Not Like Us

Among the many opinions on the conflict in Gaza, there's been a particularly disturbing subset. The most troubling reactions have been those expressing the attitudes that entire groups of people are inherently inferior, or less than human, or deserve to suffer or die, or their deaths don't matter whether they’re innocent or not. The actual death and destruction that's gone on is much worse than any chatter, of course, but these attitudes further fuel the carnage and undermine the prospects of a lasting peace. Whether these attitudes are extolled by respected "serious" pundits with blithely imperialist views or less prominent chickenhawk cheerleaders, they remain extremely dangerous and toxic.

Exhibits #1 and #2, irony-free, come from HTML Mencken of Sadly, No:

Can’t you just feel the regret and sorrow of glennocidal tendencies thwarted — thwarted, I tell you! Alas…

Shorter Verbatim Debbie Schlussel:

I’ve concluded that the only way this war can be “won” is if most of the Palestinians in Gaza–and the so-called “West Bank,” too, where HAMAS has a lot of support–are decimated, which the world will never allow Israel to do, and which Livni and Barak (and Olmert) don’t have the guts to do.

Shorter Verbatim Patrick Bateman Tony Hadley of Spandau Ballet Stephen Green:

The only process towards peace is the kind of war one side can’t commit, and the other side won’t.

Exhibit #3 is a more general, short piece from NPR, titled "Gaza Fighting Reverberates In France" (follow the link to listen):

The recent conflict in Gaza touched nerves in France, which is home to Europe's largest Jewish and Muslim communities. Despite the cease-fire in Gaza, many say the fighting there has done lasting damage to relations between Muslims and Jews in France.

Exhibit #4 comes from via Glenn Greenwald (emphasis his):

Former McCain-Palin campaign spokesman and current Weekly Standard editor Michael Goldfarb notes that Israel, a couple of days ago, dropped a 2,000-pound bomb on a Gazan home which killed a top Hamas leader . . . in addition to 18 others, including his four wives and nine of his children. About the killing of those innocent civilians, Goldfarb writes (h/t John Cole via email):

The fight against Islamic radicals always seems to come around to whether or not they can, in fact, be deterred, because it's not clear that they are rational, at least not like us. But to wipe out a man's entire family, it's hard to imagine that doesn't give his colleagues at least a moment's pause. Perhaps it will make the leadership of Hamas rethink the wisdom of sparking an open confrontation with Israel under the current conditions.

We've seen Goldfarb before, but he seems intent on plunging new depths. (You won't be shocked to learn he's also pro-torture.)

Exhibit #5, also from Greenwald, features Middle East "expert" Tom Friedman (emphasis from Greenwald):

...Friedman's column today is uncharacteristically and refreshingly honest. He explains that the 2006 Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon was, contrary to conventional wisdom, a great success. To make this case, Friedman acknowledges that the deaths of innocent Lebanese civilians was not an unfortunate and undesirable by-product of that war, but rather, was a vital aspect of the Israeli strategy -- the centerpiece, actually, of teaching Lebanese civilians a lesson they would not soon forget:

Israel’s counterstrategy was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future.

Israel’s military was not focused on the morning after the war in Lebanon — when Hezbollah declared victory and the Israeli press declared defeat. It was focused on the morning after the morning after, when all the real business happens in the Middle East. That’s when Lebanese civilians, in anguish, said to Hezbollah: “What were you thinking? Look what destruction you have visited on your own community! For what? For whom?”

Friedman says that he is "unsure" whether the current Israeli attack on Gaza is similarly designed to teach Palestinians the same lesson by inflicting "heavy pain" on civilians, but he hopes it is:

In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to “educate” Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population. If it is out to destroy Hamas, casualties will be horrific and the aftermath could be Somalia-like chaos. If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims

You also won't be surprised that most of this group cheerleads for war in general. Greenwald, on a roll, addressed this in yet another post:

Many of our nation's most grizzled super-tough-guy cheerleader/warriors -- the ones who insatiably crave those sensations of vicarious power from play-acting the role of warriors from a nice, safe distance -- are responding to my post of yesterday by beating their chests, swaggering around, and citing General Sherman to explain (in their best John Wayne voices) that War is Hell. All good warriors (like them) know that anything and everything done to those who "start a war" is justified.

Of course, if you ask Hamas why they blow themselves up in pizza parlors and shoot rockets at homes in Southern Israel as a response to the 40-year Israeli occupation and recent blockade, they'll tell you the same thing. If you ask Hezbollah why they kidnap Israeli soldiers and lob rockets into Israel in response to Israeli incursions into Lebanon, they'll make the same claim. If you ask Al Qaeda why they fly civilian-filled airplanes into civilian-filled buildings in response to American hegemony (and endless military actions) in their region of the world, they'll explain that jihad is hell and anything done to advance it is justified. You'll hear the same thing if you ask Russians why they destroyed Chechnyan residential blocks, or if you ask Serbian leaders about their genocide, or if you inquire with Rwandan tribal leaders about the brutality of their attacks, or if you ask virtually any other war criminal why they had to resort to such extremes.

Feel free to add any other examples, since this list is far from comprehensive – it's just some pieces I've read or heard in the past month that have stuck with me. It doesn't represent every flavor of idiocy and bigotry at work regarding Gaza, let alone the wider world. But then, it shouldn't have to. There are several attitudes in these selections that are noxious, toxic and dangerous. It shouldn't be hard to condemn anti-Semitism - or bigotry toward Arabs, Persians, and Muslims - or any other group. Neither should it be hard to bemoan the killing of innocent people, regardless of who they are. Neither should it be difficult to point out that even if one views a specific military action as 'just' versus immoral, it may be counterproductive to its supposed aims.

It's not an original observation on my part, but in democracies, going to war initially tends to start with lofty ideals being invoked, but as things get uglier, with lives lost and the cost of war growing more glaring, the rhetoric tends to get uglier, too. The "enemy" is increasingly demonized, sometimes unconsciously, sometimes as a conscious motivational, propaganda tool. The enemy is depicted as evil and inhuman, and that attitude starts to apply not only to the actual combatants, which can be problematic as it is, but to their entire nationality or group. This can lead to impasses. Human beings with different goals can perhaps be negotiated with, but how can one negotiate with pure evil? There's the old WWI line of the Brits, that the difference between them and the Germans was that "We believe in God, and they believe in Gott." Most war tropes grow far nastier than that, though, and this same dehumanization isn't limited to war, of course. But there is no problem to which dehumanization is the solution. It never, ever makes any situation better, it makes unnecessary war much easier, and its presence in general should be a giant warning sign that things could go in a bad direction. In contrast, consider the words of Terence : Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto - I am a human: nothing human is alien to me.

I've sometimes wondered how people can know "war is hell," a line hard to avoid, yet still be such stupid, reckless cheerleaders for war. The posts Greenwald links suggest part of the answer. "War is hell" for that group means that no one is responsible, that anyone can do whatever the hell he or she wants, and that any military action, no matter how foolhardy, reckless, or unconscionable, is justified. No matter how many innocent people were killed, needlessly, it couldn't be avoided, or it's excusable. Of course, that pathetic, callous, cowardly attitude is much easier to hold if those killed aren't seen as fully human or have been otherwise demonized. "War is hell" means exactly that – it's about the closest one can come to hell on Earth. Consequently, it's to be avoided if at all possible. Going to war is solely a matter of grim necessity, never a cause for celebration, and anyone opining otherwise is not to be trusted. Likewise, any attitude that urges less reflection about life and death issues such as war is immature and not to be trusted. Minimizing human suffering is terribly easy, not at all courageous.

Friedman's idea of "educating" through killing pretty much epitomizes the imperialist mindset. I guess I missed the point in classes on pedagogy - or in classes on history - or in any other class - where it was explained that killing members of a civilian population makes the survivors decide they love their opponents and prevents them from plotting their downfall. Friedman's stance is deeply immoral, and that can't be overemphasized, but it's also completely counterproductive to his stated goals. (It's hard to believe Friedman's never had that pointed out to him – but we've looked at him before, and I suspect that, as with the neocons, his ideology is driven more by a self-image than any sort of empiricism.)

The truth is, there are dangerous people in the world, and negotiation will not work with some of them. However, intent is not the same as capability, and dehumanization of even such people can be counterproductive. Why wouldn't you want to understand how your enemy thinks, and what he or she values? Isn't that just basic strategy? And the big pitfall, especially when people are genuinely, legitimately scared or angry – and that's definitely been the case for some parties with Gaza - is that an entire group is dehumanized, cruel or reckless actions become easier, new victims are created, and the cycle of vengeance is renewed. The demons, rather than 'the better angels of our nature,' prevail.

In American domestic politics, there are people with 'dangerous' views as well, even if the scale and the stakes may be less dire. They should be opposed, too, on talk shows, in national discussions, and when they run for office. They don't have a constitutional right to appear on television, but they do have a right to free speech, to run for office if eligible, and to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They may be wrong, ignorant, obnoxious and even dangerous (and perhaps should be called out on all of that), but they are still human. Depriving anyone of their human rights, their civil liberties, or their humanity damages something essential in our society, and hurts everyone.

This post is very far from comprehensive, and is less about Gaza and Israel specifically than it is about the persistent dangers of dehumanization and minimizing human suffering. Those issues, and the issue of going to war, are subjects that have been debated passionately for millennia, and one late night, quickly-dashed off blog post ain't going to solve much. However, I'll pass along David Neiwert's series on eliminationism in America, and some similarly-themed posts from here. I'll also add that our atrocious torture policies stemmed in part from similar dehumanization, and have been similarly counterproductive as well as deeply immoral.

Peace. We could all use it.

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

The Disillusioned Idealist

hTime magazine's Joe Klein has posted online a piece titled "Cheney's Thousand-Yard Stare" that proves mostly inane despite its aspirations of profundity. It could be better titled "Sympathy for the Cheney" as Klein compares Cheney's shock at shooting Harry Whittington to the shell shock of Vietnam vets.

Crooks and Liars and Firedoglake both have entries up on the so-called "liberal" Joe Klein. Firedoglake's entry provides a link to an entertaining piece on Klein by Charles P. Pierce in The American Prospect. More importantly, Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher offers an educational sampling of vile quotations from Klein as part one of a contest to pick his worst. So far, the competition is stiff.

Joe Klein has long struck me as yet another baby-boomer apostate. Just as there is no one more zealous than the new convert, there is no one more bitter than the jilted lover. Either because he feels elected liberals have betrayed their ideals, or more likely, to rationalize his own sell-out, Klein blasts liberals for expressing the same ideals he once believed. He is not a liberal any longer; but I suspect in his view, he did not abandon the movement, the movement failed him. In my experience, baby boomer apostates often possess a narcissistic egocentrism about virtually everything, but particularly political activism. Because having a social conscience proved ultimately just a fad for them, if others display it, it's just a fad and naiveté, not conscience. The narcissistic mindset does not allow one to admit error, or failure (witness it in the Bush admin as well). I'm not pure, therefore nobody's pure. I'm a sell-out, therefore everyone's a sell-out. (The flip side - or even corollary - can be: my intentions are good and my ideology is pure, therefore my performance doesn't matter. Regardless, I am not at fault.) Many people do grow wiser as they age, and develop different or more complex views on things. But in my experience, the truly wise do not express the venom of the apostate, whose aim is to dismiss, not discuss, the views of others.

Baby boomer apostates often still brag about hip they were (or are), how many Stones concerts they saw in the 60s, and so on. But justifying their present lives to their former selves requires denouncing and ridiculing their own youthful idealism. In practical terms, this means they will always be harsher towards, and enforce a higher standard for, the political party that was their first love.

I suspect some of this fuels the false equivalency so rampant in most media coverage. Republicans are implicated in the Abramoff scandal, but everyone does it, so the Democrats must be guilty too, and equally so. (The appeal of an easy storyline and the desire to avoid charges of partisanship play stronger roles, though, I think.) The truth is that there will always be plenty of public officials of every political stripe who are worthy of ridicule and who necessitate scrutiny. But the apostate, like the holy warrior, tends to see the fight in reductive or partisan terms versus the real battle of truth versus distortion, and accountability versus irresponsibility.

Finally, there's the ever-present need of many a pundit to prove I-Am-Smarter-Than-You-Are, thus justifying their status as a member of the professional chattering class. Klein's piece shows he clearly feels he's smarter than his brethren in the media. Meanwhile, many liberal blogs currently feature great entries on the self-elevating revisionism of the liberal war hawks. Among other things, you'll hear the liberal war hawks claim, incorrectly, that everyone was convinced by Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. and that there was a healthy, vigorous and open debate about going to war in Iraq and why. Slate's Jacob Weisberg has deservedly come under fire for such revisionism. The subtext of what's most often heard is roughly:

1) I am smart.
2) I was duped by the Bush admin regarding the need to go to war in Iraq.
3) Therefore, all smart people were duped.
4) Therefore, all people who were not duped must not really be smart. They must have arrived at their views through irrational means only.
5) Whew! I am still smarter than they. I wasn't wrong, really. I can't be faulted for blowing it.

The logic completely breaks down, but a pundit will never challenge the inviolate, sacrosant #1. I have much more tolerance for someone like Weisberg than someone like Klein, but sadly, it's unlikely that Weisberg will ever admit that he was just wrong any more than Klein will admit he's full of crap.

(I'll be updating and revising this entry later, with some more links).

Dionne on Phony Populism

E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post pens a good op-ed for today on the phony populism of the Bush administration. As Dionne himself points out, none of what he's writing about is groundbreaking - he's just covering the same old BS and noting the current flavor (although it's a flavor well loved by Bush throughout his political career). But it's a nice snapshot, capturing one of Bush's classic straw man arguments as well as one of Cheney's classic misdirection tactics. Like many of the best op-eds, this latest piece from Dionne also provides a nice analysis of the truth behind a politician's claims, in this case skewering Bush's shilling about the benefits of Health Savings Accounts for average Americans.

Dionne last year penned a good op-ed on William F. Buckley, Jr. and how he helped cultivate the "liberals are elitists" meme. Some liberal bloggers gave Dionne flack for it, but as I've written before, I've also found some admirable aspects to Buckley as well. (Several blogs, however, posted some of the racist articles from The National Review in the 50s, none of which I had seen before. The pieces were disturbing, and remind me I need to re-evaluate my opinion of Buckley... Meanwhile, the magazine as it currently stands features mostly predicatable, apologist rhetoric.)

But even if Buckley championed a sort of faux populism, Goldwater advanced it, and Reagan might have perfected it, surely Bush and Rove have added a major chapter to the playbook. Ann Richards updated an old quip to observe that George W. Bush "was born on third base, thinking he'd hit a triple." It really is rather extraordinary that the Bushies managed to tag Kerry with a silver spoon while Bush is the son of a former President of the United States, among other things! Back in 2004, I heard a few people express reservations about Kerry being essentially a blueblood, but when Bush's family was pointed out, their reaction was "oh, yeah." Still, the basic feeling seemed to be, Bush was a former screw-up, and a good ol' boy, or at worst, a dumbass, so he really wasn't part of that hoighty-toighty world of his dad and all that... And the fact that he went to Andover, Yale, and Harvard has never stopped Bush from degrading northeastern "liberal" eductional institutions.

But this is the reason he should govern? A revealing 2004 poll showed Bush over Kerry in terms of "who you'd rather have a beer with," but the the bigger question this raises is, how important is it to you that The President of the United States (despite in Bush's case being a teetotaller) be a good drinking buddy to you? Yes, I'd like to like my president, yes, I'd like to think he cares about someone like me, but more than anything else, I want him (or her) to do the job well! Kerry was not an overwhelming candidate, and most people choose their politicians on a gut feeling or a general read (or a specific issue) versus careful analysis. Still, I've never quite bought the whole argument that the president needs to be a "man of the people"... Sure, he should be personable and have "the common touch," but does that mean he must also have only an average intellect, or average competence? Doesn't what's inarguably one of the toughest, most important jobs in the world call for a man or woman of extraordinary ability and strengths? Bush's backers feel that he has great instincts, and an unique and potent managerial style. Okay. I would strongly disagree. However, at the very least the man needs good "Vulcans" about him then, men and women smarter than he who will serve as honest brokers. And the administration as a whole must function well and make good aggregate decisions.

Americans distrust elites, a friend of mine reminds me. However, the central political con job of the past forty years is that being part of an intellectual "elite" is dangerous, while being entrenched in a good ol' boy socially elite network is not. Thus may class warfare by the ruling class be practiced in the name of populism.

And so many major questions remain. For the Bush administration - to what degree will ideology trump empiricism and practicality? When does one stop campaigning and instead govern? When will the main focus be not spin or public relations but actual job competency?

For the American people - to what degree should social issues trump economic self-interest and the public interest? For the conservatives - how long will you accept leadership that does not actually follow conservative values? And, more to the point, to what degree will the American people accept whatever the hell a politican says, despite all evidence to the contrary?

Irresponsible Speculation and Predictions

We’ll set thee to school to an ant, to teach thee there’s no laboring i’ th’ winter. All that follow their noses are led by their eyes but blind men, and there’s not a nose among twenty but can smell him that’s stinking. Let go thy hold when a great wheel runs down a hill, lest it break thy neck with following. But the great one that goes upward, let him draw thee after.
— The Fool to Kent in the stocks, King Lear, 2.4, 66-72

(The Fool’s words are incredibly ironic, and demand a fuller post, but he’d still make one hell of a political advisor.)

While pundits and commentators exist who clearly embrace their apparent ideology, when it comes to the “chattering class,” their true love is almost always for a good political storyline above all else. Some tale or angle or event that will yield a strong column or some witty bon mots on the talk show circuit, that’s where it’s really at. Don’t you think Jay Leno wept when he had to say goodbye to Clinton and another thousand Lewinsky blow job jokes? (He still tromps them out from time to time.) Reagan might have argued that trees caused pollution and that ketchup and relish should count as vegetables in children’s school lunches, but even his detractors in the press would say he was a colorful character to write about. After George H.W. Bush was elected, Gary Trudeau in Doonesbury announced that political cartoonists were giving Bush a honeymoon week of no negative panels, “to give him a chance to get a handle on that ‘vision thing,’” and “as a way of formally thanking him for Dan Quayle.”

Many liberal bloggers are referring to tomorrow, the latest likely day for Fitzgerald to announce indictments, as Fitzmas. However, the truth is that it’s a bonanza for chatterers everywhere, with juicy material to last many a news cycle, to yield many a column or book, and to allow plenty of opportunity to posture as a sage insider on a news program. Granted, it’s a more fun time for liberals than conservatives (at least until Bush nominates another candidate for The Supreme Court). Consider the situation. Republicans hold power in all three branches of government. However, currently, the top aide to the President and the Vice President are facing possible indictment, the Vice President may face trouble as well, and at the least he appears to have publicly lied yet again. The House Majority Leader, Tom Delay, has been indicted. The Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, is being investigated for impropriety with his not-so-blind trust and has publicly lied. This is not to mention the indictments of Republicans Bob Noe in Ohio, super lobbyist Jack Abramoff (tight with Delay), and David Safavian. Add to this the Harriet Miers debacle and the truly shocking, shameful way Hurricane Katrina was mishandled. Oh yeah, and then there’s Iraq.

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post aptly observed that the passions about Plamegate run so high because “We're re-fighting the war through this case.” (Slate’s Mickey Kaus agrees somewhat but adds several other reasons). Previous details of the path to war are coming out as a result of Fitzgerald’s inquiry. Normally the real story of an administration takes time to unveil. We know much more about Nixon now than we did even five years ago, and similarly, the full truth of the Bush administration may not come out until a decade or two later. However, we may now get to know much more, much sooner than anyone anticipated. While many of the statements and rationales for the war are currently being re-examined by chatterers, now the general public seems to be taking a greater interest as well.

Kurtz’s column of Thursday, 10/27/05 did a fantastic job of providing a timeline of some key leaks in the Plamegate case, and touches on why many of these leaks likely occurred. As he observes:

...virtually every bit of information, confirmed and alleged, comes from unnamed sources -- ironically, in an investigation of who anonymously outed a CIA operative -- who are trying to shape public understanding of a complicated narrative to someone's advantage.

The result is that after two years of near-total secrecy about the CIA leak investigation, a steady stream of sometimes-conflicting information is now flowing, invariably attributed to "lawyers close to the case" or similarly opaque sources.

As special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald nears a decision on whether to seek indictments of top White House officials, lawyers involved in the inquiry are using the news media to float bits of evidence or interpretations that are favorable to their high-level clients. The maneuvering makes clear that these lawyers are fighting a two-front war, trying simultaneously to avert criminal charges while seeking acquittal in the court of public opinion.

The rush of disclosures in the closing days of an investigation is a time-tested ritual of Washington scandals, and each time the questions are the same: Who leaked and for what reason?

As a mere blogger (and a tardy, intermittent one at that), currently ranked 775,745 by Technorati in terms of influence (sorry, I find it very funny), I can’t yet pretend to full membership in the chattering class. However, I certainly can join in the chatterer tradition of wild speculation and completely off-base predictions. In fact, this is an area where bloggers often outstrip the feeble Mainstream Media (tm), or MSM, as all oh-so-hip bloggers call it. The key word in opinion journalism is not journalism, it’s opinion. Did Novak admit he was wrong about his authoritative yet wildly incorrect statement on the exact date Rehnquist would announce his retirement? No! He came up with a new opinion for a new deadline. With chatterers chaffing at the bit for Fitzgerald’s likely announcement tomorrow, now is the deadline for irresponsible prognostication, and I cannot shirk my duty. (Until, of course, there’s a new deadline and we can all shamelessly offer new opinions.)

PLAMEGATE

Most chatterers think it likely that Libby will be indicted on two to three counts: perjury, obstruction to justice, and possibly conspiracy. I’ll agree. He appears to have lied at least twice, but they are also likely compound lies. If news accounts are to be believed, it appears he lied to the grand jury about divulging Valerie Plame Wilson’s status as a CIA operative to reporters... he spoke about the matter three times with The New York Times’ Judy Miller. Most importantly, he spoke with her on the matter on June 23, 2003, before Novak’s now infamous column. Libby apparently claimed he learned of Plame’s identity from reporters, specifically NBC’s Tim Russert. Russert has publicly stated that there’s no way that could be the case, because he didn’t know Plame’s name until Novak’s column. While this is bad enough, The New York Times reported this week that Libby learned Plame’s identity from none other than Dick Cheney, about a month before Novak’s column. While Libby and Cheney would of course have the security clearance to discuss a CIA agent, they’re both experienced enough to at least say, wait, is she undercover or not? Unless, of course, anger clouded their judgment. Regardless, this would involve a compound lie from Libby... the obvious storyline would be, he tried to cover for his boss and blamed the leak on those irresponsible liberal reporters. If Cheney lied as well, then Libby had a clear motive for such action, and he wasn’t innocently mistaken... not that I find the massive memory lapses that have been claimed by many parties plausible in the first place.

In an online chat, Washington Post national political editor John F. Harris responded to a poster:

On this point, I tend to be more believing of the White House line. It has always seemed clear to me--and the evidence coming out over time has strengthened the point--that the White House motive in talking about Plame was not "to get back at Wilson." This was not about revenge. It was about trying to persuade reporters not to write about Wilson's allegations or take them seriously, because his mission to Niger was a low-level endeavor that had been cooked up lower down in the bureaucracy (with the assistance of his wife) and was not something that was done with White House knowledge. Remember, at the time, Wilson's suggestion was that of course the vice president knew about the results of his trip to Niger, because he had ordered it.

In the course of trying to knock down a damaging story--a routine activity in Washington--they obviously stepped over a line...quite possibly without fully appreciating that they were stepping across.

I think Harris nails one of the key reasons for the leak, but I feel he discounts the revenge angle too quickly. Judy Miller reports Libby as irate about Wilson. The current leaks about Libby also paint him as very upset, even obsessed. Many key members of the Bush administration, notably Rove and Cheney, are very much into the politics of revenge and retribution. If Rove did indeed tell Chris Matthews that Wilson’s wife was “fair game” (and was Matthews even subpoenaed?), then there’s a very different picture (Harris is also a bit imprecise above; Wilson never said that Cheney ordered his trip, he said that Cheney's request for more information was the reason the CIA sent him... but hey, it's a chat).

My take has always been that the Plame leak, in addition to being damage control as usual, was dirty politics as usual from the Bush administration. The problem this time is that, in addition to being unethical, this time their actions were actually illegal as well, and they got caught.

Rove. This one’s trickier. News reports state that on his fourth trip to the grand jury he told them he may well have heard Plame’s name from Libby. While this clearly seems like a move to save his own ass, this may also be a White House strategy... Libby is doomed, so let’s make him the fall guy, and blame everything on him. I would not be surprised if Rove was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. He did in fact reveal Plame’s identity to Time’s Matt Cooper, but I think at least a false statement charge is looming. Some folks feels he’s flipped on everyone, while others say he’s fighting the charges furiously and refused a plea bargain. Some say he won’t be indicted but he will continue to be investigated by Fitzgerald. Rove can claim faulty memory, but I don’t find that plausible... does the grand jury buy it? I feel one indictment at least is likely, but if indictments do not come, I would be surprised if he was not investigated further. I don’t think he sails through this clean legally (not in the short term, at least).

Rove has made many enemies over the years, who have dared not cross him further for fear of not working in the party anymore. If he topples, there will be a lot of buzzards. Large amounts of dirty laundry will come out if he is seen as through, or vulnerable. (And I’m sure I could mix in another overused metaphor if it weren’t so late now.) It sure would be nice to know if Rove was indeed directly involved with events such as the slanderous push-polling in South Carolina against John McCain.

Cheney. Some folks feel Cheney may be named as an unindicted co-conspirator. I find it hard to believe that Libby would undertake anything major without Cheney’s knowledge, but I also find it hard to believe that Cheney, despite his repeated disregard for the truth, would knowingly lie under oath if he knew he could get caught. News sources disagree as to whether his interview with Fitzgerald was under oath or not, and they also disagree about whether he met with Tenet or not. One story, from The New York Times, has Tenet telling Cheney about Plame, which would almost certainly mean Cheney requested the information. But MSNBC reported that Tenet denies he told Cheney this. So, my take is that Cheney’s hands are dirty, but may not be filthy, and he will likely not face any serious legal action. I do think his past misstatements will get some new scrutiny from the press, however.

There are other figures such as John Hannah, Stephen Hadley, Wurmer and the usual gang of Rice, Bolton, and all who also may be indicted, but this is all murkier. If someone flipped and went for a plea, it’s most likely a lower-rung (but perhaps central) person.

I would guess that one or two more people beside Libby and Rove would be indicted, although if reports are to be believed, they will not be in the White House proper, but instead from the Pentagon or even the State Department.

Is there further damning or exonerating evidence we don’t know about? Most definitely. It’ll be interesting to see how everything plays out, but more importantly... what the truth is.

To bring it back to Shakespeare, and fools and knaves... I have no doubt that while Cheney is a knave, Libby will fall on his sword to save him (as folks as Halliburton did for him before when it was discovered they were illegally dealing with America’s sworn enemy Iran). I’m less sure of Rove, and the next days, weeks, and months will be revealing. He’s always seemed like something of a craven bully to me. Supposedly he’s vicious when cornered, but would he go down for Bush? Maybe. But for Libby or Cheney? I don’t know, but I think that’s less likely. And I think Bush especially would want to save Rove, and other folks of course know that.

Regardless, no one seems "foolish" enough to be an "honest broker" with Bush, who accounts depict as increasingly angry and frustrated, blaming everyone around him. No one has said to him what he has so sorely needed, something in the spirit of:

See better Lear, and let me still remain
The true blank of thine eye.
— Kent to Lear, King Lear, 1.1, 161-162

(Wild Miers replacement speculation to follow shortly!)

Updated Update: Bennett and Gibson

Back to the Bennett incident. Eugene Robinson offers a good editorial on the subject. He observes,

If he was citing Levitt's work [Freakonomics], Bennett could have said that to lower the crime rate "you could abort every white baby" or "you could abort every Hispanic baby" or "you could abort every Asian baby," since every group has unwanted, poor children being raised by single mothers.

So now that we have Bennett on the couch, shouldn't we conclude that he mentioned only black children because, perhaps on a subconscious level, he associates "black" with "criminal''?

Robinson also hosted a chat online that can be read here.

Meanwhile, Slate’s science writer William Saletan has a fantastic article on Bennett as well, exploring the actual science and research behind all the claims being thrown around about crime, abortion, and race. He also considers and quite authoritatively dismisses all the key claims made in defense of Bennett. It’s a great read. The paragraph that stunned me the most was:

So, where did Bennett get the idea? [Fox News’ John] Gibson blames "all those arguments white liberals have with white conservatives about abortion, in which the white liberal eventually defends his pro-abortion position by saying, 'Well, they'll just grow up poor and be criminals anyway.' " Really? I've heard a lot of white liberals talk about abortion, and I've never heard one of them say that.

Wow. My apologies for running with this slight tangent, as Gibson rears his insensate head again and just spouts inanity. He follows up an ineffective attempt to change the subject with an unconvincing argument. I’d only read some of Gibson’s comments prior to seeing the video I linked to in the earlier Bennett post, so I have a newfound awe for his plummeting intellect. Currently, he’s my leading contender for Idiot News Commentator of the Year (Idiot of the Year is a competitive race this year, however, so it’s unlikely that Gibson can win more than his admittedly distinguished subcategory). With folks like Gibson, I have to wonder if he actually believes what he’s saying or if he’s aware he’s bullshitting. I think he just makes most of it up as he goes along, since he seems to pull one unpersuasive lie after another out of his ass. (I expect a higher caliber of liar from the prestigious Fox News, Mr. Gibson!) Gibson seems fond of an argument pattern often employed by George Bush, the Straw Man argument, where one props up a weak counterargument to pummel, such as the idea that “some people” want to give comfort to terrorists. However, in both their cases they can’t seem to find anyone who actually holds the view they want to deride, so they just make up a Straw Man. We can further call this the Invented Straw Man argument. In a variation of the old news conference axiom that a speaker answers the question he wishes he’d been asked, with the Invented Straw Man the speaker attacks the view he wishes his opponent had. Thus, we are introduced to the mythical liberals who wish to give comfort to terrorists and abort the fetuses of poor couples since it’s inevitable that if born those children will grow up to be criminals... which would mean we might as well lower the social program spending we all know diehard liberals despise... Wait.

Since we’re talking about unfair debate techniques, it must be pointed out that I’m engaging in some ad hominem attacks on Gibson... although of course I’m not just saying he’s an idiot, I’m stating why he’s an idiot. Frankly, I think the political cartoonist approach is the best — when someone offers you hogwash, the best response is to laugh at them, the louder and longer the better.

The Bennett Controversy

I have to say, nothing eases my mind more than a rich, middle-aged white man assuring me that the comments of another rich, middle-aged white man were not in fact racist. Whew! What a load off there. Pass another wine cooler and the clam dip.

I just had to post on this subject after seeing the remarkable video of Fox News’ Brit Hume and The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol explaining to NPR’s Juan Williams (who is black) why former education William Bennett’s comments about aborting black babies to lower the crime rate were not in fact racist. Thanks to Crooks and Liars for posting it (and many of the other videos linked below).

You can read and hear Bennett’s comments here at Media Matters for America if you haven’t encountered them already. Now, in Bennett’s defense, he was speaking off the cuff and these were not planned remarks. And, he condemns the idea that he invokes, which as Kristol observes is using the classic debate technique of reductio ad absurdum. However, his choice of example remains deeply insensitive. I was rather stunned reading his words, much as I was when I heard Trent Lott’s infamous remarks praising Strom Thurmond— my god, did he really say that? Am I hearing this out of context? I must have misheard him... But in Bennett’s case, I also had to wonder — what possible context would excuse them?

Is Bennett a raging racist? No. Do his comments reveal some racist attitudes? You betcha. I think that’s a fair charge, and it’s fair to challenge him for his comments and demand an apology.

As to the Fox News clip, you can see it here. You’ll notice Kristol ducks the direct question about whether he thinks Bennett’s comments were offensive — gutless. Meanwhile, Brit Hume charges that the real problem is that the left has seized upon these comments and blown things out of proportion. (Remember, the problem is not racism, it’s the damn left making a big deal out of it.) At one point someone asks if Bennett should apologize and there’s a loud, somewhat irate “why?” that sounds like it’s from Hume, who’s cut to next, seemingly peeved at all these foolishness. I just had to laugh in horror at the whole spectacle, feeling for poor Williams. The man is clearly upset and frankly, has every right to be.

If Bennett apologizes, fine, move on — but he hasn’t, so please, conservatives, stop being apologists for his refusal to apologize. When one considers that this very conservative White House has already condemned Bennett’s comments, you’ve got the cover to do the right thing, unless, like Hume, you really don’t see anything wrong with Bennett’s comments.

Several years ago an official was fired (and later re-hired) for using the word “niggardly” at a press conference, because some people mistakenly thought the word had a racist origin. It doesn’t. That was a case of political correct oversensitivity. In contrast, the Bennett incident, while not an earth-shaker, deserves some attention.

There’s no doubt that in polite society, at least, being called a racist is one of the worst labels imaginable. It’s not something to be tossed off blithely. But telling a black person, yet alone any person of conscience, he shouldn’t be offended by Bennett’s remarks — now that’s offensive.

UPDATE:

Crooks and Liars has another staggering Fox News clip featuring John Gibson’s defense of Bennett, which is that Bennett wasn’t talking about the crime rate, he was instead bemoaning the abortion rate among blacks. Huh? He goes on:

Gibson: I think liberals are worried that blacks are going to start worrying about abortion...liberals don't want blacks thinking about abortion because they don't want those people peeling away from the support from abortion which is a liberal, sacred cow.

Please, please, why give this guy a mike? He’s clearly engaged in disingenuous bullshit, he’s an idiot, or both. Rather than a balance of right and left, can we instead focus on having an imbalance of smart versus dumb? With the seething mass of conservative commentators out there, huddled and yearning to be paid, surely even Fox News can do better than John Gibson.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reported on Saturday that Bennett still had not apologized. In line with Hume:

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who has been reaching out to African Americans and other minorities, called Bennett's comments "regrettable and inappropriate." But Mehlman also lashed out at liberals whom he accused of engaging in racially divisive rhetoric when it suits their interests: "What's much worse is the hypocrisy . . . from the left."

I’m curious as to what racial hypocrisy Mehlman is talking about, but then, substance and logic have never been his strong points.

The same article ends with a quotation that many of the chattering class could take to heart:

Robert Woodson Sr., president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, said "it was stupid" for Bennett to even ruminate on such an explosive topic but defended him as a good man. "Sometimes intellectuals become detached from common sense," he said.

BONUS: Because you never can have enough conservative white boys lecturing black folks about race, here’s an older segment, if you’ve got the stomach, on race and Katrina. It’s the second item down, titled: “Mark Williams sinks to a new Low.” I’m much less worried about William Bennett than a bullying ignoramus and asshole like this (sorry, a politer term will not do for this guy). Remember: the louder and more self-righteous you are, the closer you must be to The Truth. In relation to my characterization above: Bennett made some racially insensitive remarks. Mark Williams is a racist.