That’s what Andrew Sullivan says.

Let’s assume, just for the sake of the argument, that that’s the case. Why would we do that? What is the benefit, to the nation, or to the Bush administration, for failure in Iraq? Note, he didn’t say that the administration thought we didn’t need more troops, or that they did but that there were other reasons not to send them. No, the intent was to fail. Fully.

Is he now in Dick Durbin’s camp? Are we now just like Pol Pot…evil?

He’s been second in my blogroll for, literally, years. (Yes, yes, there’s a certain amount of inertia there, but still).

Is there any reason to take anything he writes seriously now? It will be fascinating to see if he responds to this, and apologizes (as Durbin should, but probably won’t). If he’ll say that he wasn’t thinking when he typed those words, and wants to clarify them, I’ll accept that. But if he meant it, I see no reason to even bother reading him any more. Or (more certainly) keep him at his current rank in my blogroll.

He’s jumped the Euphrates.

That’s what Andrew Sullivan says.

Let’s assume, just for the sake of the argument, that that’s the case. Why would we do that? What is the benefit, to the nation, or to the Bush administration, for failure in Iraq? Note, he didn’t say that the administration thought we didn’t need more troops, or that they did but that there were other reasons not to send them. No, the intent was to fail. Fully.

Is he now in Dick Durbin’s camp? Are we now just like Pol Pot…evil?

He’s been second in my blogroll for, literally, years. (Yes, yes, there’s a certain amount of inertia there, but still).

Is there any reason to take anything he writes seriously now? It will be fascinating to see if he responds to this, and apologizes (as Durbin should, but probably won’t). If he’ll say that he wasn’t thinking when he typed those words, and wants to clarify them, I’ll accept that. But if he meant it, I see no reason to even bother reading him any more. Or (more certainly) keep him at his current rank in my blogroll.

He’s jumped the Euphrates.

Bill Roggio has some good advice for Democrats who want to be taken more seriously on national security. Unfortunately for them (and for the prospect of a serious opposition to the Republicans), they’re probably constitutionally incapable of taking it right now. They’ll have to lose a few more elections first.

Apparently Senator Durbin’s ever-changing story was that he wasn’t comparing the Bush administration overall to the Khmer Rouge, or Nazi Germany. No, he was only commenting on their interrogation techniques.

Well, here is an example of “interrogation” at S-21 in Cambodia:

The regime of S21 was harsh beyond belief. Amongst the cruellest of guards were the 12-16 year old warders. Without a strongly ingrained morality and given positions of total power over their captives, their actions became bestial. Prisoners were regularly questioned and tortured with a variety of techniques, from fingernails being pulled out to electrification and suffocation. Important political prisoners were kept in their own 2 1/2 foot by 6 foot cell, feet shackled to an 2 foot iron bar. As horrible as this sounds it was infinitely preferable to the treatment of the bulk of S21

Apparently Senator Durbin’s ever-changing story was that he wasn’t comparing the Bush administration overall to the Khmer Rouge, or Nazi Germany. No, he was only commenting on their interrogation techniques.

Well, here is an example of “interrogation” at S-21 in Cambodia:

The regime of S21 was harsh beyond belief. Amongst the cruellest of guards were the 12-16 year old warders. Without a strongly ingrained morality and given positions of total power over their captives, their actions became bestial. Prisoners were regularly questioned and tortured with a variety of techniques, from fingernails being pulled out to electrification and suffocation. Important political prisoners were kept in their own 2 1/2 foot by 6 foot cell, feet shackled to an 2 foot iron bar. As horrible as this sounds it was infinitely preferable to the treatment of the bulk of S21

Apparently Senator Durbin’s ever-changing story was that he wasn’t comparing the Bush administration overall to the Khmer Rouge, or Nazi Germany. No, he was only commenting on their interrogation techniques.

Well, here is an example of “interrogation” at S-21 in Cambodia:

The regime of S21 was harsh beyond belief. Amongst the cruellest of guards were the 12-16 year old warders. Without a strongly ingrained morality and given positions of total power over their captives, their actions became bestial. Prisoners were regularly questioned and tortured with a variety of techniques, from fingernails being pulled out to electrification and suffocation. Important political prisoners were kept in their own 2 1/2 foot by 6 foot cell, feet shackled to an 2 foot iron bar. As horrible as this sounds it was infinitely preferable to the treatment of the bulk of S21

Robert Samuelson says that Europe is going out of business.

A few countries (Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands) have acted, and there are differences between Eastern and Western Europe. But in general Europe is immobilized by its problems. This is the classic dilemma of democracy: Too many people benefit from the status quo to change it; but the status quo isn’t sustainable. Even modest efforts in France and Germany to curb social benefits have triggered backlashes. Many Europeans — maybe most — live in a state of delusion. Believing things should continue as before, they see almost any change as menacing. In reality, the new E.U. constitution wasn’t radical; neither adoption nor rejection would much alter everyday life. But it symbolized change and thereby became a lightning rod for many sources of discontent (over immigration in Holland, poor economic growth in France).

With the recent drop in the Euro, they may in fact be about to have a going-out-of-business sale.

Robert Samuelson says that Europe is going out of business.

A few countries (Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands) have acted, and there are differences between Eastern and Western Europe. But in general Europe is immobilized by its problems. This is the classic dilemma of democracy: Too many people benefit from the status quo to change it; but the status quo isn’t sustainable. Even modest efforts in France and Germany to curb social benefits have triggered backlashes. Many Europeans — maybe most — live in a state of delusion. Believing things should continue as before, they see almost any change as menacing. In reality, the new E.U. constitution wasn’t radical; neither adoption nor rejection would much alter everyday life. But it symbolized change and thereby became a lightning rod for many sources of discontent (over immigration in Holland, poor economic growth in France).

With the recent drop in the Euro, they may in fact be about to have a going-out-of-business sale.

Robert Samuelson says that Europe is going out of business.

A few countries (Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands) have acted, and there are differences between Eastern and Western Europe. But in general Europe is immobilized by its problems. This is the classic dilemma of democracy: Too many people benefit from the status quo to change it; but the status quo isn’t sustainable. Even modest efforts in France and Germany to curb social benefits have triggered backlashes. Many Europeans — maybe most — live in a state of delusion. Believing things should continue as before, they see almost any change as menacing. In reality, the new E.U. constitution wasn’t radical; neither adoption nor rejection would much alter everyday life. But it symbolized change and thereby became a lightning rod for many sources of discontent (over immigration in Holland, poor economic growth in France).

With the recent drop in the Euro, they may in fact be about to have a going-out-of-business sale.

Roger Cohen asks if Europe matters any more:

At a recent meeting here of the Council for the United States and Italy, a group that brings together influential folk from both sides of the Atlantic, America’s often withering view of Europe was as clear as the light on the lagoon.

That view may be summarized as follows: a Continent reluctant to spend on defense, offering only “postmodernist” armies useful enough as peacekeepers but next to useless as warriors, given to earnest blah-blah about the pre-eminence of international law, inhabited by a declining and evermore aged citizenry living in overregulated economies that have not shown significant growth for at least five years.

Contrast that image with another offered at the meeting: that of an India growing at over 7 percent a year, inhabited by more than 500 million people under the age of 25, busy buying hundreds of advanced aircraft, convinced that armies are still created to fight, churning out English-speaking high-tech graduates by the million each year, and persuaded by Islamic terrorism that its strategic goals and America’s are often identical or at least complementary.

So, which of these parts of the world is more worthy of the attention of the United States? Which is a compelling affair: the intensifying and fast-changing relationship with India, or the largely stagnant alliance with Europe that served above all a cold-war strategic challenge now overcome?