Muslims
Posted by on 5.22.07 @ 7:53PM
Here's more on the Pew Poll mentioned earlier. It's mostly good news:
Muslim Americans are far more assimilated and integrated into their adopted country than their counterparts in Europe, according to the first survey conducted of America's 2.4m-strong Muslim community.The survey suggests, by the way, that we should be less worried about Muslim immigrants than about native-born converts. It turns out that in the US, radicalized Muslims are most likely to be young and black.The survey, which was carried out by the Pew Research Center, one of America's most respected polling groups, found that Muslim Americans were just as likely as the rest of the population to agree with quintessential American attitudes about hard work and opportunity.
Seventy-one per cent agreed with the statement that you "can get ahead with hard work", compared with 64 per cent of the population. Forty-two per cent rated their personal financial situation as excellent or good, compared with 49 per cent of Americans in total. Only 2 per cent of US Muslims are in the low-income bracket, compared with 22 per cent in Britain and 18 per cent in France and Germany.
Likewise, Muslim Americans were strikingly in line with the remainder of the US population in their attitude towards Israel, with 61 per cent believing a "way can be found for Israel and Palestinian rights to co-exist" compared with 67 per cent for the American population as a whole. This compared with just 5 per cent in Morocco and 23 per cent in Pakistan.
More Rudy on the Immigration Bill
Posted by on 5.22.07 @ 5:20PM
Here are Giuliani's full remarks on the immigration legislation, which I discussed earlier (via his campaign):
Mayor Rudy Giuliani: My position on the immigration bill is, and I've tried to study it as best I could - it doesn't achieve the purpose that I would like to see it achieve. In order to then decide whether some of the things you like in it have to be balanced against some of the things you don't like, which is after all what you have to do with complex legislation. What it doesn't have in it is a very, very clear statement of purpose - and then a way of executing that purpose. I believe that we have to know everybody who's in the United States…who comes hear from afar - [Applause] And I believe that is, if you make that your goal, that everything else follows from that or everything else leads to that. There should be a tamper - proof ID card, a biometric ID card that everyone who comes here from a foreign country should have. In order to make sure you identify everyone, in order to be secure - I mean the reason to do this is for necessary security. We understand that we can be penetrated now by terrorists. We also understand that drug dealers and other criminals find their way into the United States. But we want to make sure that we either stop that or we keep it to a minimum. In order to accomplish that, you have to have a goal of identifying everybody that comes in here from a foreign country, having their name, their background, their identity, their fingerprints, other identifying data that's not too much to ask, that's not too much to ask of any one single individual who wants to come here. It's what most nations require, and we need to do it. And then we need to set up a database that will contain that information, and you need to have a fence - both physical and technological in order to obtain that information and to stop people from sneaking in who aren't going to be identified. And then we need the border patrol better trained, and I think the resources for that were in the bill but not the first purpose that I was talking about. And then there should be a program by which people who are working can come forward, get identified, get their tamper - proof ID card to be fingerprinted, get in the database, and then we can concentrate our attention on the people who aren't coming forward. Because it's among the people who don't come forward you're going to find the terrorists and the drug dealers and the other criminals that hurt us. If, you know, let's see what happens in the debates that they have now - the Senate has to debate it, the House has to debate it, let's see if they can put something like that in it that ends up giving us more security. The present version of the bill, however, I don't think it accomplishes that.
Re: That Said
Posted by on 5.22.07 @ 4:52PM
Thirteen percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can be justified (same percentage as in Germany). I wonder what exactly these prospective suicide bombers mean by "defending Islam?" Defending Islam from criticism? From editorial cartoons? From those who support Israel? Or do they mean defending Palestinian Muslims from Israeli soldiers? The Pew Poll didn't bother to ask, so we'll never know.
That Said
Posted by on 5.22.07 @ 4:13PM
The number of Muslims living in Western countries -- including younger Muslims in the United States -- who believe suicide terrorism is justified reminds us that occupation isn't everything.
Re: Ron Paul and Me
Posted by on 5.22.07 @ 4:09PM
While Phil is right that our departure from Beirut features prominently in al Qaeda propaganda, I'm not sure that particular intervention is a good model for the war on terror. This was a multinational peacekeeping operation with less than ideal rules of engagement that the State Department favored over the objections of Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who was neither a pacifist nor an isolationist. John McCain was among the supporters of President Reagan's decision to get out.
Of course we can't just give "the terrorists whatever they want." We shouldn't abandon our moral and strategic commitment to Israel's security, for example. I favored ejecting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and routing the Taliban in Afghanistan. But there is nothing wrong with evaluating whether proposed interventions and existing commitments are consistent with our just national interests. Before we deepen our involvement in the Middle East, we should first ask if doing so really enhances our own security.
So far, even some of our successful interventions in the region have come with serious down sides. Moreover, our interactions with the Muslim world are complicated. We anger many Muslims by supporting relatively moderate yet authoritarian regimes, but insisting on democratic elections at the expense of those regimes often ends up increasing the influence of Islamist political parties.
We can't conduct our entire foreign policy so as not to give offense, but neither should we needlessly give offense or fail to make distinctions between parties whose problems with the United States are theological or ideological -- and thus likely beyond peaceful resolution -- and those who have political grievances that can be evaluated in light of our own interests. Maybe a candidate who cites Dennis Kucinich as a kindred spirit on national defense isn't the best person to be making these kinds of distinctions. But at least Paul is starting the debate.
Re: Ron Paul and Me
Posted by on 5.22.07 @ 2:54PM
I asked the question precisely because it gets to the heart of the issues raised in the Klein-Paul exchange. Ron Paul's argument on this, like on a wide range of other points, including immigration and Israel, is plausible and important but so outside the partisan box that we have to be extra patient in sorting out the story. It's critical that we do so because these are critical issues, and papering over them with Guilty America or Kill the Heathens rhetoric will doom us either way. So it was extra refreshing to see this get aired this morning in a serious way.
That said I want to try to summarize the lay of the land as I see it. Paul's position, best stated, holds that (a) suicide bombing is the result of occupation, demonstrated academically by Robert Pape, and (b) once the US clears its army out of Arab Muslim land, the incentive to throw away your life, travel to America, and annihilate yourself in a crowded area will clear out, too.
Now, I've gutted Pape's book for IR class, and I can't say I'm convinced that if Israel pulled out of the Occupied Territories then suicide bombing against Israel would cease. But that's not the issue. Pape himself put it this way in AmCon two years ago, suggesting that the chance of a catastrophic act of terror on US soil
depends not exclusively, but heavily, on how long our combat forces remain in the Persian Gulf. The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack.
This is not a silly or irrational train of thought, and ought to be discussed on the merits. The merits include a conversation about whether or not jihadery is likely to continue because Western soldiers still prop up the Karzai regime in Afghanistan. If so, getting out of "the holy land" or "the Arabian Peninsula" may not be good enough. On the flipside, things have changed so much since 9/11 in the Middle East itself that I'm not persuaded that we can project onto today's would-be terrorists a posture that terrorists of 1998-2001 maintained. It seems obvious to me that removing US soldiers from theater, with the exception of Afghanistan, will significantly lessen regional hatred for the US. Sure, all you need is a handful of guys, but why pump that handful up to a legion? This is an eminently fair foreign policy question.
The broader point I want to make, however, is that no one is arguing that we should exit Iraq "ASAP" (however defined) because we need to give "the terrorists" (however defined) "exactly what they want" as a matter of national security or global justice. All the main arguments for leaving Iraq were laid out pretty cogently by Paul -- (a) waste of money, (b) massive debt burden, (c) mission actually is accomplished, (d) needless casualties, etc. These can and should all be hashed out, but none of them have to do with the opinion, ire, or threat potential of other countries and other people. So the "follow us home question," as I put it this morning, is sort of a last hurdle in the argument. "Even if you are right -- isn't preventing a 9/11 redux worth any effort, particularly one we're already in?" Paul opened himself up to critique by suggesting it's nuts for soldiers to serve as "decoys" for the rest of us -- when in fact this is precisely the purpose of having a military: you send out the decoys, armed to the teeth. The point as it boiled down from where I was sitting was not whether Pape was right that all suicide attacks are the result of occupations but whether we're likely to lower, not increase, the risk of catastrophic terror attacks on the US by exiting Iraq with all deliberate speed and in an orderly fashion.
In that respect, it's careless to say "They hate our freedoms, so they hate us enough to kill us (along with themselves)" insofar as what "they" really hate has precious little to do with the political freedoms of American citizens but the cultural freedom that the US exports and the military freedom that the US has been able to exercise. It's quite fair to say "We shouldn't have let Saddam keep Kuwait," but that fair point doesn't detract or contradict the more accurate and nuanced portrayal of what drives hatred for America. Nor does that nuanced portrayal have anything to do with being "soft" on people who rally to destroy the Great Satan. It simply distinguishes between those people angry enough to kill us in their neighborhood from those angry enough to kill us anywhere, at any time, at their own bodily expense. That's an important difference.
Ron Paul and Me
Posted by on 5.22.07 @ 12:22PM
During the breakfast this morning, I got into an exchange with Ron Paul on the Iraq War and U.S. foreign policy.
It started when James Poulos asked Paul how he would respond to supporters of the war who argue that if we withdraw from Iraq the terrorists will follow us back. Paul described the major flaws in U.S. foreign policy and said suicide terrorism is caused by occupation. Over the course of his answer, he said: "Why bother coming over here looking to kill 3,000 here, when they can pick us off one at a time over there?"
I followed up by asking him whether such a statement, in fact,
confirms the pro-war argument that were we not over there, they'd
attack us here.
"I would say it's a lousy trade off, sort of like taking young men
and putting them out as decoys," Paul said. In answering the
question, he also once again cited Reagan's decision to pull out of
Beirut as recognition that the U.S. shouldn't be involved in the
Middle East.
Because this has been an area of interest for me recently, I pointed out that terrorists have cited the U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon as a motivating factor for them, and used it as a recruitment tool, because it demonstrated that the U.S. was weak and would pull away from the first sight of casualties.
At first, Paul said: "I don't think so, I think it's the fact that we didn't really remove ourselves from the Middle East."
I responded: "But bin Laden specifically cited our withdrawal from Beirut as showing that we're weak and when you show us a few casualties, we'll withdraw." After we went back and forth about what bin Laden actually said, Paul responded:
"Which means if they resist, there are some benefits to it, which is logical. If they resist. But there's no motivation unless we're there, unless there's occupation. This is the way he encourages his people, that he can be successful, which brings common sense to us. I just think we have to deal with it in the context of occupation."
Paul's argument, in essence, is that the terrorism against the U.S. is caused by our involvement in the Middle East and that there's a vicious circle. We meddle in their affairs, which causes terrorism. People say we can't back down and so we respond by meddling in their affairs more, which creates more animosity toward us and leads to more terrorism. He accepts the fact that there may be a short-term increase in terrorism as a result of our withdrawing from the Middle East until we reach the point where we can completely overhaul our foreign policy to remove the central motivating factor for terrorists-our presence in their lands.
My problem with Paul is that I don't believe giving terrorists exactly what they want is a good way to go about discouraging terrorism, nor do I believe that the motivations of the modern Islamist movement are exclusively about U.S presence in the Middle East. They see it as their goal to remake the world according to their definition of pure Islam, and the U.S. will always collide with that vision. The "they hate us for our freedom" argument may have become trite, but it is shorthand for all the aspects of modernity that Islamists see as a threat, and the U.S. is the greatest symbol of them. Also, even if you accept the fact that our policies in the Middle East contribute to terrorism, it doesn't mean that our actions are wrong. It doesn't mean, for instance, that we should have allowed Iraq to annex Kuwait.
In other news, Paul identified Dennis Kucinich as the Democratic candidate he considers himself closest to (allowing for the fact that they have major disagreements on economic policy). He also responded to recent press reports of a statement attributed to him that "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government." Dave Weigel has the details.
Rudy Opposes Immigration Bill
Posted by on 5.22.07 @ 11:04AM
According to the ABC News account:
At an event Monday in New York City, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said he did not support the "present version" of congress' Immigration Bill.
The former New York Mayor said he would like for there to be a system or database that would allow the government to "know everybody who is in the United States, who comes here from a foreign country".
"If you make that your goal then everything follows from that or leads to that," he added. "There should be a tamper proof id card, biometric id card that everyone who comes here from a foreign country should have. In order to make sure you identify everyone, in order to be secure."
Giuliani did hold out hope that through debate in Congress, the proper changes could be made to the bill.
"Let's see what happens in the debates they have now, the Senate
has to debate it, the House as to debate it," said Giuliani. "Let's
see if they can put something like that in, it that ends up giving
us more security. The present version of the bill however ... I
don't think that accomplishes that."
This is the perfect way for Giuliani to handle the sitaution. Opposing this version of the bill on security grounds is a realistic way for him to come out against a piece of legislation that has drawn the ire of the conservative base, without reversing his prior stances on the need for comprehensive reform. This ensures that John McCain will get most of the heat on this issue, and Romney can continue to look silly exploiting this situation by calling amnesty what he not too long ago said was "quite different" from amnesty. This also makes it likely that McCain and Romney will continue to escalate their war of words and makes it easier for Rudy to remain above the fray.
Ron Paul: Call Me A Constitutionalist
Posted by on 5.22.07 @ 10:57AM
Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, has been called many things: conservative, ultraconservative, libertarian. But the label he prefers is constitutionalist.
Speaking at The American Spectator Newsmaker Breakfast this morning, Paul kept coming back to what he described as a pro-Constitution, limited-government, noninterventionist policy. He made the case for himself as the candidate who could unite free-market conservatives and the religious right -- "Their importance has diminished in the last ten years, but they're still very important" -- while leading the GOP back to the foreign-policy traditions of Robert Taft.
Paul defended going off the libertarian reservation on abortion and, to a lesser extent, immigration, though he noted many libertarians agree with his positions on those issues even if the Libertarian Party (which nominated him for president in 1988) does not. He weighed in against the Senate immigration deal (calling it amnesty) and social services for illegal immigrants. He advocated making the Bush tax cuts permanent and "adding to them."
On foreign policy, however, Paul didn't say anything that could be construed as an olive branch to supporters of the war in Iraq. He argued that the Republicans cannot win in 2008 by nominating a pro-war candidate. He did not back down from his exchange with Rudy Giuliani in the South Carolina Republican debate. And he was liberal -- no pun intended -- with the criticism of neoconservatives. Paul discussed his proposal to revisit the authorization of force in Iraq, which he said would put the onus back on Congress without setting up a confrontation with the White House over funding or timetables.
Though a little fuzzy on how it all works, Paul was pleased with the level of enthusiasm his campaign has attracted on the web. He attributed the buzz in part to his strong opposition to federal regulation of the Internet.
Over to you, Phil.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Lawrence Summers for the World Bank
Posted by on 5.21.07 @ 10:18PM
There has been a great deal of speculation on the topic of who President Bush should appoint to replace Paul Wolfowitz as the head of the World Bank. Tony Blair's name has come up frequently. One wonders whether political skills are what is needed.
It has been suggested that, in addition to his romantic entanglement, part of Paul Wolfowitz's problem was that he did not have the professional respect of the financial community needed to help him overcome the entrenched bureaucracy of the World Bank. Tony Blair would avoid the first problem, but not the second.
One man comes to mind as a nearly perfect fit for the World Bank: Lawrence Summers. Larry Summers has been a success as both an academician and as Secretary of the Treasury at the end of the Clinton administration.
Though he was ultimately forced out as president of Harvard University, the trouble he stirred up there was consistent with tough-minded independence and a near immunity to standard issue political correctness.
The recurring theme in Summers' career has been a desire to follow empirical evidence in pursuit of the answers to very specific questions. He is in the top class of today's economists.
To sum up, Summers has the credentials, undeniable bipartisan appeal, and the guts to take on the reform of an international organization ripe for it.
Dems to Blink on Timetables, Reportedly
Posted by on 5.21.07 @ 6:36PM
Predictable but welcome news. They will apparently tie war funds to a minimum wage increase as a face-saving gambit. (I doubt that will impress many on the left; a minimum wage hike could probably pass on its own.)
'The Paleocon American Spectator'
Posted by on 5.21.07 @ 5:15PM
I take it Andrew Sullivan isn't a regular reader.
AmSpec, of course, has a heterodox editorial policy, with no unsigned editorials and articles by neocons, paleocons, libertarians, and everyone in between. But what's especially funny about Andrew's line is that Angelo Codevilla, whose review he links to, isn't a paleocon -- he's among the small crowd (centered mostly around the Claremont Institute) that Norman Podhoretz has termed the "superhawks." For someone who sees his mission as identifying and saving the "Conservative Soul," Andrew has an embarrassingly weak grasp of the contours of the debates that divide the Right.
Brave But Doomed
Posted by on 5.21.07 @ 4:27PM
I love Paul Sands' mini-review of 28 Weeks Later as much as his take on Reihan Salam's exuberant even-smaller-review of the same film:
And your mileage may vary; Reihan Salam, for example, deemed it "one of the best movies I've ever seen, and certainly the best I've seen in a long while." He goes on (accurately enough) about the acting talent, but it seems to me the acting here runs the limited range between (a) terrified and (b) incredibly pissed off, with one small foray into (c) brave but doomed.
For my part, I, like Sands, enjoyed the first installment a good bit more, although the first ten minutes of the sequel had me convinced it was going to be a grand morality tale about trying to live with the consequences of cowardice in extreme circumstances. Ten beautiful, chaotic minutes, those were. Alas, it didn't pan out and it seems as if the bigger budget edged the story away from the characters and towards the pyrotechnics, but, all in all, not a bad film.
RE: McCain Blasts Romney
Posted by on 5.21.07 @ 2:36PM
I don't understand the McCain camp's insistence on focusing on the candidate behind them in most polls rather than the candidate ahead of them in most polls.
Zakaria's Lessons For The GOP
Posted by on 5.21.07 @ 2:35PM
The trouble with Zakaria's column is that he doesn't acknowledge the obvious: The 1986 Reagan amnesty failed to reduce illegal immigration. So did the six subsequent targeted amnesties, most recently the Section 245(i) rolling amnesty of 2000 that legalized nearly a million people. So have any number of sector-specific guest-worker programs adopted since the 1980s.
These facts, rather than a wave of hysteria, might have something to do with the "transformation" of the Republican Party on this issue. Maybe the consequences of the Senate bill will be different, but you don't have to be Tom Tancredo to be skeptical.
Rudy, Illegals, and the GOP
Posted by on 5.21.07 @ 1:33PM
Surprised by Rudy Giuliani's pregnant silence on the comprehensive immigration bill? Ryan Sager, reacting to Mark Levin's post, tries to get the ball rolling. Political problem is -- Rudy's pro-immigration views are likely to get him into hotter water with today's conservatives than his pro-choice views already have. Last week he demonstrated he can escape the worst of the latter conundrum. In coming weeks, he will have to find a way to pull off an even more impressive stunt, and not just for his own good. A Republican Party that becomes synonymous with closed borders and Romney-like raids on illegal workplaces will doom itself to political extinction. One doesn't have to be as snootily sanctimonious as Fareed Zakaria is in today's Washington Post and this week's Newsweek to understand that on the basic economic issue, he has an irrefutable point.
McCain Blasts Romney
Posted by on 5.21.07 @ 1:21PM
John McCain escalated his war of words with Mitt Romney, ripping his rival for flip-flopping on the immigration issue.
Asked by Ryan Sager Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson using the immigration issue against him, McCain said he was "disappointed" in Thompson, but reserved his harshest comments for Romney.
"In the case of Governor Romney, maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes, because it's changed in less than a year from his position a year before, and maybe his solution will be to get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn."
Romney, of course, once called a similar McCain proposal "quite different" from amnesty, and now says the current legislation is amnesty.
With that said, I think this rhetorical battle is a win for Romney, because it cements Romney's status in the top tier of candidates: McCain wouldn't waste his time ripping Huckabee. It's also interesting that Rudy Giuliani remains largely immune from this infighting. Some of that, I think, is based on a mistaken belief in the McCain and Romney camps that Rudy will implode by himself so they really need to worry about each other. But a lot of it is by design--a result of Giuliani staying above the fray and avoiding taking shots at his rivals, something which he has the luxury to do as the frontrunner. That may be one reason why he hasn't come out with a clear position on whether he supports or opposes the current legislation.
Premium Lott
Posted by on 5.21.07 @ 12:51PM
Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there? Not according to Sen. Trent Lott.
McCain on Cornyn
Posted by on 5.21.07 @ 12:41PM
On a blogger conference call, John McCain just said of his dispute with John Cornyn: "The exchange was a bit exaggerated...Sometimes we have tough issues, and sometimes we are very frank with each other." Says he wish it could have been seen on YouTube so people could see that it has been overblown.
Just A Town's Name
Posted by on 5.21.07 @ 11:50AM
In a story on Al Gore's new book over at ABC News, Jake Tapper writes, "Gore has written an un-nostalgic look back at the previous six years that lays out his case as to how the world might look today had the chads fallen another way--a world where U.S. troops would not be fighting in Iraq, Abu Ghraib would just be a town's name and the nation would have been better prepared for Hurricane Katrina, global warming, and, yes, perhaps even Sept. 11."
The items on this laundry list that aren't ludicrous are, of course, open to extensive debate, save one which is just completely factually inaccurate: Sans Operation Iraqi Freedom Abu Ghraib most certainly would not "just be a town's name," as the video available at this location makes abundantly clear. Long before U.S. forces arrived Abu Ghraib prison was the scene of bizarre torture and mass executions. It was even the rumored home of Saddam Hussein's human being wood-chipper. None of this excuses the early excesses of American interrogators there or even necessarily argues in favor of the invasion, but since Tapper is fawning over a book called The Assault on Reason, which accuses a good deal of the country of living in a fact-denying fantasy haze, he might want to, you know, get some of the facts right himself.
Carter's Concession
Posted by on 5.21.07 @ 11:05AM
This is at least the second time I'm aware of that Jimmy Carter has attacked President Bush in strong terms and then backed off. At this late date, does he not understand the meaning of "on the record"?
The First Values Voter
Posted by on 5.21.07 @ 10:19AM
In the Weekly Standard, Jeff Bell explains the realignment of evangelicals toward the GOP between 1976 and 1980, with an emphasis on Jerry Falwell's role.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Fred's War Study Op-Ed
Posted by on 5.20.07 @ 11:39AM
In light of all this Ron Paul/Rudy Giuliani business, Fred Thompson's recent op-ed on returning military history to college curricula deserves contemplation and comment. What can stuyding war tell us about fighting it? When is it patriotic -- prudent -- proper -- to avoid war? And what does Victor Davis Hanson -- who Thompson cites approvingly as one of his favorite historians -- have to do with all this? I have extended thoughts here.
- Current Wisdom
- The Continuing Crisis
- Progressive Derangements
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
