Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past… And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society — in which people sometimes make the wrong choices — and a criminal sect bent on destruction.

Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They’re wrong, of course, even on their own terms… The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them — when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.

When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve.

As an initial matter, I think it should be quite apparent how insightful this analogy is. Terrorists, like the Joker, are individuals who do not act according to our own rational expectations. They have not implicitly accepted the “social contract” –the fundamental assumptions about how a society functions–and therefore the traditional means of enforcing these norm (i.e. the criminal justice system–with all its associative protections and rights) do not adequately protect society as a whole. It is precisely because the social costs of retrospective enforcement are so great as to break the social fabric that we (the audience) recognize that terrorists must be dealt with terrorists on their own terms… with tactics and with a morality more suited to swift and pre-emptive solutions.

And this is why Bush is similar to Batman. He, like Batman, is willing to use questionable measures that makes us uncomfortable–measures that threaten our collective morality (whether this be pre-emptive strikes or wire-tapping) in the hopes that by doing so he will preserve the very social values which cause our discomfort. And just like Batman… Bush will go away after he has finished his goal… and be able to himself enjoy the benefits a safe and secure society makes possible.

Like the movie… those who chase batman… those who scream ‘War-Mongerer’ or wax eloquent about civil liberties… are themselves a cause of the problem. They are willing to be ‘tolerant’ at the expense of allowing intolerance, they are willing to blindly respect privacy at the expense of allowing another terrorist attack, and they are so blinded by their own arrogance they do not recognize the hand that feeds them. Just as overly-timid and cautious law enforcement system lead Gotham down a dark path… so also a timid and handicapped intelligence system will allow terrorism to bring our own society into fear and darkness. Batman did what no one else was willing to do–including syping on the whole city–to solve a problem no one else was capable of fixing with traditional methods. Islamic terrorists were such a problem… Saddam was such a problem… and none of the traditional tools were working.

But the critics refuse to acknowledge these basic commonalities. Instead they fall into a series of predictable and specious arguments–all of which simply ignore the point and fuel their irrational hatred of Bush.

The first of these critiques follows the logic that “Bush is real, Batman is not… therefore this analogy sucks”. For example, ‘GA‘ points out that:

It is not surprising that some dumb right-wing nut makes the “Batman” connection to Dubya. Batman is entirely fiction, make believe, fantasy, not real. Dubya and Cheney et. al. personify the fantasy world that the Right Wing lives in.

Right Wingers always are pointing to movies that they do not like as examples of the degrdation [sic] of society, and point to movies they do like as examples of their correctness. Funny isn’t it, how they seem to like dark movies in which many people get killed…

A user ‘GW=MChammered‘ similarily points out (in more simple style):

Batman’s fiction. Bush is why America’s going out of business< !/p>

If there were an award for pointing out the obvious… ‘GA’ might be a finalist. The fact that Batman lives in a world of fiction and Bush in a world of reality was exactly what the analogy was TRYING to make. We can all rest assured that ‘GA’ will pass the reading comprehension portion of the SAT. However, this begs the question, what is so wrong about comparing something REAL to something fictional? Writers such as Orwell, Tolkin, and Shakespeare have all made similar comparisons without drawing the ire of bloggers… and anyone who has READ the books by any of these three writers will know that fiction has a way of communicating a truth about reality in an altogether unique and powerful way. One only has to quote from “Animal Farm” — “Some animals are more equal than others” to recognize the power and value of fictional analogies. Disqualifying the analogy because they are not IDENTICAL is therefore nothing more than an a refusal to critically analyze Klavan’s point.

In fact, Batman’s popularity rests almost entirely on its message and applicability to modern moral issues of right/wrong and the moral complexity of our times. People who use the “fiction” defense to try to muddy the analogy end up disowning their very hero as an un-important, two-dimensional drawing instead of the complex, misunderstood hero that he is.

The second of these critiques follows the following logic: “although we think comparing fiction to reality is ridiculous… Bush is ACTUALLY more like the Joker, the Penguin, the Adam West Batman…”

‘Wayno‘ points out that:

Klavan may have a point here…but he has the wrong caped crusader…W should be 60’s TV’s campy Batman, Adam West…clunky graphics, primitive special effects…in other words, not reality-based.

Of course, an argument could be made for Bush as Frank Gorshin’s 60’s TV’s Joker character, because as we all know, every clown has a “W” in it.

‘Rupertthebear’ mentions:

This is just like Wimp Lo in the movie “Kung Pao.” They train him to think winning is losing, with stupidly hilarious consequences.

Finally, there is an ‘argument’ line that goes something like this…. “BUSH SUCKS!!!”

‘Hourrayforanything’ says:

You forgot the part where Bruce Wayne doesn’t become Batman til he’s 40 because he spent most of his time being a drunk and horking coke.

And Vietnamvet writes in a rather driveling style:

Bush is a disgrace to this great Nation and has been every since he was elevated to that high office. What he has done TO this great nation makes Nixon look like a real statesman! It will take decades to rectify the damage he has heaped on the nation. He will go down in history as, without any doubt whatsoever, the worst president this nation has had to suffer through.

As the last few comments make clear, old talking points (like old habits) die hard. These people are not seriously addressing Klavan’s points in any meaningful way. In fact, I think it is fair to say that their viceral reactions reveals just how effective this piece was. They cannot stand hearing such a favorable picture of Bush and they lash out with all their hatred and prejudice. Instead of offering constructive analysis and alternative perspectives… they simply disqualify the idea up front and avoid the difficult task of rational discussion. I think Klavan has some worthwhile ideas that should be debated and read seriously… not dismissed offhandedly because it doesn’t fit your mold of reality.

What a cool guy. Is it just me or has his English improved from the last video clip?

[the definitive post on the subject]

As you no doubt know, the report has concluded “with high confidence”… I might add, that “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program… We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.”

Now, this report can be either believed (although doing so… how does one say… requires a willing suspension of disbelief) or be attacked for a number of valid reasons. Allow me to address both alternatives in order.

First, if we believe the report, how is it that our intelligence is 4 years behind the curve in finding such information out? Is it not entirely possible under this logic that Iran might have started it’s program back up in 2005–giving them a 4 year head start until our policy changes again in ’09? Hardly re-assuring.

Secondly, if we choose to disbelieve the report, there are a variety of good reasons for doing so. To begin, it is unclear whether the new intelligence responsible for the 180 degree about-face based on reliable sources.  It is quite possible Iran may be leaking information to try to mislead western intelligence officials.  One only needs to look at the the statements of Iranian officials on a weekly basis to figure out they are a peace-loving nation.  The pursuit of nuclear weapons quite simply fits the mold.

Secondly, the International Atomic Energy Agency does not share the same degree of confidence in the U.S. assessment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the agency said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.” (WSJ).

Third, the three authors of the report are all admittedly opposed to Bush’s current Iranian policy. This isn’t to say that Bush’s interpretation of the intelligence isn’t equally tainted by ideology, but at least Bush’s position until now was based on intelligence documents that re-enforced his position. Given the astonishing new findings, one can’t but wonder if the report was designed in part to undermine the Bush strategy.

What is perhaps the most unfortunate result of the release of the report is how quickly it’s findings were put to partisan political purposes. Democrats quickly ran to the microphones–unquestionably accepting the intelligence report as inherent truth (which I found a bit odd given their qualms about previous WMD intelligence)–claiming Bush’s policy was incorrect and re-articulating the need for a diplomatic solution.

The mainstream media has responded no better. The New York Times immediately published an article titled “The Good and Bad News About Iran“. In relevant part:

The good news:
Tehran, we are now told, halted its secret nuclear weapons program in 2003, which means that President Bush has absolutely no excuse for going to war against Iran. We are also relieved that the intelligence community is now willing to question its own assumptions and challenge the White House fevered rhetoric….

And the bad news:
But there’s also a lot of worrisome news in there that must not be overlooked… Tehran’s scientists are working to master the skills to make nuclear fuel — the hardest part of building a weapon. Anyone who wants to give the Iranians the full benefit of the doubt should read the last four years of reports from United Nations’ nuclear inspectors about Iran’s 18-year history of hiding and dissembling. Or last month’s report, which criticized Tehran for providing “diminishing” information and access to its current program.

As James Toranto (one of my favorite cynics) concluded… “In other words, the bad news, per the Times, is that a lunatic theocracy may soon become a lunatic theocracy armed with nuclear weapons. The good news is that that there’s nothing President Bush can do to stop it.” I haven’t come to expect much support for bush from the Times; therefore, this article didn’t come as a surprise. You can imagine my shock then at the Time’s op-ed article the following day which seems to conclude the very opposite:

…[T]he report contains the same sorts of flaws that we have learned to expect from our intelligence agency offerings. It, like the report in 2002 that set up the invasion of Iraq, is both misleading and dangerous.

Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran’s, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors — all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them?

We should be suspicious of any document that suddenly gives the Bush administration a pass on a big national security problem it won’t solve during its remaining year in office. Is the administration just washing its hands of the intractable Iranian nuclear issue by saying, “If we can’t fix it, it ain’t broke”?

I happen to think the second article has it right; Iran has no need for nuclear fuel with their massive oil reserves; we cannot just blindly accept Teran’s “peaceful uses” explanation given their hard-water facilities. However, what is maddening about these two articles is that within the space of 24 hours, the Times went from bashing Bush’s “fevered rhetoric” to lamenting that the report removes Bush from the responsibilities his “fevered rhetoric” would otherwise require! Can it be said any differently then the times wants it both ways!? They praise Bush’s political defeat yet demand he be held accountable for their preferred “diplomatic” policy should it fail!  If read together, the Times has essentially praised the use of dangerous and misleading intelligence.  I really do not know how to react to such an evasive set of policy positions.

What many fail to realize is that in the end, the danger with Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology was with the pursuit itself… not necessarily the weapons that may still be decades away. It is really a question of responsibility; the Iranian regime has proven time and time again that it is not responsible enough to be entrusted with such potential power.

I believe the Bush administration has taken the proper approach to Iran–bringing countries together on issues like sanctions and increased diplomatic pressure. Unfortunately, the NIE report has wasted much of the political capital the Bush administration — including Condalesa Rice, John Bolton, and others — have worked hard to earn over the past few years.

It seems the drafters of the NIE have in both advocated a policy and have yet managed undermined that very policy within the pages of a single document. If this is not bad drafting… then I don’t know what is.

I have an alternate theory (no big surprise, of course).  Maybe Europe for the last decade was lead by a bunch of puerile, jealous highbrows who couldn’t handle seeing us prosper while their countries, economies, and traditions slowly wasted away.  Maybe europeans are the ones with the attitude problem.  If fresh leadership is all it takes to improve US/French relations, then maybe our image is much more a function of european attitudes than U.S. leadership or policy.  

It’s just a theory.

By the way, is Sarkosy super classy or is that just me?

On the other hand, I was recently listening to a speech by abbas miliani, who, by every appearance, seems to be the most reasonable thinker… who seems to believe that fostering democracy in Iran is the best permanent solution for dealing with the Iranian regime.  Although he has never said it explicitly (to my knowledge)… I would also assume he would agree that a hard showing of political pressure by the U.S. government against Tehran would not help to further this end.    Even so, according to the latest poll findings, Iranians as a whole have a very favorable view of the U.S., despite the fact that we have (mostly) refused diplomatic ties with the current regime.  Quite interesting to say the least.  

I agree with Miliani yet am unwilling to make the compromises necessary to achieve that end without taking a stand in particular cases, especially where individual citizens are involved. I think Bush has dropped the ball big on this Iran thing… let’s hope our next president is another Reagan so we can get those hostages back home…. ASAP.