Clothes Got Too Tight

"Wardrobe malfunction". Sure, whatever you say.
Was any consideration given to "Dance-related disrobing activities"?

Two Kids Get Married, Same Old Thing

Frank Rich's column in the New York Times today was, well, awesome. His topic was marriage, and the popular culture surrounding the institution. After noting that the Super Bowl will feature adds about a number of products to deal with a certain, ah, "dysfunction", and also noting the recently proposed Federal government efforts to encourage marriage, he gets to the heart of the matter. Using different Diane Sawyer interviews, he points out how our popular culture may be warped these days, with respect to its priorities, and its ideals, about marriage.

Recently, Howard Dean found it necessary to subject himself and his wife to an interview with Diane Sawyer. As Mr. Rich noted:

Though I have no vested interest in Howard Dean, it was refreshing that he initially refrained from using his wife as a prop on the campaign trail. ... The Deans didn't want their marriage to be a proto-feminist, anti-feminist or even "Everybody Loves Raymond" role model. They simply refused to pose for the contrived and usually fictionalized marital snapshots that the political press demands and then analyzes to death.

Mr. Rich pointed out how, despite attempts by Ms. Sawyer, the network, and everybody else to draw a comparison, the Deans' interview was the exact opposite of the one the Clintons did after the Super Bowl twelve years ago:

But the Deans were not defending themselves against charges of marital turbulence and infidelity. Quite the contrary: they were defending themselves against charges of having a marriage that was if anything too deficient in the melodrama that might lend it entertainment value and too private to be repackaged as a circus.

The icing on the wedding cake, as it were, was Mr. Rich's contrasting of that interview, with one conducted by the same Ms. Sawyer with Trista Rehn ("The Bachelorette") and her husband who won the television contest, and her hand in marriage:

Yet neither the $1 million cash nor the $4 million ceremony that sealed their marital contract were mentioned when Trista and Ryan were interviewed by Ms. Sawyer on "Good Morning America." While the Deans were treated like freaks, the stars of "The Bachelorette" were treated as a perfectly normal all-American couple. And perhaps these days they are.

Well, here's to all those boring couples out there, who share their lives together while remaining individuals. Ain't love grand?

Took a Wrong Turn and Just Kept Going

Not to be incautious or anything, but perhaps there should be more investigation into how the current Administration's priorities, as it took office, could have contributed to our nation's vulnerability on September 11. A comment in Daily Kos pointed to an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, entitled "The Pros From Dover", which addresses this issue:"Three years into the Bush administration, in spite of a host of developments in the national security realm, there has yet to be any serious inquiry into its methods of policymaking and their impact on American security. That inquiry is overdue." It summarizes what has been discussed, about the possible neglect of Clinton administration anti-terrorism efforts, the apparent shifting of focus to Iraq and to changing relations with Russia and the rest of Europe, and the parallel intelligence analysis conducted under the Vice President. It concludes with this disturbing thought:

The truth about 9/11 is one of two things. Either Rice’s NSC machinery did not work, or else it worked perfectly to ensure that what Bush and his cohorts considered a marginal issue like terrorism did not clutter up the schedule of a president intent on another agenda--transforming America’s relationships with traditional allies and former enemies. Either of these conclusions is disturbing. Once the Iraq war is factored into the equation the outlook is even more troubling. Again the NSC machinery operated in a fashion to prevent important objections or alternative policies from coming to the fore. U.S. policy going into the Iraq war was indifferent to alliance politics, to failures to attain needed U.N. approval, to U.S. military objections that the war plan was inadequate, to intelligence warnings that war would be succeeded by guerrilla resistance, to global public opinion, to international disarmament monitors who failed to turn up evidence supporting the Bush rationale for war, and more.

Read the whole thing. It's important to find out what really happened.

The Catholic Traffic

Anybody who is a Catholic, thinks he is a Catholic, knows a Catholic or knows what a Catholic should be like, has a wonderful new topic of conversation: "The Passion According to Mel Gibson" (or whatever it's called). On the internet, in particular, there has been, and no doubt will continue to be, much posting and cross-posting on this issue (See Ut Unum Sint, in my reading list, for an excellent ongoing survey of the debate). As many have pointed out, the movie is clearly not a line-by-line retelling of the Passion narrative in the Gospels. As Richard Ostling wrote recently:

A recent viewing of the film’s nearly final cut showed why people are reacting so dramatically. It is not just that the passion was filmed, although the story has long been a delicate subject between Jews and Christians, and among Christians themselves. It’s the elaborate rendering of Christ in agony that is at the core of the reactions. Gibson’s vision is intensely violent. The depiction is close enough to the literal Gospel accounts to upset liberals, yet with imaginative additions that might trouble some biblical purists. While the film is not a collective attack upon Jews, the handling of some Jewish characters seems bound to spark still more protest.

The additions to the story seem to have come originally from a book of meditations by Anne Catherine Emmerich (and which can be read online at this link). It appears that Mr. Gibson did not heed the cautionary note at the start of that book:"The following meditations will probably rank high among many similar works which the contemplative love of Jesus has produced; but it is our duty here plainly to affirm that they have no pretensions whatever to be regarded as history." And, I think that is why there is such "passion" (sorry) surrounding the release of this movie. People familiar with the Gospel narratives ought to be bothered by the additions; people unfamiliar will be given an inaccurate picture.

Compounding the problem has been the shameful attempt by the production company to claim some sort of official "Papal Approval" for their version of the Passion narrative. "It is as it was", according to them, was the "boffo rave" of the Pope upon viewing the movie. Look, even if he said that, nobody ever explained how that is a "rave", or what the context was of the remark. It certainly does not constitute any sort of absolution for the film, if the movie contains scenes which exaggerate Jewish responsibility for the Crucifixion. Then, to add insult to injury, journalist Peggy Noonan, in her attempt to explain how she was part of this "Popish Plot", writes that the Vatican should clarify exactly what the Pope feels about the film:

The answer to that question is important for several reasons. The truth matters. What a pope says matters. And what this pontiff says about this film matters. "The Passion," which is to open on Feb. 25, has been the focus of an intense critical onslaught since last summer. The film has been fiercely denounced as anti-Semitic, and accused of perpetuating stereotypes that will fan hatred against Jews. John Paul II has a long personal and professional history of opposing anti-Semitism, of working against it, and of calling for dialogue, respect and reconciliation between all religions. His comments here would have great importance.

These are people who didn't give a darn about the Pope's position on preemptive war in Iraq, and now they say that what's really needed is his movie review. Please, people, give it a rest.

There are already guidelines for evaluating dramatizations of the Passion. The Catholic Bishops of the United States issued one in 1988, noting that in light of past abuses and blame of the Jews, "It is all the more important, then, that extra liturgical depictions of the sacred mysteries conform to the highest possible standards of biblical interpretation and theological sensitivity." And anybody who doesn't want to work through the language of the Bishops' guidelines can find other sources, such as a study guide from the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College. As noted in that guide, "We have a responsibility to be informed and to consider the larger picture in which the Passion is presented. Anti-Jewish images and slogans born in by-gone Passion portrayals are still used to slander Israel and the Jews. Therefore, every presenter of the story must be alert to its potential for doing 'collateral damage.'"

The movie's producers and backers will try to claim that any criticism of their work is motivated by anti-Christian bias. It's important that such claims be shown to be false.

[Update: Another Catholic League missive purporting to know the true motives of anybody who criticizes the film. And for what it's worth, while the Catholic League may be "affiliated with the Catholic Church", as discussed in the linked press release, some people may get the impression that "affiliated" is the same thing as "representing" the Church. It is an organization of people who are Catholics, expressing a particular point of view; they have every right to do that. Any other Catholics also have the right to express their views, whether individually or as part of a larger organization. The League, or any individual representing the League, is not an official voice of the Church, however. So, disagreeing with the League's opinion about something isn't necessarily "wrong", and it certainly isn't "anti-Catholic".]

He Walks These Empty Rooms Looking for Something to Blame

David Kay is the recently-resigned chief hunter of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. After wandering through Baghdad and environs, Dr. Kay has concluded that it was more of a snipe hunt, than one for anything actually there. His comments, and the implications of that admission, are being discussed all over the place. One thought that I have in all this, is regarding his attempt to fix blame. As reported concerning Dr. Kay's NPR Interview:

U.S. intelligence agencies need to explain why their research indicated that Iraq possessed banned weapons before the American-led invasion, says the outgoing top U.S. inspector, who now thinks Saddam Hussein had no such arms.

"I don't think they exist," David Kay said yesterday. "The fact that we found so far the weapons do not exist, we've got to deal with that difference and understand why."
…

Asked whether President Bush owed the nation an explanation for the gap between his warnings on banned weapons in Iraq and Mr. Kay's findings, the inspector said: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president, rather than the president owing the American people."

But, just two weeks ago we were reading Kenneth Pollock's discussion of how we were fooled on the existence or extent of these weapons. As Mr. Pollock stated:

"The intelligence community's overestimation of Iraq's WMD capability is only part of the story of why we went to war last year. The other part involves how the Bush Administration handled the intelligence."

The analysts were being honest, and accurate, in their assessments, but it was the politicians in the Administration who were filtering and spinning in order to build a case for invasion:

"The Administration gave greatest credence to accounts that presented the most lurid picture of Iraqi activities. In many cases intelligence analysts were distrustful of those sources, or knew unequivocally that they were wrong. But when they said so, they were not heeded; instead they were beset with further questions about their own sources."

People, especially those in the press, have to challenge the "blame the analysts" claims of Dr. Kay, or any other Administration official. There should be no question that the blame lies with those who wanted a war, no matter what.

Update on 1/28/04: At least Senator Kennedy, during Dr. Kay's committee testimony, has asked about intelligence assessments which did "get it right", and about statements from intelligence officials that the Administration only wanted evidence which supported its plans. There should be more of this information brought out.

And Senator Warner kept trying to get Dr. Kay to say that Saddam Hussein was an "imminent threat". If that wasn't what the Administration's claim was, why would Senator Warner care about trying to put those words in Dr. Kay's mouth?

Your Book With All Your Fears

The NYT has a review of the new book by Richard Perle and David Frum. Please read for yourself, but as for me, I loved the last line:

Such contradictions, combined with the volume's bullying tone and often specious reasoning, make for a strident, sophistical book, one unlikely to persuade anyone who doesn't already share the authors' super-hawkish views and self-righteous braggadocio.

Thanks to No More Mister Nice Blog for the link to the NYT review, although he declined to include the really "good" quotes, such as the one above. There are also a lot of scary quotes from the book, including the following:

Of critics of the Patriot Act, they warn, "We may be so eager to protect the right to dissent that we lose sight of the difference between dissent and subversion; so determined to defend the right of privacy that we refuse to acknowledge even the most blatant warnings of danger."

So, then, in order to save America, we must be less like the America that people want. Is it me, or is this a little scary to hear from influential government advisors?

When It's All an Old Black and White Movie ...

I just realized that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, and for a rationale for the Iraq War, is really the plot of The Maltese Falcon. Sam Spade has to solve the mystery of the murder of his partner, but before he can do that, he instead becomes involved with the hunt for the elusive "Black Bird". He allies with, and takes action against, various unsavory foreign types. In the end, he finally has the "bird" in his hand. Instead of containing a fortune in jewels beneath its exterior, however, it turns out that the bird is worthless. "Fake! It's a phony! It-it's lead! It's lead! It's a fake!" shouts the most unsavory of the foreigners, the "Fat Man". After the unsavory types have left, and the real killer is unmasked, Sam Spade cradles the bird in his arms, and when asked what it is, he replies: "The, uh, stuff that dreams are made of."

I don't know if the current movie will have as tidy an ending.

On that Execution Line

Now my waitin's over
As the final hour drags by
I ain't about to tell you
That I don't deserve to die
But there's twenty-seven men here
Mostly black, brown and poor
Most of em are guilty
Who are you to say for sure?
(Steve Earle, Billy Austin)

New Jersey Governor McGreevey has vetoed a bill (one that passed overwhelmingly and with bipartisan support in both houses of the Legislature) which would have established a commission to study the application of the death penalty in New Jersey. He did so despite said bipartisan support for the measure, and the additional urgings of other elected officials and the general public. He unfortunately ignored the Legislature's findings, as contained in the bill as passed:

1. The Legislature finds and declares that:

a. Life is the most valuable possession of a human being; the State should exercise utmost care to protect its residents' lives from homicide, accident, or arbitrary or wrongful taking by the State;

b. The experience of this State with the death penalty has been characterized by significant expenditures of money and time;

c. The financial costs of attempting to implement the death penalty statutes may not be justifiable in light of the other needs of this State;

d. There is a lack of any meaningful procedure to ensure uniform application of the death penalty in each county throughout the State;

e. There is public concern that racial and socio-economic factors influence the decisions to seek or impose the death penalty;

f. There has been increasing public awareness of cases of individuals wrongfully convicted of murder, in New Jersey and elsewhere in the nation;

g. The Legislature is troubled that the possibility of mistake in the death penalty process may undermine public confidence in our criminal justice system;

h. The execution of an innocent person by the State of New Jersey would be a grave and irreversible injustice;

i. Many citizens may favor life in prison without parole or life in prison without parole with restitution to the victims as alternatives to the death penalty; and

j. In order for the State to protect its moral and ethical integrity, the State must ensure a justice system which is impartial, uncorrupted, equitable, competent, and in line with evolving standards of decency.

In order to take action in light of these findings, the bill would have created a commission to address these concerns. As set forth in the Statement accompanying the bill:

Under the bill, the commission is charged with studying all aspects of the death penalty as it is currently administered in this State. Issues the commission must consider include: (1) whether the death penalty rationally serves a legitimate penological intent, such as deterrence; (2) whether there is a significant difference between the cost of the death penalty from indictment to execution and the cost of life in prison without parole; (3) whether the death penalty is consistent with evolving standards of decency; (4) whether the selection of defendants in New Jersey for capital trials is arbitrary, unfair or discriminatory and if there is unfair, arbitrary, or discriminatory variability in the sentencing phase or at any stage of the process; (5) whether there is a significant difference in the crimes of those selected for the punishment of death as opposed to those who receive life in prison; (6) whether the penological interest in executing certain persons found guilty of murder is sufficiently compelling that the risk of an irreversible mistake is acceptable; and (7) whether alternatives to the death penalty exist that would sufficiently ensure public safety and address other legitimate social and penological interests, including the interests of victims' families.

These should be basic questions, which anybody would want to see addressed, in order to be comfortable with the need for capital punishment in twenty-first century America. Nevertheless, as reported in the press:

The Legislature agreed to the study commission, which death penalty opponents had sought for years. The commission was to determine if the death penalty is applied fairly, how much it costs, if it is a deterrent to crime and if it should be outlawed.

McGreevey said the proposed study was unlikely to provide any new information.

"New Jersey's death penalty law has been continuously studied in painstaking detail since its 1982 enactment, by the courts, academics, attorneys and interest groups, including anti-death penalty advocates who ably assist defendants in capital cases," McGreevey said.

So, on that basis, the Governor rejected an attempt to determine the fairness or efficacy of capital punishment in this state.

So when the preacher comes to get me
And they shave off all my hair
Could you take that long walk with me
Knowing hell is waitin' there
Could you pull that switch yourself sir
With a sure and steady hand
Could you still tell youself
That you're better than I am

You've Been Fooled This Time, That's a Fact

From perusing Sursum Corda, I learned about Kenneth Pollock's new article in the Atlantic Monthly. That's right, Mr. "Gathering Storm" writes on how we were fooled. Excerpts:

The intelligence community's overestimation of Iraq's WMD capability is only part of the story of why we went to war last year. The other part involves how the Bush Administration handled the intelligence. Throughout the spring and fall of 2002 and well into 2003 I received numerous complaints from friends and colleagues in the intelligence community, and from people in the policy community, about precisely that. According to them, many Administration officials reacted strongly, negatively, and aggressively when presented with information or analysis that contradicted what they already believed about Iraq. Many of these officials believed that Saddam Hussein was the source of virtually all the problems in the Middle East and was an imminent danger to the United States because of his perceived possession of weapons of mass destruction and support of terrorism. Many also believed that CIA analysts tended to be left-leaning cultural relativists who consistently downplayed threats to the United States. They believed that the Agency, not the Administration, was biased, and that they were acting simply to correct that bias.

Intelligence officers who presented analyses that were at odds with the pre-existing views of senior Administration officials were subjected to barrages of questions and requests for additional information. They were asked to justify their work sentence by sentence: "Why did you rely on this source and not this other piece of information?" "How does this conclusion square with this other point?" "Please explain the history of Iraq's association with the organization you mention in this sentence." Reportedly, the worst fights were those over sources. The Administration gave greatest credence to accounts that presented the most lurid picture of Iraqi activities. In many cases intelligence analysts were distrustful of those sources, or knew unequivocally that they were wrong. But when they said so, they were not heeded; instead they were beset with further questions about their own sources.

On many occasions Administration officials' requests for additional information struck the analysts as being made merely to distract them from their primary mission. Some officials asked for extensive historical analyses—a hugely time-consuming undertaking, for which most intelligence analysts are not trained. Requests were constantly made for detailed analyses of newspaper articles that conformed to the views of Administration officials—pieces by conservative newspaper columnists such as Jim Hoagland, William Safire, and George F. Will. These columnists may be highly intelligent men, but they have no claim to superior insight into the workings of Iraq, or to any independent intelligence-collection capabilities.

And that, boys and girls, is where "preemptive" wars come from.

And when you realize how they tricked you this time ...

So, what left-wing America hater penned this?

In the wake of the September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States, the U.S. Government declared a global war on terrorism (GWOT). The nature and parameters of that war, however, remain frustratingly unclear. The administration has postulated a multiplicity of enemies, including rogue states; weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators; terrorist organizations of global, regional, and national scope; and terrorism itself. It also seems to have conflated them into a monolithic threat, and in so doing has subordinated strategic clarity to the moral clarity it strives for in foreign policy and may have set the United States on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and nonstate entities that pose no serious threat to the United States.

Of particular concern has been the conflation of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat. This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level, and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda. The war against Iraq was not integral to the GWOT, but rather a detour from it.

Additionally, most of the GWOT’s declared objectives, which include the destruction of al-Qaeda and other transnational terrorist organizations, the transformation of Iraq into a prosperous, stable democracy, the democratization of the rest of the autocratic Middle East, the eradication of terrorism as a means of irregular warfare, and the (forcible, if necessary) termination of WMD proliferation to real and potential enemies worldwide, are unrealistic and condemn the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security. As such, the GWOT’s goals are also politically, fiscally, and militarily unsustainable. Accordingly, the GWOT must be recalibrated to conform to concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American power.

Why, it's Dr. Jeffrey Record of the Army War College, in a new report assessing the War on Terror. The complete report can be accessed at this link.

That Equipment You Got's So Outdated

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has released its report on Iraq's WMDs. You can obtain the report at this link, or just read the summary here. The short version: There are no WMDs.

Iraq's nuclear program had been suspended for many years; Iraq focused on preserving a latent, dual-use chemical and probably biological weapons capability, not weapons production.

Iraqi nerve agents had lost most of their lethality as early as 1991.

Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, and UN inspections and sanctions effectively destroyed Iraq's large-scale chemical weapon production capabilities.

The report also has other recommendations and findings which hopefully somebody in authority in the US will take to heart:.

Revise the National Security Strategy to eliminate a U.S. policy of unilateral preventive war, i.e., preemptive war in absence of imminent threat.
...

There were at least two options preferable to a war undertaken without international support: allowing the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections to continue until obstructed or completed, or imposing a tougher program of "coercive inspections.

Sounds a lot like one of my favorite thinkers on war and peace.

There is no Keyser Soze!

David Brooks has hastened to reassure us that there is nothing to worry about. In today's column, he chides those who listen to "ludicrous stories" which talk "about how Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Bill Kristol and a bunch of 'neoconservatives' … had taken over U.S. foreign policy." (Actually, the point of Mr. Brooks' column may just be to set up a handy rejoinder the next time someone criticizes Administration policy, since he also writes: "con is short for 'conservative' and neo is short for 'Jewish'.")

But, in any event, Mr. Brooks wants to make it clear that, despite what you may have heard:

In truth, the people labeled neocons … travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another. The ones outside government have almost no contact with President Bush. There have been hundreds of references, for example, to Richard Perle's insidious power over administration policy, but I've been told by senior administration officials that he has had no significant meetings with Bush or Cheney since they assumed office. into their fillings.

Of course, Mr. Perle would probably be the first to argue with Mr. Brooks, about how important he was, and may still be. He has a delightful new book out, described by the American Enterprise Institute as follows:

An End to Evil charts the agenda for what's next in the war on terrorism, as articulated by David Frum, former presidential speechwriter and bestselling author of The Right Man, and Richard Perle, former assistant secretary of defense and one of the most influential foreign-policy leaders in Washington.

An End to Evil will define the conservative point of view on foreign policy for a new generation--and shape the agenda for the 2004 presidential-election year and beyond. With a keen insiders' perspective on how our leaders are confronting--or not confronting--the war on terrorism, David Frum and Richard Perle make a convincing argument for why the toughest line is the safest line.

But, according to Mr. Brooks, for anybody who was worried about what the Usual Suspects have been up to, it's all in your head.

Nobody believed he was real. Nobody ever saw him or knew anybody that ever worked directly for him, but to hear Kobayashi tell it, anybody could have worked for Soze. You never knew. That was his power.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

Babbling Brooks

I don't know why I get so annoyed reading David Brooks' columns in the New York Times. Once again, in today's column, he just seems particularly shallow. His starting point is sound - noting the varied religious journeys of the President and some major Democratic contenders, he observes: "What other country on earth would have three national political figures with such peripatetic religious backgrounds?" But, he then makes other observations (clearly designed to push his own political views) which are just nonsense. Taking just a few which bugged me (in sort-of increasing order of serious concern), Mr. Brooks says that Americans are "reasonable tolerant", noting: "In London recently, President Bush said that Christians and Muslims both pray to the same God. That was theologically controversial, but it was faithful to the national creed." Excuse me, Mr. Brooks, but it was only "theologically controversial" for some American evangelical leaders (the same people you claim do not have as much influence now). It's theologically orthodox for the rest of the world, such as among us Catholics. In another passage, Mr. Brooks cites deTocqueville's comment that Americans "don't seem to care that their neighbors hold to false versions of the faith", and he adds: "That's because many Americans have tended to assume that all these differences are temporary." Again, there are clearly a lot of Americans who very much do care about their neighbor's "false versions". Americans may be happy to go off by themselves, and leave others to their own faiths. When all together, though, there are many people who want to have their version of what faith is dominate - others can believe what they want, just as long as it remains unseen. If you don't believe me, observe how many commentators still seemed torqued off by the simple greeting, "Happy Holidays."

I have a big disagreement with Mr. Brooks' assertion that an "effect of our dominant religious style is that we have trouble sustaining culture wars." As evidence, he points to what he considers to be the waning of the influence of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Mr. Brooks is missing the point, that the culture wars are no longer being directed from the churches, but from political types who consider themselves on a mission to save America. Look at the conservative books which sell well, touting the left-wing plot to destroy America's soul. Take as an example the "marriage debate". Cal Thomas recently wrote about "a strategy session at the White House", to make gay marriage a hot button political issue in the upcoming year. As Mr. Thomas wrote:

Most people would probably be happy to launch a counter strike in the culture war. Many could be counted on to support an amendment that tries to do something about the social, moral and cultural erosion over which they have felt powerless. Surrounded by bad television, worse movies, anti-religious attitudes of judges and certain liberal activist groups, a pervasive sense that "anything goes," most of those responding to the New York Times/CBS News Poll apparently find a constitutional amendment in support of marriage a much-needed line in the sand. They think we have already gone too far, too fast on too many things.

There will continue to be a "culture war", not necessarily because of religious institutions, but because of the efforts of the "culture war profiteers". Whether for political power, personal aggrandizement , or plain-old money, these all-American entrepreneurs will continue to use the culture wars for their own ends. Personally, I have faith in the tolerance of the individual American, I'm concerned that there are people out there hoping to capitalize on intolerance.

Finally, Mr. Brooks paints a little word picture, of how Mr. Bush and Dr. Dean may be political opposites, but able to unite if they met in a Bible study. I think that would depend on what the topic was. Given that these two gentlemen wound up following very different life choices, from very similar, privileged starting points (as Mr. Brooks likes to remind us), they may have very different views about how to live their faith. I think that's a big point which Mr. Brooks just misses.

A Little Christmas Song

Something in the spirit of the season, which you may not have heard of before ...

Once upon a time in a far off land
Wise men saw a sign and set out aross the sand
Songs of praise to sing, they travelled day and night
Precious gifts to bring, guided by the light
They chased a brand new star, ever towards the west
Across the mountains far, but when it came to rest
They scarce believed their eyes, they'd come so many miles
And the miracle they prized was nothing but a child

Nothing but a child could wash these tears away
Or guide a weary world into the light of day
And nothing but a child could help erase these miles
So once again we all can be children for awhile

Steve Earle, "Nothing But a Child" from Copperhead Road.

More on the Cardinal's Sin

The "Instapundit" has gone into Round 2 on his generic Catholic-bashing, all because poor Cardinal Martino basically admitted that even the most despicable sinner could be viewed with compassion. Wonder where the Cardinal could have picked up a wacky idea like that? Personally, I think the real reason those folks have it out for the Cardinal is something he also said at that same news conference, regarding the capture:"But it seems to me to be illusory to hope that this will repair the dramas and the damage of the defeat for humanity that a war always brings about."

The "Instapundit" felt safe, I guess, because he first referenced an article by Michael Novak. Back in February, the Cardinal stuck with the Church's view of the "just war" concept, and not Mr. Novak's, when the latter tried to get the Vatican to sign up with the Coalition of the Willing. Mr. Novak still may be a little miffed over that.

Anyway, with all of this Catholic-bashing from the right now, where's the Catholic League when you really need them?

If You Liked the Clark and Dean Speeches, You'll Love This ...

A Vatican official expressed concern about how pictures of the captured Saddam Hussein were presented, with pictures of an examination of his mouth and head.

"Seeing him like this, a man in his tragedy, despite all the heavy blame he bears, I had a sense of compassion for him," he said in answer to questions about Saddam's arrest.

From the news reports, it's hard to tell if it was more of an off-hand comment, since the main point of the news conference was to present the World Day of Peace message. Nevertheless, famous blogger "Instapundit" has a roundup of some anti-Catholic responses.

Those folks will really love the Pope's World Day of Peace message for this year, which includes the following:

Today international law is hard pressed to provide solutions to situations of conflict arising from the changed landscape of the contemporary world. These situations of conflict frequently involve agents which are not themselves States but rather entities derived from the collapse of States, or connected to independence movements, or linked to trained criminal organizations. A legal system made up of norms established down the centuries as a means of disciplining relations between sovereign States finds it difficult to deal with conflicts which also involve entities incapable of being considered States in the traditional sense. This is particularly the case with terrorist groups.

The scourge of terrorism has become more virulent in recent years and has produced brutal massacres which have in turn put even greater obstacles in the way of dialogue and negotiation, increasing tensions and aggravating problems, especially in the Middle East.

Even so, if it is to be won, the fight against terrorism cannot be limited solely to repressive and punitive operations. It is essential that the use of force, even when necessary, be accompanied by a courageous and lucid analysis of the reasons behind terrorist attacks. The fight against terrorism must be conducted also on the political and educational levels: on the one hand, by eliminating the underlying causes of situations of injustice which frequently drive people to more desperate and violent acts; and on the other hand, by insisting on an education inspired by respect for human life in every situation: the unity of the human race is a more powerful reality than any contingent divisions separating individuals and people.

In the necessary fight against terrorism, international law is now called to develop legal instruments provided with effective means for the prevention, monitoring and suppression of crime. In any event, democratic governments know well that the use of force against terrorists cannot justify a renunciation of the principles of the rule of law. Political decisions would be unacceptable were they to seek success without consideration for fundamental human rights, since the end never justifies the means.

As "Instapundit" would say, "Indeed".

It Takes One for the Running But Two for the Road

There were two good speeches on foreign policy yesterday, by two of the Democratic candidates for President. In his speech, Wesley Clark noted:

Regardless of your views or my views about the war in Iraq, I am pleased that so many agree that the capture of a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein is good news. After all, this is a dictator who was responsible for starting two wars in the Gulf, whose regime brutalized the Iraqi people, who committed massive human rights abuses, and who used chemical weapons against the Kurds and against Iran.

It has been a long time since there has been good news coming from Iraq. We were long overdue.

The capture of this dictator is good news not only for the Iraqi people - but for people around the world. And I wish to congratulate the American forces and the intelligence units involved in this mission.

But a day of good news in Iraq doesn't change the challenge we face there. The war is not over. There were insurgent attacks all this week against American forces. There was an attack yesterday and there was even an attack this morning.

The entire resistance in Iraq was not run by a pathetic ex-dictator hiding in a hole.

We still do not know how many outsiders have come to Iraq for suicide missions against American forces and the international community. We still not know how many insurgents are driven by a misguided nationalism. And we still do not know how many of the guerrilla fighters from Saddam's militias and intelligence service will fight harder or will give up now that he has been captured.

Our purpose of going to Iraq was not to capture Saddam Hussein. But in the chaotic aftermath of war, his capture was necessary to eliminate the fear that he inspired in so many Iraqis. But it is not sufficient. Iraq is still in danger of becoming a failed state.

And as Howard Dean stated:

The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost. An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam’s ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk.

As our military commanders said, and the President acknowledged yesterday, the capture of Saddam does not end the difficulties from the aftermath of the administration’s war to oust him. There is the continuing challenge of securing Iraq, protecting the safety of our personnel, and helping that country get on the path to stability. There is the need to repair our alliances and regain global support for American goals.

Nor, as the president also seemed to acknowledge yesterday, does Saddam’s capture move us toward defeating enemies who pose an even greater danger: al Qaeda and its terrorist allies. And, nor, it seems, does Saturday’s capture address the urgent need to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the risk that terrorists will acquire them.

Isn't there a way these two sensible kids could get together?

(Thanks to Political Aims and Oliver Willis for pointing to the speeches.)

Killer Joe

In the quest to gain political advantage in the U.S., from an event which has been welcomed from across the political spectrum (i.e., the capture of Saddam Hussein), one of the least helpful suggestions has come from presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, on his campaign website:

This evil man has to face the death penalty. The international tribunal in The Hague cannot order the death penalty, so my first question about where he's going to be tried will be answered by whether that tribunal can execute him. If it cannot be done by the Iraqi military tribunal, he should be brought before an American military tribunal and face death.

In other words, neither the Iraqis, nor the world as a whole, should deal with the deposed tyrant. Instead, we should make this a U.S.-only affair, just so folks such as the good Senator can try to earn points by shouting for the death penalty.

Not to quibble, but in the long run, in terms of international relations, or even in terms of whether the Iraqis view our troops as liberators or conquerors, maybe it would be a good idea to tone down campaign rhetoric like that..

Then You're Outta That Hole and Back Up on the Street

In light of the fact that I'm actually getting comments now (from someone who isn't amused by "Unelectable"), I better make sure that I say something about the capture of Saddam Hussein.

We got him. Good. Excellent, in fact. Turns out the fearsome tyrant was cringing in a hole somewhere, with two guns and a lot of U.S. cash for company. He didn't use the guns, and I don't think he'll be spending that cash anytime soon. In fact, from news reports it sounds like it was the cash which helped bring about his capture. When our troops found $750,000 stashed in a crude hut, they decided that was a good area to look around further.

It's definitely too soon to tell how this will affect the long-term prospects for our involvement in Iraq. That hasn't stopped some from trying, or others from criticizing those who have tried. It didn't take long for the focus to shift from Iraq policy to U.S. politics, though, as if the capture in-and-of-itself solves all the problems. It's important, but it doesn't take the place of a well-designed plan for bringing about a peaceful Iraq.

Be that as it may, it's interesting to see how some people just have to start on the attack, as if "wrong-thinking" was somehow a punishable offense in the United States. Andrew Sullivan is on a tear, posting examples of what he calls "thinly-veiled disappointment at the capture of Saddam." He calls these examples "Galloway Award Nominees", after an anti-war British politician who was thought to have been receiving payments from some unsavory Middle Eastern types. Actually, the quote from Galloway used by Mr. Sullivan isn't so nonsensical: "This will not stop the Iraqi resistance. If anything, it may set the resistance free, if you like, from the cloud of Saddam Hussein, and transform it into a purely national resistance movement without the charge that it's being controlled from behind by the deposed president." That's not disappointment, that's an abundance of caution. Mr. Sullivan also disses Juan Cole, a very knowledgeable commentator, who had mused: "Those who dislike US policies or who are opposed to the idea of occupation no longer need be apprehensive that the US will suddenly leave and allow Saddam to come back to power. They may therefore now gradually throw off their political timidity, and come out more forcefully into the streets when they disagree with the US. " Again, that's not "disappointment", but some cautious thinking about the next steps in a land where only the firm boot of the Baath Party kept a lid on the competing interests in Iraq.

[Edited on 12/16 to add] The always-reliable Tom Tomorrow comes through, by introducing us to The Patriotism Police.

Unelectable

Unelectable... Bush won't go far
Unelectable... not up to par
Before long, he'll botch his "victory"
His thoughts are so contradictory
Never before has someone been more...

Unelectable... there is no way
What's he running for? 'Cause he can pay
That's why, Dubya, it's a spectacle
That someone so unelectable
Thinks he's not an unelectable fool

(instrumental interlude)

Unelectable ... there is no way
What's he running for? 'Cause he can pay
That's why, Dubya, it's a spectacle
That someone so unelectable
Thinks he's not an unelectable fool


(To the tune of Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable", Parody by William Tong)
(Link for the word "unelectable" inspired by Roger Ailes and TalkLeft)

You Be True to Me, and I'll Be True to You

Senator Lieberman is upset that Al Gore endorsed Governor Dean. He's said a few things about his loyalty, and about how Mr. Gore is helping to move the party backwards.

As reported back in July of 2002, Senator Lieberman had a different viewpoint about a year or so ago, as he was "waiting" for Mr. Gore to decide whether he was going to run:

"He has not decided to run," Lieberman told a group of reporters at a lengthy session during the Democratic Leadership Council's annual meeting. "It was a 50-50 matter."

Gore spokesman Jano Cabrera said Sunday night: "Gore has yet to make up his mind."

In the meantime, Lieberman is meeting with state delegations from early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina - telling them that he wants to run as a "New Democrat," referring to the pro-growth, pro-business philosophy of the DLC.

But what's really interesting are Senator Lieberman's thoughts at the time, about the 2000 campaign and about the issues for 2004::

Lieberman said that he and Gore ran on a program that was faithful to New Democrat values, but said some of the campaign rhetoric about "the people vs. the powerful" may have sent the wrong message.

"It was not the pro-growth approach," Lieberman said. "It ultimately made it more difficult for us to gain the support of some`of the middle class, independent voters who don't see America as 'us vs. them,' but more in Kennedy's terms of a rising tide lifts all boats."

Lieberman said that message was inconsistent with Gore's previous record and "ultimately hurt."

Asked whether he would support Gore if he runs another economic populist campaign and there's no other "New Democrat" in the race, Lieberman said: "That's an alluring question I won't answer right now."

So, when asked whether he would "be true" to Mr. Gore, if Mr. Gore wanted to continue to fight in the 2004 campaign, Senator Lieberman politely declined to answer. That's his prerogative. But he shouldn't be complaining now.

All the Hatred and Dirty Little Lies

It seems that, as each day passes, the case against Captain James Yee stinks. Captain Yee is a Muslim chaplain, who had been assigned to Guantanamo Bay to counsel the detainees there. He was arrested amid allegations that he was involved in espionage against the United States. As noted below, the "case" against him, such as it was, seems to have little to do with espionage at this point, and more to do with trying to ruin the man. Now, it is reported that the government can't even decide whether the documents, which form the basis of the case, were even "classified":

Criminal proceedings against Army Capt. James J. Yee came to an abrupt halt Tuesday as Army prosecutors sought additional time to review and classify documents taken from the Muslim chaplain when he was arrested.

The "stink" comes from the fact that, at the time of his arrest, there were statements made that the "highest levels" of our government had assessed the situation, and considered Yee to be a traitor and a spy. As reported by "Newsmax" at the time:

The Washington Times source disclosed that the "highest levels" of government made the decision to arrest Capt. Yee, who had counseled suspected al-Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo for a lengthy period. According to the report, he had been under surveillance for some time.

Although what country or organization is suspected of receiving information from Yee is as yet unknown, Yee has been charged with five offenses: sedition, aiding the enemy, spying, espionage and failure to obey a general order.

The report noted that the Army may also at some point charge him with the more serious charge of treason against the U.S.

As the Washington Times later reported:

The Bush administration decided to arrest Army Capt. James J. Yee because it feared he would reveal information that could aid terrorists and endanger the lives of military guards at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba, a law-enforcement source said.

As a result, Captain Yee was marked for stopping and searching, not before he left Guantanamo, but instead as he arrived on the mainland:

Special Agent Sean Rafferty, who works as a customs inspector in Jacksonville, Fla., said he was tipped off to watch for Army Capt. James Yee, 35, at the airport as Capt. Yee returned from the Cuba base. He said he searched the backpack that Capt. Yee carried off the plane.

"I found numerous notes of a suspicious nature," Mr. Rafferty said during a conference call to the preliminary hearing that will determine whether Capt. Yee should be court-martialed. "It was determined the documents were of interest to national security."

As I discussed below the other day, this has always seemed suspicious. Putting these elements together, we see that the "Bush Administration" wanted Captain Yee stopped, searched and arrested, even though to this day nobody can state that he had any classified material, or that he engaged in any action which could be considered espionage. Why were the "highest levels" of the Administration so hell-bent to arrest or otherwise ruin this Muslim chaplain?

Would it be possible for one of our fearless media types to ask this question at the White House?

In Which the Cautious Man Uses a Bad Word, but Only in the Interest of Accurate Reporting

This morning I sat at my kitchen table, drinking coffee and reading the paper (as I usually do most days). I read David Brooks' column in today's New York Times, in which he discusses how our troops in Iraq must be, not only fighters, but also builders of a better community in that country. Mr. Brooks discusses an incident in which an American soldier confronts an angry mob, which was "furiously accusing a man of butting in line and stealing gasoline." After investigating, the American officer "established that the man was merely a government inspector checking the quality of the fuel." Then, says Mr. Brooks, the American "took the chance to teach the mob a broader lesson":

The problem is that you people accuse each other without proof! That's the problem!

I don't know if Mr. Brooks does this on purpose just to annoy people, or if he really does miss the meaning of what he writes. But, when I read that, I shouted back at my newspaper, "How the fuck do you think we got into this mess in the first place!" (As I mentioned above, the use of the bad word is entirely due to the need to accurately report what I did this morning.) But really, how can someone miss the point that the "broader lesson" needs to be learned not just by Iraqis, but by us? Our government decided to charge into Iraq, without broad international support, and without any proof at all that it was either necessary or the best approach to the problem of Saddam Hussein. And, THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

Chaplain Yee's Scarlet Letter

Okay, who thinks that this whole Chaplain Yee case is now just an attempt to ruin the man? News reports now indicate that a case that used to be about espionage, is now about having pornography on a government computer, and adultery. Last month we learned that the original spying charges would not be going forward; that doesn't keep some members of the press from continuing to refer to him as an accused spy. From day one, this case seemed to be the result of unhappiness with Chaplain Yee for just doing his job as a Muslim chaplain, which for him including presenting a more balanced face of Islam to counter the "Islam=Terrorism" mindset of so many inside and outside the military.

So, an adultery charge well serves the interests of anyone who wants to discredit Chaplain Yee in the eyes of the public. Assuming he did cheat on his wife does the military prosecute all of these cases? Apparently not. Even before recent changes, literature on military law shows that adultery was viewed as a crime only to the extent it harmed order and discipline in the armed forces.

The National Institute of Military Justice issued a report (the Cox Report, named after its chair) in 2001 recommending revisions to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Among the recommendations:

The Commission concurs with the majority of these assessments in recommending that consensual sodomy and adultery be eliminated as separate offenses in the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial. Although popular acceptance of various sexual behaviors has changed dramatically in the fifty years since the UCMJ became effective, the Commission accepts that there remain instances in which consensual sexual activity, including that which is currently prosecuted under Articles 125 and 134, may constitute criminal acts in a military context. Virtually all such acts, however, could be prosecuted without the use of provisions specifically targeting sodomy and adultery. Furthermore, the well known fact that most adulterous or sodomitical acts committed by consenting and often married (to each other) military personnel are not prosecuted at court martial creates a powerful perception that prosecution of this sexual behavior is treated in an arbitrary, even vindictive, manner. This perception has been at the core of the military sex scandals of the last decade.

The elements of the offense are set out in Article 134 of the UCMJ:

(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and
(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. .

In 2002, President Bush issued an Executive Order adding an explanations to the UCMJ, including guidance for adultery prosecutions:

To constitute an offense under the UCMJ, the adulterous conduct must either be directly prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. Adulterous conduct that is directly prejudicial includes conduct that has an obvious, and measurably divisive effect on unit or organization discipline, morale, or cohesion, or is clearly detrimental to the authority or stature of or respect toward a servicemember. Adultery may also be service discrediting, even though the conduct is only indirectly or remotely prejudicial to good order and discipline. Discredit means to injure the reputation of the armed forces and includes adulterous conduct that has a tendency, because of its open or notorious nature, to bring the service into disrepute, make it subject to public ridicule, or lower it in public esteem.

Private conduct may or may not meet this standard, and therefore commanders were instructed to consider factors such as: "The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship on the ability of the accused, the co-actor, or the spouse of either to perform their duties in support of the armed forces; … The misuse, if any, of government time and resources to facilitate the commission of the conduct; … Whether the conduct persisted despite counseling or orders to desist; the flagrancy of the conduct, such as whether any notoriety ensued; and whether the adulterous act was accompanied by other violations of the UCMJ; …The negative impact of the conduct on the units or organizations of the accused, the co-actor or the spouse of either of them, such as a detrimental effect on unit or organization morale, teamwork, and efficiency; …" It remains to be seen what aggravating factors the military has found in Chaplain Yee's case, to justify a court martial.

When adultery prosecutions have come to the attention of the public, it has involved awareness of a double standard. For example, in 1997 Army Major General John Longhouser, the commanding general of the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Aberdeen, Maryland, was allowed to retire early at reduced rank after admitting he had had an adulterous relationship with a civilian. At practically the same time, there was the very contentious case of Air Force officer Kelly Flinn, who was threatened with prosecution for adultery, but who was in the end allowed accept a general discharge.

Oh, and at the time Senator Trent Lott had this to say about the adultery prosecution:"I think she is being badly abused. . . . The Pentagon is not in touch with reality on this so-called question of fraternization. I mean, get real. You're still dealing with human beings. . . . I don't understand why she is being singled out and punished the way she is. I think, at the minimum, she ought to get an honorable discharge."

People should consider whether Chaplain Yee's alleged conduct actually constituted a chargeable offense of adultery, or whether he, too, "is being badly abused."

Declared Unfit to Live

The trial of John Allen Muhammad, the "D.C. Sniper Mastermind", ended first with a conviction, followed by a recommendation by the jury for the death penalty. It's clear that Mr. Muhammad is responsible for those terrible crimes, and should be put away. But, news reports have shown once again how the death penalty is an imperfect vehicle for society to deal with the worst criminals among us. News reports (such as this one in my local paper) show the toll taken on the ordinary men and women of the jury, who were asked to recommend a sentence of death. One juror "said videotapes shown by the defense of Muhammad playing with his children made him think Friday that Muhammad should be spared the death penalty. But after a sleepless Sunday night, he changed his mind. " Another "said that the defense offering of home videos showing Muhammad playing with his young children, as well as letters his children wrote to him, 'weighed on this jury a lot.' "

It appears that the jurors were ultimately convinced that Mr. Muhammad was totally and unredeemably lost as a human being. "I think there is no chance of rehabilitation for him," one said. "If he can't be rehabilitated and he's a future danger, I could not live with myself if somebody else got hurt and I'd had the chance to stop it." That person also said: "I'd have a difficult time living with myself if he ever hurt or killed another person. There's no way anybody can guarantee he could not do that if he got life in prison."

It's sad to think that our justice system relies on this dehumanizing mechanism. We are told that it's apparently easier to kill someone, than it is to punish them for life. Our system requires jurors to feel that they would themselves be responsible for Mr. Muhammad's actions, if they were to choose to stop the killing by sentencing him to life in prison. One would think that we could find a better way.