"Nothing but peace and gentle visitation."
Besides the Cadets & Midshipmen arriving yesterday for today's Army-Navy game, Philadelphia had the great good fortune to welcome columnist, Fox News contributer, and blogger Michelle Malkin as well as Arizona Senator and former Navy pilot and POW John McCain.
The combination of events was a coup d'etat for Michael Smerconish's Book Club, which hosted these distinguished guests--Malkin at breakfast for a discussion of her book, Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild and then later at mid-day, Senator McCain for a luncheon sit-down regarding his latest publication, with Mark Salter, Character is Destiny: Inspiring Stories Every Young Person Should Know & Every Adult Should Remember. Yes, it would indeed have been lively and fun to see them together, but as it was the day was still a huge success for Smerconish and the local talk radio station, WPHT "The Big Talker" 1210 AM.
I'll perhaps be the first to yoke such (political) opposites together, both Malkin and McCain were insightful, approachable, and each had a healthy & natural touch of self-deprecating humor (i.e. they didn't take themselves too seriously). Comparisons end just about there, however.
Words fail when one tries to convey how impressive Michelle Malkin is. She has a good command of history as well as politics and combines wit and charm with perspicacious discernment and insight. Not to mention the fact that it was cool to finally thank--in person--the "Higher Being" of the blogosphere responsible for giving this blog a generous nod in its early days. Thank you, Michelle!
Above all, I don't think she's given enough credit for her fairmindedness. When asked by one of the few liberal Dems in the audience whether the Bush Administration has been "successful" over its two terms, Michelle frankly shared her opinion--in no way hiding the disappoints and frustrations she has had with both the Administration and the Republican Party! Interestingly, in speaking with this liberal Dem later on, he considered this response a victory for his side--not sure how he was scoring that; it seemed to me, rather, as proving the exact opposite of what liberals always say about conservatives--and Michelle in particular--that they mindlessly accept everything Dubya & Co. do. How silly.
Michelle Malkin--savvy, humorous, and considerate--is completely beyond their willing comprehension.
The Senator, too, was thoughtful and gracious--staying, though visibly weary, until every book was signed! Most noteworthy of the comments he made was, I think, the declaration of his unwavering willingness to support total victory in Iraq regardless of where public opinion shifts.
I make no secret of the fact, however, that I am not the greatest McCain fan and found some of his points--on torture for instance--less than persuasive. Rather than recap all of that here, you can read this outstanding Washington Times piece by (none other than!) Victor Davis Hanson which fairly presents McCain's central arguments before successfully, I believe,dismantling redirecting them.
The combination of events was a coup d'etat for Michael Smerconish's Book Club, which hosted these distinguished guests--Malkin at breakfast for a discussion of her book, Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild and then later at mid-day, Senator McCain for a luncheon sit-down regarding his latest publication, with Mark Salter, Character is Destiny: Inspiring Stories Every Young Person Should Know & Every Adult Should Remember. Yes, it would indeed have been lively and fun to see them together, but as it was the day was still a huge success for Smerconish and the local talk radio station, WPHT "The Big Talker" 1210 AM.
I'll perhaps be the first to yoke such (political) opposites together, both Malkin and McCain were insightful, approachable, and each had a healthy & natural touch of self-deprecating humor (i.e. they didn't take themselves too seriously). Comparisons end just about there, however.
Words fail when one tries to convey how impressive Michelle Malkin is. She has a good command of history as well as politics and combines wit and charm with perspicacious discernment and insight. Not to mention the fact that it was cool to finally thank--in person--the "Higher Being" of the blogosphere responsible for giving this blog a generous nod in its early days. Thank you, Michelle!
Above all, I don't think she's given enough credit for her fairmindedness. When asked by one of the few liberal Dems in the audience whether the Bush Administration has been "successful" over its two terms, Michelle frankly shared her opinion--in no way hiding the disappoints and frustrations she has had with both the Administration and the Republican Party! Interestingly, in speaking with this liberal Dem later on, he considered this response a victory for his side--not sure how he was scoring that; it seemed to me, rather, as proving the exact opposite of what liberals always say about conservatives--and Michelle in particular--that they mindlessly accept everything Dubya & Co. do. How silly.
Michelle Malkin--savvy, humorous, and considerate--is completely beyond their willing comprehension.
The Senator, too, was thoughtful and gracious--staying, though visibly weary, until every book was signed! Most noteworthy of the comments he made was, I think, the declaration of his unwavering willingness to support total victory in Iraq regardless of where public opinion shifts.
I make no secret of the fact, however, that I am not the greatest McCain fan and found some of his points--on torture for instance--less than persuasive. Rather than recap all of that here, you can read this outstanding Washington Times piece by (none other than!) Victor Davis Hanson which fairly presents McCain's central arguments before successfully, I believe,
posted by WillyShake at 9:24 AM
7 Comments:
Hey sailor... Click here!
Agree that VDH fairly presents McCain's central arguments before dismantling them. That will be the last of my attempts to understand the senate sieve known as John McCain. Had his upbringing and heritage been any less, the man would by now have been forgotten to history.
Great post. Gives a real sense of the event. Sounds like it was time well spent.
Nice one, Willy. Sounds like it was a great event to have attended.
Glad Michelle linked to you. i like your site and sorry i missed the event.
Just read the VDH piece. I am undecided about McCain's position, but the VDH piece dismantled nothing. What VDH says to "critics of torture":
*"Contrary to popular belief, throughout history torture has brought results -- either to gain critical, sometimes lifesaving intelligence or more gratuitously to obtain embarrassing confessions from terrified captives." VDH's arguement seems to be: torture works sometimes, so it is valid. I am inclined to agree, but that is like saying broken clocks are right twice a day, so don't throw any away.
*"Nor can opponents of torture say it is entirely foreign to the U.S. military experience, at least from what we know of it even in so-called good wars like World War II." VDH's arguement: We've done it before, so let's do it again. Tradition is not valid reason for anything.
*"Others argue that by employing torture we will only earn the censure of the liberal, especially European, world. Maybe so, but once again, Europe, the United Nations and international human-rights groups, for reasons that transcend the war in Iraq, will fault the United States no matter what it does." But we had overwhelming domestic and international support for the invasion of Afghanistan. EU nations still have military aiding us in the hunt for Bin Laden. And the invasion had large domestic public support. So VDH's arguement here does not hold; liberals and Europeans do not automatically disdain US policy.
*"Europeans fixate on American interrogations of captive murderous terrorists but remain silent about thousands who have been killed, tortured or forgotten in Fidel Castro's gulag a few miles away. Iran, North Korea, Serbia and Saddam's Iraq tortured and executed tens of thousands without much fear either the U.N. or the Europeans would spend their own lives and treasure to stop such endemic barbarism." Arguement: The guy next door is worse then us, and nobody stopped *him,* so we should keep torturing. Applying that argument to the Sudan, the US isn't stopping that wholesale rape and murder, so this gives the murderers the right to kick it up a notch.
*"There is also a danger that once we try to quantify precisely what constitutes torture, we could, in the ensuing utopian debate, define anything from sleep deprivation to loud noise as unacceptable. Indeed, we might achieve the unintended effect of only creating disdain for our moral pretensions from incarcerated terrorists. They would have no worries of suffering pain but plenty of new demands on their legalistic hosts, from ethnically correct meals to proper handling of their Korans." Arguement: If we claim to be more humane, we are going to actually have to be humane, and that's a lot of bother. The US penal system seems to manage that goal (including the food and the handling of religious materials), why can't the military?
*"So we might as well admit that by forswearing the use of torture, we will probably be put at a disadvantage in obtaining key information and perhaps endanger American lives here at home." No, actually. Re-read the article. VDH's arguements did not support the efficacy of torture; his arguements seemed to be that the Bush administration should stop torture because it demonstrates the purity of our ideals.
As for that, the horse is out of the barn. Even if we stopped torture today, 100% for all time, no one would believe us. If our ideals we so pure, we wouldn't have done it in the first place. Now, we just look like hypocrites.
geez... I miss the Philly/South Jersey area...
Okay, really I mostly just miss Wawa :(
Thanks to all for their comments, especially Tim, whose reading of VDH I want to respond to because he was right to say that I mispoke when I said the VDH did--or even sought to--dismantle McCain's argument. Rather, he did signficantly shift the ground of the debate.
That said, though, I would ask you to reconsider some of your wording.
First, your clock analogy is not quite apt; clocks must work all the time in order to be of value; no one is claiming that torture does work all the time or that it must in order to be useful.
VDH is not arguing we did it before so let's keep doing it nor that tradition validates its use--he's responding to a specific (historically inaccurate) statement by McCain that we have never used it before and shouldn't start now. He's saying that it's not foreign to us, but even so that's not necessarily proof of its efficacy or that it is the best policy for our current situation. Also, I don't think you really want to have to defend the position that "tradition is not [a] valid reason for anything". No conservative I know (& certainly no Catholic) would agree with that broad statement.
As for Europeans *automatically* disdaining US policy, you should read more of VDH's columns. He makes the point, repeated here, that the Euros are fond of two things: (a.) going along with US policy when there's no other choice (e.g. Afghanistan) yet carping and anklebiting the whole way and (b.) taking a stauchly anti-US position whenever the temptation to becoming politically relevant again presents itself (e.g. Iraq War II). Both routes rely on a fundamental disdain for America that the Europeans, for the last half-century, have been fond of tapping--but that may have to be relinquished as their Socialist utopia crumbles before, among other things, flagrantly mismanaged immigration policies. The political calculus of Schroeder's and Chirac's anti-Americanism timed to help with their re-election is evidence enough of what VDH is pointing to. Besides, even though you argue the point here, you strangely seem to agree with it in your last paragraph where you say 'no one will believe us'. VDH has written much more (& more eloquently) on this than I can ever hope to; I encourage you to check out his website.
VDH's reference to Iran, N. Korea, etc. is made in the context of the previous point about EU anklebiting--and THAT point is a response to McCain sayign that we'll lose the respect of our allies; it is NOT an attempt to say "everybody else is doing it, so why can't we?" As far as your point about the Sudanese, I find it a non sequitor--I don't see where you're going with it except to say that I think it stems from a misreading of what VDH is saying on this point.
Your paraphrase of the next point ("If we claim to be more humane, we are going to actually have to be humane, and that's a lot of bother.") is a little unfair--and in fact you go on to make VDH's point. That is, the military IS as effective as (if not more than) the US prison system in managing religious diet and practices--but that hasn't prevented them from being accused out the wazoo by terrorists, lawyers, and media of not doing so. The point is not that being humane is simply a bother--the point is that being overly legalistic actually hurts our ability to conduct proper interrogations that might stop the next attack. Why? Cause we are too focused on following obscure legal policies rather than getting info. Notices, then, that Hanson has taken taken the Aristotelean middle way: he does not support torture, but at the same time he doesn't support a hyper-litigious environment that precludes other methods of interrogation.
Finally, I'm confused as to why, at the end, you then forego everything previously typed and say that it doesn't matter? If it doesn't matter, why are you then undecided about McCain's argument?
Thanks for taking the time to visit my blog and write such extended comments!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home