Leaping Ever Rightward

It's an odd little world we live in. By any reasonable standard, in 2002-2003 Michael Gerson, in his role as White House speechwriter, helped outline a foreign policy approach that, whether you liked it or not, was certainly audacious and new -- taking some strands that had long existed in US political culture and taking them much further than they'd ever gone before. If all this had gone well, Gerson could have left his government job and become a pillar of the Washington Establishment. Since it turned out to be a tremendous failure, instead he got a Council on Foreign Relations fellowship and a Washington Post column.

And now he's being savagely attacked by Michael Ledeen and Mark Steyn for being insufficiently enthusiastic about broadening the war to include attacks on Syria and Iran. "No surprise, then, that Gerson has no stomach for forceful action against the Syranians. He's for sanctions-plus-hard-bargaining." Sanctions! Hard bargaining! Ha! "I don't believe the President thinks of Syria and Iran as mere 'accelerants,'" writes Steyn, "But it's unnerving that someone so close to him these past six years does."

Comments

Michael Ledeen is a perfect example of why impeachment is important. The fact that this leftover from Iran-contra never got called to the carpet for all the skullduggery in the 80s and still has a platform from which he can call for fighting to the other man's last son should be proof that people in the administration today need to be held accountable, so that 20 years from now, we aren't treated to the spectacle of chickenhawks urging us to bomb the hell out of Luxemborg or where ever the hell we might find ourselves when I am an old man.

Posted by calipygian | July 22, 2007 1:44 PM

Well, you have to remember that for official Washington and their pundit worshippers, the crimes of Iran-Contra weren't the period's wholesale U.S. support of death squads and literal genocidalists, but that on several occasions Congress was lied to.

Maybe if a few members of the Executive branch, say Reagan, had been tried by extraterrestrials for directly facilitating genocide and the mass slaughter of civilians, it might have helped.

As it is, it's always acceptable to recommend killing more brown people.

Posted by El Cid | July 22, 2007 1:51 PM

And Al Capone was popped for tax evasion. And so it goes.

Posted by calipygian | July 22, 2007 1:54 PM

The thing that gets me is that Gerson, who came up with all of Bush's lofty rhetoric (no matter if you disagreed with it like I did), has submitted some really poorly written columns. Nothing but tripe.

Posted by bajsa | July 22, 2007 1:55 PM

Speeches consisting of lofty rhetoric are generally unreadable tripe. Bush's were no exception.

Posted by BP | July 22, 2007 2:01 PM

The reason the Gersons, Ledeens, Pearls, Elliott Richardsons, Feiths, Wolfowitzs et. al. are like energizer frankenstein bunnies is that the wingnut welfare system sustains them during the periods after their miserable failures but before they are resurrected again like zombies for the next wingnut war.

They refuse to stay politically dead. I guess the stake through their heart needs to be constructed out of one part 'crimes against humanity' charges in the ICC and one part mulitiple felony counts with long sentences in hard-time prisons in the US.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | July 22, 2007 2:20 PM

Great comments--which should be sent to Speaker Pelosi and perhaps your own representatives, especially those seeing the absolute need for impeachment to remove this monarchical movement for a good long time. Nothing can kill it entirely, but as Bill Moyers' Journal impeachment dicussion program pointed out, any power allowed to remain is there for future presidents to abuse, should they chose to do so. Unless severly corrected, and we have only impeachment to do that.

Not necessarily for criminal activity (altho' Bush and Cheney have probably done that in spades), but also to correct this monarchical sickness in the body politic.

Pax Americana is proposing an actual paper and ink with stamp letter writing campaign, from now until August 2. Sounds like a good idea.

http://www.paxamericana.net/2007/07/198-sundays-mr-.html

Posted by jawbone | July 22, 2007 2:50 PM

Great comments--which should be sent to Speaker Pelosi and perhaps your own representatives, especially those seeing the absolute need for impeachment to remove this monarchical movement for a good long time. Nothing can kill it entirely, but as Bill Moyers' Journal impeachment dicussion program pointed out, any power allowed to remain is there for future presidents to abuse, should they chose to do so. Unless severly corrected, and we have only impeachment to do that.

Not necessarily for criminal activity (altho' Bush and Cheney have probably done that in spades), but also to correct this monarchical sickness in the body politic.

Pax Americana is proposing an actual paper and ink with stamp letter writing campaign, from now until August 2. Sounds like a good idea.

http://www.paxamericana.net/2007/07/198-sundays-mr-.html

Posted by jawbone | July 22, 2007 2:50 PM

From Gerson:

The second tendency is currently ascendant because the Iranians are hopeful that America is on the verge of a humiliating collapse of will -- for them, an irresistible source of immediate pleasure.

That's just a crazy estimation of Iranian motivations, and bespeaks a worldview that results in things like the current mess in Iraq.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 22, 2007 2:51 PM

Sorry for double post, but posting was so slow I thought I hadn't clicked on Post...ooops.

But, then again, this can't be emphasized enough....

Posted by jawbone | July 22, 2007 2:52 PM

It says a lot about Ledeen that he makes Michael Gerson looks good for, as I have commented elsewhere, Gerson and his ostentatious Pharasitical pietism makes me puke.

Hey, Gerson: Matthew 7:21, bitch. Pulling on your kneepads for Caesar doesn't count.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | July 22, 2007 3:39 PM

Elliot ABRAMS--not Elliot Richardson. Richardson was an honorable, competent man who resigned during the Watergate scandal, rather than fire the Independent Counsel, Archibald Cox.

Elliot Abrahams was convicted of lying to Congress, which obviously made him very attractive to the Bush-Cheney gang.

Posted by Paul Gottlieb | July 22, 2007 4:21 PM

Elliot ABRAMS--not Elliot Richardson. Richardson was an honorable, competent man who resigned during the Watergate scandal, rather than fire the Independent Counsel, Archibald Cox.

Elliot Abrams was convicted of lying to Congress, which obviously made him very attractive to the Bush-Cheney gang.

Posted by Paul Gottlieb | July 22, 2007 4:21 PM

Elliot ABRAMS--not Elliot Richardson. Richardson was an honorable, competent man who resigned during the Watergate scandal, rather than fire the Independent Counsel, Archibald Cox.

Elliot Abrams was convicted of lying to Congress, which obviously made him very attractive to the Bush-Cheney gang.

Posted by Paul Gottlieb | July 22, 2007 4:22 PM

Has Ledeen been right about anything? Who pays attention to him any more, except for a few geeky wingnuts and some equally geeky libs who are held in thrall by his consistent record of public error? He's essentially a troll.

Posted by Joel | July 22, 2007 4:50 PM

In the land of the neocon blind the one-eyed man is a heretic.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 22, 2007 5:20 PM

"Great comments - which should be sent to Speaker Pelosi and perhaps your own representatives," to let them how whacked-out, deluded, and irrational the anti-Bush left has become.

As Don Surber wrote this weekend:

"Instead of addressing the energy crisis, tax reform, securing the borders or even increasing production of U.S. oil to end America's reliance on foreign oil, Democrats have one agenda item: Putting Bush's head on a plate.

Their inability to impeach Bush may explain why only 19 percent of Democrats approve of the job being done by the Democratic Congress."

Could we say, "Leaping Ever Leftward?"

Posted by Donald Douglas | July 22, 2007 5:28 PM

Reading between the lines a little bit, it looks like Gerson has taken a fork in the "defending Bush" road. Instead of defending Bush in the name of bigger wars like Michael Ledeen, Gerson has opted for the WashPost strategy of defending Bush in the name of bipartisan concensus. I have to disagree with Matt about whether Gerson is taking a better road than Ledeen. As articulated by Post writers, the bi-partisan consensus approach serves as a stalking horse for right-wing lunacy. Gerson, David Broder, and Fred Hiatt all articulate the concerns of the right over Syria and Iran in non-aggressive, reasonable, and "serious" tones that serve to justify military aggression after "proof" surfaces, evidence is faked, or an incident occurs. I think it would more accurately reflect the nature of the case if Matt tied Gerson back to the far right instead of separating Gerson out as he does above.

Posted by Ric Caric | July 22, 2007 5:44 PM

Pat Buchanan, George Will, William Safire, and Bob Novak were all Republican operatives before they became columnists at the Post and Times, etc., etc. Only Buchanan of them has ever wavered in their commitment to the Republican Party, and Buchanan moved farther to the right.

I am sure that there are examples that I can't remember offhand. Gergen. Brooks. And there are more.

The ex-Democratis operatives I remember in the media (Estrich, Stephanopolous, Russert, Matthews) are all renegades notable for stabbing Democrats in the back. Other elite "Democrats" who have never had a formal party affiliation(above all Richard Cohen)are mostly notable either for their feebleness or for their willingness to concede points to the Republicans.

This is a problem of long standing. It's actually been written into the training manuals for new hires. Democrats must be humble and apologetic, Republicans can go full speed ahead.

Posted by John Emerson | July 22, 2007 6:01 PM

Paul Gottlieb: thanks for the correction on Elliott Abrams. Brain malfunction!

Here's some more on him (in the comments).

Posted by JimPortlandOR | July 22, 2007 6:09 PM

I don't have any doubt whatsoever that Bush is going to Pardon a Legion of individuals on his way out.

I don't like it, but it does mean that if the Congress subpoenas them to testify on their actions, they cannot take the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify. True, they can't be tried for deeds they are pardoned for, but a report that includes their own testimony and describes what this administration has done and how it was done should put a real stake into any future government service. Everything they ever published after that would show up with an asterix, much as a home-run record by Barry Bonds will.

It would in many ways be even better than trial testimony. House and Senate testimony is not limited by the legal rules of evidence as a court trial is.

Such a history document would put a stake into the hearts of everyone who was Pardoned, and into the heart of the conservative movement for a long, long time.

Oh, and think of the drama for the TV and print media. Say, into the elections of 2010 and even 2012.

Posted by Rick B | July 22, 2007 7:35 PM

IIRC Bush and/or Ford gave blanket pardons for anything certain people had ever done while in office. IE, pardons need not be given for enumerated and specified crimes.

Posted by John Emerson | July 22, 2007 7:43 PM

"This is a problem of long standing. It's actually been written into the training manuals for new hires. Democrats must be humble and apologetic, Republicans can go full speed ahead."

This is a MSM template.

There is another template. Democrats must Sister-Souljah their base. Republicans are allowed to embrace their base, even the most unhinged, violence spewing members of their base.

I keep hearing how Dem leaders must distance themselves from liberal bloggers, Michael Moore, labor leaders etc. There is no such requirement for the GOP. Bush/Cheney appear on Rush/Hanity/O'Reilly shows. They invite Ann Coulter to their get togethers. Nobody in the MSM is shocked and lectures them about the need to distance themselves from their base.

Posted by DonB | July 22, 2007 7:59 PM

Re: Well, you have to remember that for official Washington and their pundit worshippers, the crimes of Iran-Contra weren't the period's wholesale U.S. support of death squads and literal genocidalists, but that on several occasions Congress was lied to.

Like it or not that's the way the world works. Just as Al Capone as tried and convicted for tax fraud, not for his far more serious misdeeds.

By the way I think you are exagerrating with the term "genocide". That usually refers to an attempt to wipe out a whole nation (or religious group, etc.). There were a lot of appalling individual political murders in the Latin American 80s but no one tried to kill off a whole people simply because they were this or that people. I am being a stickler on this because crying "genocide" when there isn't one is as dangerous as the old "boy who cried wolf" thing. If every time someone commits a political murder, vile as that certainly is, we call it "genocide" what happens when someone attempts Holocaust v2.0?

Posted by Jonf | July 22, 2007 7:59 PM

"No surprise, then, that Gerson has no stomach for forceful action against the Syranians."

Oops. Looks like a typo. That's obviously supposed to read "forceful action against the Sirenians."

Y'know, manatees.

Posted by Grumpy | July 22, 2007 9:33 PM

"Democrats must Sister-Souljah their base. Republicans are allowed to embrace their base, even the most unhinged, violence spewing members of their base."

It's hard to be more "unhinged" than the radical left fringe of the Democratic Party. The Dems would be smart if they distanced themselves from the Move.On hordes. I mean look at Harry Reid: Nine time he's introduced withdrawal legislation this year. Lost eight, and Bush vetoed a bill proposing timetables. Now Reid won't let moderate Repubs work with the administration on developing a moderate drawdown to enter into an orderly withdrawal while maintaining security.

Thank the nutroots for the wild, cut-and-run Democratic policies. Look out Murtha! The rest of Dems in Congress will steamroll ya on their way to the exits!

Posted by Donald Douglas | July 22, 2007 9:36 PM

It's hard to be more "unhinged" than the radical left fringe of the Democratic Party.

As I've often observed, there must be SOME non-cretin conservatives in the U.S. in the year of our lord 2007. But where?

Posted by grh | July 22, 2007 9:42 PM

"Now Reid won't let moderate Repubs work with the administration on developing a moderate drawdown to enter into an orderly withdrawal while maintaining security."

Actually, Mr. Douglas, the moderate Repubs are free to do that, since it involves working with Bush, not Reid, and Reid can't stop them from developing it. Let's see them do that and present a plan for a drawdown that they've worked out with Bush. Yeh, right!

Posted by putnam | July 22, 2007 9:57 PM

There were a lot of appalling individual political murders in the Latin American 80s but no one tried to kill off a whole people simply because they were this or that people.

Guatemala? The Mayans? You want to think this out a bit more, maybe?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 22, 2007 10:34 PM

Thank the nutroots for the wild, cut-and-run Democratic policies.

Yeah, only 70% of the country supports their outrageous policies! Say Mr. Douglas, do you have trouble getting the drool stains out of your shirts or does your mom do your laundry?

Posted by Col Bat Guano | July 22, 2007 11:47 PM

I don't know what Steyn has his panties in a bunch about. After all: "We're Winning." [his words, not mine]

Posted by chuck | July 23, 2007 12:04 AM

The second tendency is currently ascendant because the Iranians are hopeful that America is on the verge of a humiliating collapse of will -- for them, an irresistible source of immediate pleasure.

Has nothing to do with a "collapse" of will. The will was never there to begin with: if it were, Bush could have asked the country for a collective sacrifice, but he never made a case that was strong enough to justify such a commitment.

Instead, he continues, unconscionably, to demand that the members of the military and their families (i.e. - people without much of a choice) to carry the burden by themselves. Now that the military is at its breaking point, the Ledeens of the world look desperately for a scapegoat.

Posted by chuck | July 23, 2007 12:10 AM

"If all this had gone well, Gerson could have left his government job and become a pillar of the Washington Establishment. Since it turned out to be a tremendous failure, instead he got a Council on Foreign Relations fellowship and a Washington Post column."

To quote (or at least paraphrase) Keynes: It is far better for one's reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.

Keynes was talking about Wall Street and investing, but his little bon mot is well on its way to becoming the epitaph for the American republic.

Posted by Peter Principle | July 23, 2007 1:26 AM

In regard to Calipygian's comments: um....preface by saying I hold Michael Ledeen's views in no particular regard of any sort whatsoever (I mean, how many times can one guy get it wrong and still be taken seriously....oh, never mind). However. His son Gabriel is a Marine junior officer, served a tour in Iraq with 3rd Marine Regiment and, fortunately, returned home safely. A wee bit of research - remember that word, we'll be coming back to it later - would have revealed, further, that this information was not exactly a secret in 2005 when his son deployed. Given the rarity of someone like Michael Ledeen having a son serving in a Marine infantry battalion, I'm surprised it hasn't been on the front/editorial pages of the Washington Post and/or the New York Times ("See? Not all neoconservatives are hypocritical asshats whose kids are safely stashed at Ivy League schools or AEI! How amazing!" Hell, I could write the David Brooks/Richard Cohen columns myself with my eyes shut.) One must presume that the senior Ledeen is aware of the risks to those who serve, given the historic mortality rate of 2nd lieutenants in particular.

So Ledeen personally might be (okay, is) a warmongering neocon creep, but at least one member of his family has put his body on the line, and may do so again, and did so willingly. In point of fact, his willingness to do so becomes (more) remarkable in view of the fact that some of the bad guys (yup, people who shoot at our guys are bad guys, especially from the point of view of our guys' families - deal with it) would probably really enjoy hanging up the scalp of the son of a leading neoconservative theorist. The younger Ledeen a) is a grown man doing what he thinks is right, b) swore an oath to preserve, protect, etc and c) is a Marine officer, which, last time I checked, is regarded as an honor and privilege, notwithstanding the acts of individual officers or enlisted men.

It does give rise to speculation as to how Ledeen can be so cavalier about the lives of others' children. A kind interpretation is that he views the loss of life by anyone (except him) in the unending war on Oceania (or whoever) as A Sacrifice For The Greater Good Of All. An unkinder interpretation is that if he changes his views he gets kicked off the wingnut/neocon gravy train and receives the treatment reserved for apostate ex-neocons/ex-Treasury Secretaries/ex-Republicans/ex-counterterror experts/ex-Army Chiefs of Staff/ex-heads of the National Security Agency. (See O'Neill, Paul; Clarke, Richard; Cole, John; Shinseki, Eric; Fujiyama, Francis; Odom, William...and the list goes on, and on, and on.) As one commentator put it, ""Conservative" is a magic word that applies to those who are in other conservatives' good graces. Until they aren't. At which point they are liberals." If you let yourself question one element of (neo)conservative orthodoxy on personal grounds, pretty soon you start questioning other things, and next thing you know you're going to Lollapalooza and (shudder) voting for the wrong people. ("They came in and trashed the place, and it's not their place!" harrumph grumble snort harrumph....spake the Dean of the Washington Press Corps, God save us.) This, of course, assumes neoconservatives care about the democratic process at all, which is questionable at best, especially those who are Leo Strauss acolytes. But I digress.

The point is, before anyone makes cracks about "the other man's last son", etc - yes, this falls under the heading of running your mouth - do just a bit of research. Easy - all too easy - to say such things, given that neoconservatives kids, Young Republicans, senators' sons, etc etc etc, serving in combat roles are not exactly thick upon the ground.....and guess what, speaking of research: If you have a pulse, this should not be news. The days when Oliver Wendell Holmes served as an infantry officer, or Theodore Roosevelt raised the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry, or, for that matter, George Bush senior flew a torpedo bomber - are long over and (if it needs to be said) more's the pity. These days, and for quite some time now from what I can tell (say from 1964 on) among the powers that be, that sort of thing is regarded as eating the seed corn. After all, someone has to tell the proles what to do and think, and how could the right sort of young people forty years ago grow up to do that if they had to spend twelve months humping an M16 in the Central Highlands, or today, if they have to spend fifteen months humping a SAW in Anbar province? And having to hang out with and take orders from the tackiest people in the bargain. Gad, what an appalling a waste of human potential!

My, talk about digression - I do seem to have strayed from the path here. To get back to my original point -

As with all stories, there's a moral here: if you're gonna snipe and want to be taken even semiseriously, do the research anyway. Don't attack a guy like Ledeen on the grounds of "the other man's last son" before you know whereof you speak. It may grate to feel like you're doing justice to someone like Ledeen, but, you know, you need to get it right. If you don't, you end up sounding like Ann Coulter, a fate I wouldn't wish on anyone. Given the volume of documented gross and egregious screwups on the part of every member of the neoconservative brain trust (such as it is), you don't need to resort to (unresearched) ad hominem attacks anyway. I mean, if these guys are the best and brightest.....

Posted by bluesky2702 | July 23, 2007 2:19 AM

"The reason the Gersons, Ledeens, Pearls, Elliott Richardsons, ...

Posted by JimPortlandOR"

Elliot Richardson? Elliot Richardson passed away in 1999. He was the Attorney General who resigned rather than follow Nixon's order to fire Archibald Cox. In that era there were a handful of Republicans with integrity, something that doesn't exist today.

I believe you're thinking of Elliot Abrams of Iran-Contra fame who should have gone "right to fucking jail" but was instead pardoned by old man Bush on Christmas Eve 1992 and subsequently appointed by George W to the National Security Council.

Posted by cal1942 | July 23, 2007 3:02 AM

Bluesky2702 - Point taken.

Posted by calipygian | July 23, 2007 7:41 AM

Maybe we should launch an Operation Rescue for the Constitution -- you know, permanently picket outside the houses and jobs of people who try to kill the constitution. I imagine that had a determined gang of picketers followed Elliot Abrams around, the American Jewish Committee wouldn't have been so eager to prop up his reputation in the '90s.

The president has the right to keep Scooter Libby from jail, but the people do have the right to make his life miserable.

Posted by Terry Randall | July 23, 2007 3:23 PM