Coulter unsheathes her blades on neocons. we yawn.

Ann Coulter went  Jungle Red* on neoconservatives Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney this week over their demands that GOP Chair Michael Steele resign. The fun stuff comes at the back end of her WorldNetDaily column on Wednesday. First she seems shocked that her fellow Republicans would even suggest one’s support for war is tied to his support for the troops. Then she goes right for the throat, Bill Kristol’s throat:

But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest. What if Obama decides to invade England because he’s still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops? Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they’re not the ones setting military policy. The president is – and he’s basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins. Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama’s war – and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn’t liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?) I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too. Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we’re all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a “National Greatness Project,” too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president – and look how great that turned out! Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here’s mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.

Matt Cockerill over at The American Conservative blog calls this an “antiwar column.” Maybe. That would be hopeful. Certainly James Antle thinks the Tea Party movement is ripe for it. And it is refreshing to hear a Republican hatchet decry unconditional support for war after nearly ten years of unconditionally supporting war. But it’s her terrifying interpretation of history that splashes ice cold water on the whole fantasy:

Yes, Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after Sept. 11. Within the first few months we had toppled the Taliban, killed or captured hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and arranged for democratic elections, resulting in an American-friendly government.

Then Bush declared success and turned his attention to Iraq, leaving minimal troops behind in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden from regrouping, swat down al-Qaida fighters and gather intelligence.

Having some vague concept of America’s national interest – unlike liberals – the Bush administration could see that a country of illiterate peasants living in caves ruled by “warlords” was not a primo target for “nation-building.”

By contrast, Iraq had a young, educated, pro-Western populace that was ideal for regime change.

Cockerill asks if Coulter’s outcry “is progress or mere partisanship? Time will tell.” My gut is this is Ann lashing out at the enemy in her own Long War against the conservative elite at the Weekly Standard and National Review. It is Ann making sure that Obama completely owns the disaster in Afghanistan by rewriting current and past history on a fourth grade reading level. It is Ann making sure we don’t forget she is still around and is one tough broad.

But it is not a step forward, but a shuffle in place, her stilettos still kicking out at the usual “cretins” in her universe, a place where Bush is Popeye and Obama is Olive Oyl, and where Coulter spits, “no grass grows, ever.”**

* From The Women (1939): “I’ve had two years to grow claws mother. Jungle red!”

** Also from The Women: “You’re passing up a swell chance, honey. Where I spit no grass grows ever!”

Eric Garris on Bill Meyer Show

Antiwar.com founder and webmaster Eric Garris will be interviewed on the Bill Meyer Show Wednesday, July 7th at 7:05am Pacific/10:05am Eastern. The topic will be the recent comments by Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele on Afghanistan.

Listeners can enjoy the audio stream as well as a video feed from the host here.

Update: Mr. Garris also discussed the case of Michael Steele on The Karel Show on Green960 AM earlier today (July 6th.) Alternate format here.

Michael Rubin: The Moral Contortionist

Michael Rubin has posted yet another rant on National Review’s “The Corner.” This time he goes after the petty Europeans and “chattering class” for their quaint beliefs in proportionality.

As Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe have pointed out, Michael Rubin has been banging out post after post about the Israeli attack on civilian ships in international water.

Rubin has tried to make lemonade from the lemons that the IDF handed him on Monday by claiming that now, more than ever, the U.S. should unconditionally support Israel and that a failure to offer such support could result in Israel unilaterally attacking Iran.

So, according to Rubin, the U.S. relationship with Israel boils down to our responsibility to enable a self-destructive friend while permitting that friend to dictate our foreign policy through blackmail.

In his post last night, Rubin attacks the liberal European notion of proportionality and charges that the European response to the Israeli attack on the “Free Gaza” flotilla is naive and ignores the importance of disproportionality in protecting freedom and security.

Rubin writes:

A Question of Proportionality [Michael Rubin]

A lot of the criticism surrounding Israel’s actions against the Free Gaza flotilla center on proportionality. Did Israel apply disproportionate force? The same charges form the basis of the criticism leveled by the Goldstone Report and, indeed, also were leveled against Israel following the 2006 Hezbollah War and, before that, Operation Defensive Shield in 2002.

But why should any democratic government empowered to defend its citizenry accept Europe’s idea of proportion? When attacked, why should not a stronger nation or its representatives try to both protects its own personnel at all costs and, in the wider scheme of things, defeat its adversaries?

Likewise, when terrorists seek to strike at the United States, why should we find ourselves constrained by an artificial notion of proportionality when responding to those terrorists or their state sponsors?

Ultimately, it may be time to recognize that, in the face of growing threats to Western liberalism, strength and disproportionality matter more to security and the protection of democracy than the approval of the chattering class of Europe or the U.N. secretary general, a man whose conciliatory policies as foreign minister of South Korea proved to be a strategic disaster.

One final note on proportionality: Fifteen “peace” activists dead is a tragedy, but they represent only one one-thousandth of the death toll of a French heatwave.

Rubin clearly stated his loyalties to Israel in an earlier post on Monday. Still, it’s worth asking what Israel would have to do to earn a condemnation from him. The moral and logical contortions exhibited in Rubin’s posts on Monday would suggest that he will go to any length to defend Israel’s attack on civilian ships in international waters.

Rubin argues that notions of proportionality are a threat to Western liberalism. A more reasoned analysis might suggest that uncompromising support of an ally’s flagrant disregard of international law and reckless behaviors which needlessly result in civilian deaths is morally indefensible, bad politics and, to put it in the words that Rubin would use, a threat to Western liberalism.

PR Advice to the Palestinians

I’ve heard a certain criticism countless times over the years, but after seeing it three times in two days on the same site, I decided to do a little research. From that vast repository of respectable opinion, The Atlantic, here are Jeffrey Goldberg, Andrew Sullivan, and Megan McArdle with the idea du jour:

Jeffrey Goldberg:
“I don’t know yet exactly what happened at sea when a group of Israeli commandos boarded a ship packed with not-exactly-Gandhi-like anti-Israel protesters.”

Andrew Sullivan:
“The violence by the activists is pretty abhorrent. These are not followers of Gandhi or MLK Jr.”

Megan McArdle:
“Very clearly, these guys were not the next incarnation of Gandhi; they were on that mission spoiling for a fight.”

Now, unlike these three worthies, I’m just a rube who majored in booze at Football Tech, so I didn’t know much about this Gandhi fella. I wondered, what exactly would Gandhi have the Palestinians and their supporters do? What would earn them a pat on the head from serious, right-thinking Americans?

Luckily, I didn’t have to look very far to find a possible answer:

As an inspiration and a symbol, Gandhi has no peer in the 20th century; as a practical politician, he was a despair to his colleagues in the Indian national movement. His insistence on non-violence grew more extreme as he aged: during the war, he recommended to the British that they should “invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.” And in an interview given after the war, he went so far as to say that “the Jews [in Europe] should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.

The things you learn on the intertubes! Well, there you go, Palestinians (and Turks, and Jewish Americans to the left of Jeffrey Goldberg): kill yourselves. When the last one of you is gone, The Atlantic will hold a special symposium on your righteousness.

Minarets: Ban Them, or Bomb Them?

Well, the Swiss – or, more accurately, a majority of voters in democratic Switzerland – have gone and done something wrong and dumb, approving a referendum that bans the construction of minarets. Libertarian demerits are certainly in order. But one very wrong, very dumb thing the Swiss have not done is launch any wars of aggression against Muslim peoples, or  anyone else, for that matter.

Which makes it all the more cringe-worthy to read this libel on Andrew Sullivan’s blog:

Good God. Why not synagogues? Or did a neighboring country try that already?

Wow. Straight to the Nazi jab, huh? Never let it be said that Harvard doesn’t make ’em like they used to.

For the record, this is the same Andrew Sullivan who penned this epochal gem eight years ago:

[B]in Laden proves that the best form of persuasion in that part of the world is not rhetorical but military. Pummel them and they will respect you. Talk to them nicely and you’ll end up like Robert Fisk. Best of all, pummel them and then talk. The most persuasive piece of rhetoric yet unleashed in this conflict has been the daisy cutter bomb. It’s the only argument that much of this clearly depraved culture actually respects.

Expect more Swiss-bashing from some of the very people who have cheered on the most egregious abuses of Muslims. They’re extremely alert to the dangers of isolationism, you know.

UPDATE: This is too rich. Jeffrey Goldberg, Sullivan’s colleague at The Atlantic, gets in on the anti-Swiss sanctimony. Hah! If the United States or Israel were to attack Tehran tomorrow – which just might halt the construction of a minaret or two – Goldberg would leap to his keyboard to defend the decision as regrettable but justifiable. Again, I’m not a fan of bans or bombs, but the former have the distinct advantage of being reversible.

The Itch in Joe Lieberman’s Gitmo Finger

Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut may be the most destructive politician in the United States. Combining the worst ideas of the right, the left, and the religious, he essentially seeks to punitively tax the world in order to bomb it for the sake of Israel. Despite Lieberman’s “dual” loyalty — in quotes because I suspect he’s truly only loyal to the Jewish State — the voters of Connecticut chose him to represent them in Congress even though his own Democratic Party booted him off their ticket in favor of a pro-peace candidate.

Comfortable advocating mass murder with that creepy smile under both Bush and Obama, in light of the Fort Hood massacre, Lieberman seems to be primarily concerned not with PTSD and mental health issues in the armed forces in general, not with internecine abuse in Army ranks, not with whether or not the military should let go of conscientious objectors before they literally go ballistic, but whether or not Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s crazed actions could be technically classified as (Islamic) terrorism. Muslims in the military are rightly on edge.

As Maj. Hasan’s beliefs likely influenced, in part, his actions, so do Sen. Lieberman’s. Watch out Nidal, the senator from Connecticut has his own jihad, and his Gitmo finger is itchy.