"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Monday, September 17, 2007

Is Giuliani the Hillary Slayer?

What is it that makes Rudy Giuliani so attractive to so many conservatives despite his less than conservative stands on social issues? Last week gives us a perfect example of why. While the Democrats and their left-wing allies were slandering a four star general, Republicans and conservatives, including those on the campaign trail for president, were strongly voicing their condemnation, many in writing and on the air. But only one person took action and actually did something about it. That would be Rudy.

Philip Klein in the American Spectator has a wonderful article that nicely captures why so many conservatives love the guy, and why he just might be the only one that can take down the Clinton machine. Not only did Giuliani challenge the New York Times to give him the same ad space for the same price, he also created a Web ad slamming Clinton for her flip-flops on the war (you can find links to these in the article). Klein believes that because of his background and who he is that he has a much better chance of defeating Hillary than do the other candidates in the race.

As demoralized conservatives begin to fear that another Clinton presidency is inevitable, this episode demonstrates that Giuliani may represent the Republicans' best shot at defeating Hillary in next year's election.

Throughout his career, Giuliani has excelled at relentlessly pursuing opponents, whether in the courtroom or political arena. . . .

Giuliani's background as a prosecutor and gift for speaking plainly and with clarity makes him ideally suited to cut through the type of word parsing for which the Clintons are legendary.

While it is popular for conservatives to lament the existence of the liberal media, Giuliani understands that it is a reality. Rather than belly-ache about it, or, as the Bush administration often has done, ignore attacks by assuming people aren't paying attention and they will go away, Giuliani understands that conservatives need to simply be better at using the media to their advantage, as he did when he fought entrenched liberal interest groups as mayor.

"If I run against Hillary Clinton, I'm perfectly prepared to carry this battle, not expecting that the New York Times or the major networks…are going to give us anywhere the same kind of favorable coverage they will give her," Giuliani told Hugh Hewitt last week. "I'm a realist, I'm not saying that in any way where I have a chip on my shoulder. I've lived with this all during the time I was mayor of New York City. The reality is we just have to be better at communicating."

He also points out that he has more of the kind of experience that gets presidents elected than anybody else in the race, including Clinton and Obama, who have very weak resumes. The same goes for the two Senators in the primaries who are his closest rivals and another who was governor, Mr. Romney.

As much as I’m conflicted about Giuliani I have to say Klein is very persuasive. I have until the Illinois primary to make up my mind, but the only other candidate I would vote for is Thompson, although I could live with Romney. He’s made the right changes, be they for the wrong reasons or not. But I must say that hearing about these episodes last week and reading this piece got me all pumped up. The Clinton machine is a powerful and deceptive force, and it’s going to take a real fighter to bring it down.

While there are certainly many factors that conservatives will have to consider when choosing the Republican nominee, all they have to do is look at the reincarnated HillaryCare plan that is being unveiled today to recognize that the ability of a Republican candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton should be a major consideration.

It’s hard to argue with Giuliani’s track record in combat with elitist leftist culture, and that he relishes the battle. That is certainly something to consider.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Is the Liberal or Conservative Mind Better?

I know it’s hard to believe, but according to a recent study liberal and conservative brains actually work differently. To most people with a bit of common sense this is axiomatic, but to academics this needs a “study.” And surprise, surprise, according to these academics:

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.
Isn’t this amazing that liberals are, well, just so liberal! And not only this, “liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.” Gosh if it wasn’t for liberals we’d all be stuck in the benighted dark ages of conservatism. And this must all be true because “scientists” tell us it’s true.

Now if these studies were talking about the classical liberalism of the 18th and 19th Centuries, then I could buy into the conclusions. But all those classical liberals are dead, and the new classical liberals of today are called conservatives. If one were to objectively observe American political discourse over the last 30 years it would be very clear that modern liberals are far less open to new ideas. In fact, they haven’t had one since the Great Society!

And if we use words like reactionary and rigid we see that the modern left embodies such terms. It is striking that the Democrat Party has been completely co-opted by the loony moveon.org left. Of course that all started with the left’s favorite American humiliation, Vietnam, and as the debate over Iraq in the last few days has shown us as well they are still invested in American humiliation. How liberal of them.

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Is it wrong for me to hold a grudge against the French for this long?

The question is, "What is it that orbits around the earth?"

My six year old just asked me what I was doing. I asked her if she knew the answer to the question. She did. Then she asked me again what I was doing.

"Mocking the French," I said.

"OK, Daddy. When you're done, can you read me a story?"


At some level, she understands.

I don't care what the standardized tests say; American kids are alright.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

The Pigs, Iraqi-Style

CNN reports that the Iraqi Police Dept. is toejam, "dysfunctional and sectarian." Well, duh.

The headline trumpets the failure of the Iraqi police, but the article goes on to indicate that the reformation of the Iraqi army is somewhat less than a disaster. The problem of the police has been noted by any number of journalists on the ground for months and months now---the people trust the army somewhat as even-handed and pan-Iraqi; the police are no more than local militias, and often allied with the Shi'a radical Moqtada al-Sadr.

If we withdrew, would the army collapse? I think so---they only cohere when US troops fight alongside them.

If we withdrew, then, what of the police? Likely, these militias would move against their enemies even more openly than they do. Right now, they fulfill some police function by safeguarding their own. In their spare time, they function as death squads, eradicating their counterparts on the other side.

Now, we see "civilian" bodies pile up, but how many of them are bad guys killing each other? This is a question I don't hear asked.

(Based on the news coverage, I have absolutely no idea as to how much of the murder in Iraq is bad guys killing bad guys. But I confess such murders wouldn't upset me. Sorry.)

What we do know is that it's al-Qaeda in Iraq that targets civilians almost exclusively and indiscriminately---the real civilians, woman and children. If the Iraqi army dissolves with a US withdrawal, and it likely would IMO, only the tribes would battle al-Qaeda, but only piecemeal, and only if they thought they might win. Afghanistan is a nation of proud and courageous tribes, but the greater organization of the Taliban left them only with the option of living under their boot to perhaps fight another day. Piecemeal can't get it done against an organized oppressor, as much as we admire the French Resistance, such as it was.

And so, the police problem of right now as a constant in the equation, stay or go. As always, I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

Ecce Homo

I've never had a problem with those who question the decision to topple Saddam, or those who question the Bush Administration's competence, whether in Iraq or New Orleans.

But those who have questioned what's in the president's heart, his very humanity, as if it were all about oil or a disdain for black people, they've crossed the line of their own humanity by anointing themselves worthy to judge him as a human being.

Bush tells biographer: 'I do tears'
Associated Press Writer
Bush Biography

A tear runs down President Bush's cheek as he takes part in a Medal of Honor Ceremony for Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham of Scio, N.Y., Thursday, Jan. 11, 2007, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. Bush granted journalist Robert Draper several extended interviews in late 2006 and early 2007, as well as unusual access to his aides, for the book "Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush," which went on sale Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2007.

Under that famously self-confident exterior is a president who weeps---a lot.

President Bush told the author of a new book on his presidency that "I try not to wear my worries on my sleeve" or show anything less than steadfastness in public, especially in a time of war.

"I fully understand that the enemy watches me, the Iraqis are watching me, the troops watch me, and the people watch me," he said. Yet, he said, "I do tears."

"I've got God's shoulder to cry on. And I cry a lot. I do a lot of crying in this job. I'll bet I've shed more tears than you can count, as president. I'll shed some tomorrow."

Monday, September 03, 2007

Deus In Machina

Recently an odd sort of duel was fought in the American Spectator; not with pistols, but epistolary.

The combatants were that Derbyshire fellow who writes for National Review with a sort of weighty weary wisdom that recalls pre-20th Century intellectualism, and Tom Bethell, perhaps the most courageously open-minded magazine writer of our time, thirty years and counting on the front lines of the culture wars from his trench at the aforementioned Spectator.

Mr. D was grunting through a barely suppressed yawn (think Nero Wolfe) that anyone with an evolved mind knows that the "irreducible complexity" of small cells is a bogus argument against evolution, one only advanced by that killjoy cabal of clerical types who would twist any premise to confirm their preconceived conclusion of Creation.

Mr. B countered - with vivacity - that even the most minute constituent cell of a living organism was equipped with complex circuitry like a computer, and the idea that such an "active ingredient" could have evolved from simple undesigned matter is the sort of absurdity only a pompous pseudo-intellectual could sell himself and try to sell the world.

It won't surprise anyone, I hope, that Bethell's approach impassions me while Derbyshire's draws an answering yawn.

But what I find most fascinating in all skirmishes of this type is how both miss a key point. Let's skip for a moment the question of whether the cell's being like a computer proves design. Computers themselves prove the world is designed; why get locked into cells?

The idea is simple. The theory of evolution says there is no mechanism to create right things in the world, there is only a way of eliminating wrong things. There is no trial and error, there is only error, with the result that a trial occurs by default only. Bad things can't survive, what remains is the self-sustaining, which we then define as good. Fine. Such a system could exist but it could not have within itself potential creative systems. If anything it naturally tends to spawn spontaneous and arbitrary properties, more likely to be troublesome by a factor of zillions to one.

The fact that the forces and properties existing in the world can be rearranged via human intervention to form a computer indicate a designer who anticipated that arrangement. To assume that all the parts for something so amazing were present for no purpose at all and a human mind could discover that possibility as a coincidental reconfiguration of reality is monstrously absurd.

The Larry Craig Affair (and not much of one---he didn't even get any)

In this day of live-and-let-live---which, mind you, is largely a good thing---we still prohibit things like sex on the sidewalk. We all draw our lines, the only question is where.

Former US Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) attempted something like having sex on the sidewalk in the restroom of a major metropolitan airport, and has paid for it with his career. That should be the end of it, but it's not.

Because there is an aspect of homosexuality to all this, and necessarily so: if heterosexually-inclined men could get some action simply by tapping a foot in a public toilet, even the Super Bowl would play in front of a helluva lot of empty seats. Most of the guys would be in line outside the crapper.

Now, experts in gaydom have opined that cruising public men's rooms is largely amateur hour for the bi-curious or almost-fully repressed, and that seems logical; gay bars are usually far more tastefully appointed than the airport loo, although you still have to listen to disco either way. Still, if a person wants to be closeted, most people are willing to honor that, including most gay folk.

It's a fact that there are many people in the closet who hold ranking posts in the GOP, and even the straight people they're surrounded by have some functioning level of gaydar. They're dimly aware of it, and that's how they like it, with the emphasis on "dim," not "aware."

Are you now or have you ever...? Ehh. Been there, done that.

So we might say Larry Craig's sin was in getting caught, which makes it a legal/prudential issue, not a moral one. Stupid. Sex on the sidewalk. Geez, get some self-control, man. At least hire a professional, who's paid not for the sex but for the confidentiality. Don't chase your bliss on the cheap. What do we pay you people so much for?

Republicans stand on their heads to avoid sexual-preference McCarthyism. They'd heard the rumors about Larry Craig. He was on the downlow, but it hardly seems proper that the party should gather rumors, investigate, and kick out anyone who's suspected of being on it. Mark Foley's closet was half-open, but what would have been the hue and cry if the GOP had made an issue of his improper advances?

We know the answer to that: "anti-gay," heads or tails. You lose.

So they let the Foley rumors slide, and it might have cost the control of Congress in the 2006 election. But what can ya do? To be seen as persecuting him as a gay man would have been even worse, nor was there any genuine enthusiasm for it. (His real sin against the republic and the polity was in trying to diddle the help, but outrage at sexual harassment seldom leads to anyone being removed from office, as we discovered a decade or so ago. It's a perk, not a crime.)

No, what's clearly disgusting about this whole (non-)affair is that in some circles, it's not being gay, but being "anti-gay" that justifies taking the gloves off. But what is "anti-gay?"

I can't find much that Craig said or did politically except his opposition to gay marriage (with an apparent openness to civil unions) and objections to entering sexual preference into hate crimes legislation. This brings down the pejorative "anti-gay," a hideous term of art, on the order of "baby-killer."

If one is "anti-gay," then, is he fair game for "outing," by opposition activists and even "journalists?" Apparently some people think that's A-OK, including the Idaho Statesman, a newspaper that admitted investigating if not stalking him.

That's the disgusting part, folks.

They might have had a point if Larry Craig had been an advocate of overturning Lawrence v. Texas and restoring anti-sodomy laws, which do indeed extend to the private bedroom. But the issues of gay marriage and of hate crimes legislation are entirely ones of public policy.

Larry Craig may have stepped over the line between public and private, but if there was ever any line between public and private, it was they who obliterated it.

Now, it turns out that some of the Democratic presidential candidates don't support gay marriage either. And at least one has been the subject of, um, rumors which do not bear repeating.

What shall be done with them? Has the Idaho Statesman assigned a reporter to the beat?

More questions to which we already know the answers.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Smokers of the World Unite!

Now this is my kind of gal: an unapologetic smoker for 93 years! No PC health fetish for her, no sir. Five a day will keep the doctor away.

Monday, August 27, 2007

Waiting for Fred-ot

Well, it works better if you say it. As in Godot.

In the Oscar-winning movie Tootsie, Jessica Lange confesses to Dustin Hoffman in his female disguise that all she wants from a man is for him to play it straight, no games, and tell the truth that he simply wants to make love to her.

When Hoffman actually tries the tactic as his real-life male self, the comely Jessica throws her drink in his face. Such impertinence.

The GOP has been putting on the hair shirt. Not only has the perhaps last of its flirtations with idealism (Iraq---the other two being Reagan vs. communism and the Civil War) gone not-that-well, but domestically, it proved that once entrusted with actual governing power, it would cynically loot the public treasury to buy votes just like any other ruling party, and without the moral confidence. (Or acclaim.)

After they punted congress in the 2006 elections, there was barely a Republican, and not a single conservative, who didn't see it as justice.

Enter Fred-ot.

By most accounts, so far Fred Thompson's trip down the 2008 rhetorical runway has a lot of honesty, a lot of hair shirt. Truth, you might call it. The GOP has abandoned its principles, the Democrats don't take anything seriously. But will it fly?

His tone is a bit mournful, a bit stumbling, not passionate. (May I recommend as background here the exquisite Harvey Mansfield on thumos, on political passion. It's what makes things go.)

No, you don't court Jessica Lange or the American electorate with brutal honesty and the offer of a hair shirt. You'll make a lot of sense to the wallflowers of America like me, but the rest, friend and foe alike, will throw their drinks in your face.

Word up, Fred.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Perfidy of the Private Sector, 24/7

Let's see here. Ten years ago, twenty years ago, the failure of the mortgage lending industry to make most subprime loans was called "redlining." Now, the overwhelming willingness on its part to find ways to qualify almost everyone is called "unfair/unsound lending practices". That in a nutshell is a good history of Hillary's intellectual development. There's just no pleasing some people.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

He's Oh So Sorry

I see that the ineffable Larry Tribe, Harvard law professor and man of action, has apologized to the widow of the late Professor Bernie Siegan for having written Senator Joe Biden in 1987, questioning Siegan's "competence as a constitutional lawyer and sincerity as a scholar." Siegan had been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, but never was confirmed.

Maybe Tribe sincerely feels bad and believes that his words were misguided. Or maybe he believes that Hillary will be president and that she might nominate him to the Supreme Court, and that the time is now to backtrack on his treatment of Siegan so that the Republicans might be induced to refrain from engaging in a little payback. Call me a cynic, but I believe the latter.

The Vietnam Fallacy

Since long before the actual invasion, any number of commentators suggested that our involvement in Iraq would enmesh us in "another Vietnam." The Democratic Party even ran a lame nominee for President largely (it seems) on the sense that as an anti-Vietnam war veteran, Sen. Kerry would command the respect and admiration and trust of enough Americans to win the Presidency. As things have continued to remain tough (though perhaps improving a bit over the last few months) the comparisons have continued to roll in.

Jonah Goldberg over at NRO makes a point, though, that had always niggled at me a bit, but that I had never seen properly expressed. Sure, there's a conventional wisdom about Vietnam that says it was a mistake to get in - and there are plenty of reasonable arguments on that side. But it seems to me wildly inflated to suggest that our withdrawal and South Vietnam's subsequent defeat was either (a) a good thing for the U.S. or (b) a benefit to the Democratic Party. Consider the thirty-odd years since our withdrawal and tell me which party has done better politically? Part of the Republican success has been predicated on the sense that the Democratic Party is not to be trusted with our national security and a central part of that distrust was its mushiness on the Cold War. And central to that sense was the Dems' evolution into the anti-Vietnam War party, perhaps best exemplified by McGovern's presidential campaign in 1972.

I grew up in a military family with a father who had flown B-52 and C-130 missions over Vietnam and I understood from early on that the Democrats could not be trusted because they didn't understand or were willing to take it to the enemy - and Vietnam was the clearest example. Two anecdotes. Sometime around 1980 we were at my grandparents' house and my aunt mentioned that she had gotten the new Jane Fonda workout tape. My dad, whom I had never heard swear before, turned around and barked, "What!? You're watching that b**ch!? I had friends die because of her!" Clearly, the anti-war folks were anathema to dad. A couple of years ago, as a new (untenured) faculty member, I was chatting with an older (tenured) professor who was exercised because some of the anti-Kerry guys had used the term "traitor" (or something like that) and, as a veteran, there's hardly anything worse to be called, he fumed. Being untenured, I sort of smiled and nodded, walked to my office and thought to myself: well, that's likely true, but the overheated, cynical and false claims Kerry made after returning from Vietnam (most notably at the Winter Soldier conference) were themselves deeply offensive and meant that folks like my dad (and I, for that matter) couldn't ever vote for anyone like him.

If Iraq is going badly next summer, the GOP will take it on the chin electorally. But the Dems won't gain any long-term advantages by making themselves the agents of withdrawal. Why do you think the smartest candidate for the nomination - Sen. Clinton - has been the most resistant to the withdrawal siren? Americans, I think, don't particularly like to fight long, drawn-out wars but even more they hate to lose them.

A Poor Man's Amanpour

Usually I don't stop by to tout my regular offerings. Visitors here know that I generally do a column a week for The American Spectator and one for Human Events.

But I thought I would make an exception for today's piece at Spectator. It provides an important response to CNN's mini-docu-series, God's Warriors, presented by their Queen of Moral Equivalency.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Deflated Hopes

Fascinating headline on Yahoo today:


Drat! I thought the previous record of 7633.9 would stand the test of time. Showing once again just how fleeting are our achievements in life.

Congress, More Unpopular Than Ever

According to a recent Gallup poll, Congress got a whopping 18% approval rating. That makes President Bush seem like a rock star in comparison. In the 33 years since Gallup first started the poll Congressional ratings have only been this low one other time, and that was in the early 90s when the House banking scandal came to light. The president’s approval rating, while low at 32%, gives him quite a leg up on Congress. Of course the press won’t play it that way, so all we’ll ever hear about is a “deeply unpopular president.”

One interesting aspect of the poll is that the Democrats are loosing support from their own:

Frustration with Congress spans the political spectrum. There are only minor (but not statistically meaningful) differences in the approval ratings Democrats (21%), Republicans (18%), and independents (17%) give to Congress. Typically, partisans view Congress much more positively when their party is in control of the institution, so the fact that Democrats' ratings are not materially better than Republicans' is notable.

The nine-point drop in Congress' job approval rating from last month to this month has come exclusively from Democrats and independents, with Democrats' ratings dropping 11 points (from 32% to 21%) and independents' ratings dropping 13 points (from 30% to 17%). Republicans' 18% approval rating is unchanged from last month.

If you’ll remember back in November Republicans lost control of Congress because of lukewarm support from their base and Independents moving toward Democrats. They have now lost that advantage. I love the irony here, because in the campaign Democrats were withering in their criticism of the Republican Congress, but they offered no alternative other than how rotten Republicans are so vote for us. Now it seems that most Americans think the Democrats are rotten too.

Now what? If Republicans would simply go back to 1994, remember what they stood for when they took control of Congress, and govern that way again this Democrat Congress will be short lived.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

The Dean's Listless

As a resident of South Florida, I was thrilled to see the headline: Dean Downgraded.

Imagine my dismay when I read the article and found that Howard Dean is still Mr. Chairman. Poor Arafat, to have his title besmirched in this way.

Now Here's Some Religious Bigotry

I've been skeptical of the campaign Hugh Hewitt has been waging in his multi-media, multi-part defense of Mitt Romney, in particular of his efforts to tar anyone who says anything negative about Mormonism as a religious "bigot." (I don't think it's right to rule Romney out of bounds simply because he holds certain religious views I find wrongheaded, but I also don't think that a candidate's religious views are somehow sacrosanct when reflecting on who one wants to lead our country. His or her religious views tell us something about their moral and rational judgment, after all).

For a real example of what seems to me to be outright religious bigotry check out this post over at CQ regarding how the Louisiana Democratic Party is wheeling out that old anti-Catholic nastiness against the Republican candidate, Bobby Jindal. Jindal's a Catholic and has written a number of apologetic defenses of the faith, which the Louisiana Dems have decided makes him "anti-Protestant." It's a smear and utterly groundless (and I say that as one of those still "protest"-ing and who disagrees with some of Jindal's theological claims). Louisiana politics has always been a bit nasty, but this is despicable.

Monday, August 20, 2007

As Britain Steps Down, France Steps Up

Who'd a thunk it? I've always blamed France for the Iraq war, and of course that was right, as we shall see in a minute.

But first, as the new Gordon Brown regime evacuates the slim UK force from Basra, Nicolas Sarkozy's new foreign minister paid a surprise visit to Iraq on Sunday and offered to help. The world is stunned, but they shouldn't be. Bernard Kouchner, a founder of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), is a most amazing man:

Now we are turning the page. There is a new perspective. We want to talk about the future. Democracy, integrity, sovereignty, reconciliation, and stopping the killings. That's my deep aim.

Why, just recently, I meself resolved to turn the page when maneuvered into discussing Iraq with my friends from the left: Don't mention Bush. Already, things have gone unfathomably smoother that way. (And never underestimate a little success on the ground, no matter how tenuous.)

Now, way back when The New Republic was a credible magazine (two months ago), it ran a fascinating article by Paul Berman on Kouchner and the Iraq War that's a must-read except you can't because it's behind their subscription wall. (The enterprising must-reader can get behind it by removing "tnr.com" from his stored cookies.)

Only, by then, everything was already going to hell, from Kouchner's point of view. He was already furious--judging, at least, from what he went on to write during the next year. He was furious at his own government, in Paris. Bush and the United States had been putting ever more pressure on Saddam and had been making it ever more obvious that, unless Saddam caved, the invasion was guaranteed to go ahead. The French should have done everything possible to make these American threats look ever more fearsome.

Instead, Chirac's French foreign minister was running around the world actively campaigning against the American policy. Kouchner was convinced that, by agitating so energetically against the American invasion, French diplomacy was only sustaining Saddam in his fantasy that somebody, somewhere, was going to rescue his regime. This was a disaster. The no-war policy was the enemy of the less-than-war possibility. After the invasion, when the American investigators had finally managed to interview Saddam and some of his generals in their prison cells, we learned that, until the last moment, Saddam did imagine that, because of objections in the Security Council, the United States was not going to invade. This was Kouchner's fear entirely--what he had warned against in his manifesto in
Le Monde.

Indeed---had France gotten the US/UK's back, Saddam and his lovely sons Uday and Attila would have abdicated and be sunning themselves on the Riviera as you read this instead of joining their hundreds of thousands of victims six feet under. Instead, the corrupt Chirac regime set about building a critical mass of world opposition to toppling Saddam & Sons. The US and UK were on the clock, and so they made the precipitous decision to drop a few bombs and try to take him out. The die was cast, but the timing was dictated by France, not---according to popular belief---America and Britain.

The TNR article continues unsparingly with Kouchner's disagreement with casting the die and invading, his disdain for Bush's rhetorical clumsiness in playing the WMD card in the court of world opinion instead of what Kouchner saw as a slam-dunk humanitarian argument (although that could have been more Blair's idea, seeking UK legal cover), disagreement with disbanding the Ba'athist army (although it largely disbanded itself), and a revulsion with Paul Bremer's---and the Bush Administration's, it must be admitted---autocratic stewardship of the resulting mess (can't think of any objection there).

But his greatest revulsion was reserved for the Western left (and as an official of France's Socialist Party and with a plan for global health care, a member of the left himself), with its mindless anti-globalist knee-jerk anti-American opposition to even the clearest of moral imperatives, because Kouchner is one of those idealists who believes that if you hear a man killing his wife in the next apartment, you have a moral duty to break in and stop it.

He thought about the European peace movement. The mass marches against the war, the placards, the slogans, the chanting crowds--every last aspect of this movement reminded him of the grossest errors of the left-wing past. "In our generation," he told [close friend Daniel] Cohn-Bendit, "antiwar marches used to offer protection to the worst Stalinist regimes, the most frightening massacres, and because of this, I wouldn't let myself take part anymore--nor would you, Danny. God knows how often we heard people shout, 'Down with Bush!' But I didn't hear even the tiniest cry, 'Down with Saddam!' And let's not even mention--or rather, we had better mention--the anti-Semitic incidents...

Kouchner's argument about Iraq mostly focused on a specific reality, and this was the scale of the disaster in Iraq under Saddam's rule. The grimness of the human landscape in Iraq, together with the plea for help that so many Iraqis had been making for so many years, sufficed to justify the invasion, even without reference to worldwide principles. Yet where were the champions of the humanitarian cause, the human-rights militants, who should have responded to these pleas? Kouchner wasn't concerned about the orthodox left--the traditional left that had always been wrong about totalitarian movements, the left that pictured America as the fountain of evil, the left that had never wanted to overthrow Milosevic, the left that, in February 2003, was perfectly content to march in the streets side by side with the supporters of Saddam and the wildest of Islamist totalitarians, as masses of people had done in the giant antiwar demonstrations in Paris and London...

The tenor of Kouchner's comments on the intellectuals and human-rights and humanitarian militants suggested pretty plainly that, in his judgment, a huge number of people had betrayed their own best principles--had done this out of anti-American spite, or out of loathing for Bush, or who knows why, but they had done it. A dismaying situation: America, in its maladroit fashion, had just succeeded in overthrowing the worst tyranny of modern times, and the world's intellectuals were virtually quivering in indignation that such a thing had taken place.

A leftist mugged by reality and repulsed at his own side's obtuseness---a neo-con, if you will, at least by European standards. (Although to be called one might destroy him in the eyes of his enlightened fellows. Shhhhhhhhh.)

Paul Berman's article has many other wonders, few of them complimentary to the Bush Administration, about the man Bernard Kouchner, but he's worth our time to learn of him. A most amazing man:

You'll see, history will say that the Americans liberated the Iraqis, whatever the future may be, even if they did it poorly...The Americans have led a legitimate war on the basis of bad and false reasons, and, unfortunately, without the international community. In the long run, they will win, even so--but badly.

At this moment in time and history, winning badly will have to do, and I believe Bernard Kouchner is just the guy to help us do it.