David Broder Hails Bush and Blair "Courage"

David Broder makes another original contribution to the genre of astoundingly bad punditry in today's Washington Post. His column, titled "Western Allies In the Twilight", is a sentimental tribute to Bush's and Blair's war-like courage. No, really.

Broder writes:

The 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington and the 7/7 London subway and bus bombings shook both Bush and Blair from any sense of complacency and armed both men with a conviction that their preeminent mission was to combat the forces behind those assaults. Both men now believe -- no, are passionately and permanently convinced -- that the terrorist threat from radical Islamists is one that must be resisted at all costs. (Bold mine)

Set aside the "9/11 shook Bush from any sense of complacency" spin, which strikes me as patently absurd. Focus instead on the words Broder uses to describe the not-complacent Bush and Blair: they were "armed" with a conviction that their "preeminent mission" was to "combat" Islamic extremists, who had to be "resisted at all costs".

The "Mission Accomplished" military fantasy world that George W. Bush inhabits? David Broder lives there too. Broder actually appears to regard Bush as some sort of virtuous military action figure.

Here, Broder approvingly quotes Blair:

"It's not about us remaining true to the course that we've set out because of the alliance with America. It is about us remaining steadfast because what we are fighting, the enemy that we are fighting, is an enemy that is aiming its destruction at our way of life and anybody who wants that way of life. And in those circumstances, the harder they fight, the more determined we must be to fight back. If what happens is, the harder they fight, the more our will diminishes, then that's a fight we're going to lose. And this is a fight we can't afford to lose."

This is the kind of moronic wingnut stuff that Bush says all the time. It is moronic in that (1) it makes a carricature of Islamic extremists' goals -- no, their primary aim is not to destroy the American/Western way of life; (2) it vastly exaggerates the threat posed by Islamic extremists -- no, these people do not have the ability to destroy the American way of life; and (3) it assumes that the only alternative to Bush's and Blair's catastrophic policy is to capitulate to the evildoers, convert to Islam and impose sharia law in America. Here is Broder's take on what Blair had to say:

Those are brave words, and a grateful Bush spoke from the heart when he said, "What I know is the world needs courage. And what I know is this good man is a courageous man."

Those are brave words! Which brings us to Broder's conclusion:

History will record that both of them saw the threat to the West posed by terrorism and responded courageously. The wisdom of their policy and the conduct of their governments are not likely to be judged as highly.

Will history "record" that they "saw the threat" and "responded courageously"? It seems to me that history's judgment will be that they thoroughly misjudged the threat and completely bungled the response. But was it a courageous bungle? That seems to be what Broder is suggesting by sounding a skeptical note about the wisdom of the Bush/Blair policy, after having drooled all over Bush/Blair's manliness. Does that make any sense? What exactly was "courageous" about Bush's and Blair's reponse to the threat posed by Islamic extremism?

More October Surprise Speculation

[UPDATED below.]

As I've said before, I think it's extremely likely that the White House will try to put the country on Red Alert before election day. I stand by the following prediction:

If it looks like they're going to lose the mid-term elections, these guys will try to sweep the pieces off the chessboard, whatever it takes. Bombing Iran? Yes, absolutely. Bombing, blockade, whatever it takes. Mounting some sort of fantasy land special forces commando raid snipe hunt to capture Bin Laden based on "new actionable" evidence? Yes, absolutely. Foiling a trumped up domestic terror plot? Yes, they would do it. Using tactical nuclear weapons? If they thought it would help, Yes, they would do it.

So, where are we now? Well, let's see. Gas prices have been coming down. Score 1 for the GOP. The Republicans succeeded in passing the Preznit's torture legislation, which counts as a political victory in this election cycle, even if history and the popular culture will ultimately record it as an abject betrayal of American values. Score another point for the GOP.

On the other side of the ledger, the murderous civil war in Iraq has blasted its way back into the headlines, courtesy of the latest semi-suppressed NIE and Bob Woodward's latest book (in which Woodward apparently re-acquaints himself with the practice of journalism, having served as a hagiographer for the Bush Administration in his previous two books.) Anything else going on that might affect the Cheney/Rove/Bush calculus?

Well, yes. It turns out that the House Republican leadership has been complicit in six-term Republican sexual predator and Congressman Mark Foley's sexual abuse of underage boys under their care. Republican Speaker of the House Denny Hastert and Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner each had specific information that Foley was engaged in the sexual abuse of boys under their care, and they covered it up and allowed it to continue. The scandal is widening. This is an absolute disaster for the GOP.

I think it's pretty much a sure thing the White House is going to try to sweep the pieces off the chess board somehow. But what are their options? How can they push Iraq and the Foley/Hastert/Boehner scandal off the front pages?

They need to do something that isn't transparent show business and that can't be shrugged off by Democrats. The success of a stunt like this depends in part on its effectiveness in dividing the opposition. Cheney/Rove/Bush need to do something that (i) a substantial Democratic constituency already supports, or is disposed to support; (ii) can't just be "undone", i.e. changes the political landscape so that the mere doing of it automatically constrains the remaining options, so the debate can be structured as being about "what America does next" rather than "was it a good idea for Bush to do this?"; (iii) provides the media with an easy-to-understand GOP-friendly frame and story-line, preferably one they're already familiar with; and (iv) can be presented as a response to one or more problems the existence and urgency of which Democrats have already acknowledged.

UPDATE: I'm thinking through manufactured crisis scenarios in which the White House would try to position itself as standing with Israel against Iran. There are at least three necessary elements for this kind of stunt: (1) the White House needs to make an urgent, categorical, non-negotiable demand that Iran (or some other sufficiently menacing Enemy) obey the White House on some point or other; (2) the demand has to be structured so that there is zero risk that Iran (or the other Enemy) could accede to the demand without utterly humiliating itself and handing Bush a massive victory; and (3) the urgency of the demand has to be evidence-proof, i.e. there can't be any way to discredit the legitimacy of the demand through objective evidence.

Telegrams from Outer Space: David Brooks Edition

David Brooks wrote another characteristically boneheaded op-ed piece in the NYT yesterday, titled "The Grand Delusion." And yes, the irony of the title is completely unintended. Brooks does his best work (illustrating the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of "moderate" Republicanism) by accident.

Here's my favorite part of the op-ed:

To his eternal credit, after 9/11 George Bush quickly understood that the terror threat was fundamentally an ideological threat, a product of deep historical consciousness.

What do you even say to a guy who thinks Bush deserves "eternal credit" for understanding the fundamental nature of the terror threat? Isn't that just completely and totally wrong, in an Orwellian up-is-down way? Isn't the truth of the matter that Bush's "understanding" of the terror threat is fundamentally cartoon-like? Look, you may or may not agree with me that Bush is an imbecile and that his access to objective reality appears to be so tenuous as to be virtually non-existent. But to claim that Bush deserves "eternal credit" (eternal!) for apprehending some elusive truth about the real nature of the "terror threat" is just, well, boneheaded.

October Surprise: Much Worse Than You Think

Dems are poised to win back the House. Will there be an October Surprise? In a word: Yes. The only surprise will be if the country isn't on red alert by the week after next.

1) If the Dems pick up the House, they thereby pick up the ability to effectively investigate White House and White House-sponsored misconduct.

2) Democratic investigations of White House and White House-sponsored misconduct are likely to uncover serious wrongdoing and egregious misconduct. Obviously there's no way for outsiders to know ahead of time what aggressive investigations might uncover, but the White House knows. As a general proposition, we know that this gang is disposed to lawlessness, radicalism and corruption. They've been operating without Congressional oversight for years, in a war- and propaganda-induced climate of fear. With a few notable exceptions, the press has been AWOL. Given what we know about these guys, and given that they've been operating essentially without any constraints on their conduct for so long, my speculation is that there is lots and lots of misconduct waiting to be uncovered. How afraid is the White House of facing a Dem-controlled House? Very, very afraid.

3) If the White House were constrained by either respect for the rule of law or adherence to the conventions and traditions undergirding the American system of government, it would be Document Shredding Time at the White House. If these were traditional wrongdoers facing the prospect of being caught, they would be trying to cover up the evidence of their wrongdoing.

4) This White House does not operate on the basis of respect for the rule of law or adherence to the institutional traditions and customs underlying the American system of government. These guys are lawless radicals. Sure, if it comes to that they'll try to cover up evidence. But whereas traditional wrongdoers might cut straight to that step, this gang has a more primal impulse: holding onto power and retaining total control.

5) If it looks like they're going to lose the House, let alone the House and the Senate, the White House will resort to extraordinary means to change that outcome. There is almost nothing they won't do. To put it mildly, this White House does not distinguish between domestic electoral politics and foreign policy, even in matters of war.

6) Please take a moment to let this sink in. If it looks like they're going to lose the mid-term elections, these guys will try to sweep the pieces off the chessboard, whatever it takes. Bombing Iran? Yes, absolutely. Bombing, blockade, whatever it takes. Mounting some sort of fantasy land special forces commando raid snipe hunt to capture Bin Laden based on "new actionable" evidence? Yes, absolutely. Foiling a trumped up domestic terror plot? Yes, they would do it. Using tactical nuclear weapons? If they thought it would help, yes they would do it.

7) For clarity and emphasis: if it looks like the GOP is going to lose the House, the White House will take the country to Red Alert. Wag the dog? Sure, but it won't just be show business. These guys are prepared to do the real thing, on a big scale if necessary.

8) Are Dem leaders prepared for this? They need to be. What happens if we wake up one morning and the White House announces that Operation Bomb Iran to Freedom has begun, what will Dem leaders do? Will they salute? Will they "give the President the benefit of the doubt?" Will they be considering the issue for the first time?

Dems need to be ready for this. We all need to be ready for this.

Katie Couric Credibility Deathwatch: It's Over

I haven't seen Katie Couric read the news on CBS yet. But I did see her fawning, imbecilic, cringe-inducing, hero-worshipping fluff piece on Condi Rice on 60 Minutes last Sunday. I didn't like it.

Others have commented on the interview. They've nailed it. I don't have much to add on that front. So let me speculate as to what the Katie Hearts Condi 60 Minutes fiasco tells us about Katie Couric as Serious Journalist.

I'm sure that Katie Couric is fairly smart. I'd seen her on the Today show a few times, and she seemed pretty quick on her feet. And as trite as this sounds, it's hard to see how someone can be as successful as she's been in the media game without being at least reasonably intelligent.

So how do you explain her performance on 60 Minutes? How do you explain her decision to treat an interview with the Secretary of State of the United States, a key player in the Bush Administration, in the middle of an election campaign, at a time when America is bogged down in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and may well soon initiate a war with Iran, as an opportunity to produce a campaign commercial-style fluff piece for the benefit of her subject?

You can rule out any "management made her do it" theory right off the bat. No, her Condi interview was part of the CBS News Katie Couric Product Launch, and she's got a major say in how that campaign in run. Now, I have no insight into or interest in how Katie Couric made the decision as a psychological matter. But here's what the fact of the decision tells us:

As a journalist, as a serious newsperson, Katie Couric is incompetent. Utterly, completely and irredeemably incompetent.

How did this come to pass? I don't know, but allow me to speculate. The likely explanation is that she lacks relevant domain-specific experience and knowledge. How do you think she would do if you plucked her up from the CBS newsroom and gave her a shot at being a real estate partner in a law firm? Would you hire her as a heart surgeon?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that reading the news requires as much training or knowledge as something like heart surgery. And to the extent Couric's anchor job just requires her to read from a teleprompter, I'm sure she'll manage just fine. But as the 60 Minutes fiasco demonstrates, she has terrible journalistic judgment. To the extent that her job requires her to make distinctions, to exercise discretion in order to make tough calls about what's important and what isn't, forget it.

Now, maybe you think I'm being a bit harsh. After all, I didn't just say that she is "incompetent", but that she is "irredeemably incompetent." Well, I think I can resolve any doubts you may have. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I give you (h/t to Charles Pierce) Katie Couric's blog, Couric & Co. Read this and then tell me if you disagree.

The Case of Maher Arar (One)

I've been reading the Report of the Canadian Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, written by Justice Dennis O'Connor, the Associate Chief Justice of Ontario. As I've mentioned before, the Report and lots of supporting documentation are available at the Commission's website.

There's so much in this Report that is of interest that it's hard to know where to begin. So let me start with this: How does a person become a terror suspect?

One of the ways in which a person can show up on the U.S. national security radar and come to the attention of national security authorities as a potential Evildoer is through tips and information provided by the agencies and officials of foreign governments. Of course, foreign governments aren't the only source of information for U.S. authorities -- other sources include direct tips from informants, information gleaned from the interrogation of captured terror suspects, surveillance, etc. But information sharing with foreign governments plays a major role.

Now consider the case of Maher Arar. From the Report:

Towards the end of October 2001, Canada Customs placed border lookouts for Mr. Arar and his wife [...]. [There were "reasonable grounds" for the lookout itself, but] the lookout for Mr. Arar was designated a "terrorism" lookout. According to a Canada Customs bulletin, that designation is used when someone issuspected of being a member, associate or sympathizer of a known terrorist organization. Mr. Arar did not meet these criteria. He was not suspected ofbeing a member of a terrorist organization and should not have been labelled in this fashion in the lookout. To do so was unfair to Mr. Arar, who was merely a person of interest. It is essential that precise and accurate language be used when describing an individual's role in a terrorism-related investigation, particularly in these times of heightened concerned about public safety and national security. Labels have a way of sticking to individuals, reputations are easily damaged and when labels are inaccurate, serious unfairness to individuals can result. (Report, p.19) (Emphasis mine)

Welcome to the computer system as a guy with a "terrorism lookout," Mr. Arar. Enjoy your flight! The Report goes on:

Project A-O Canada [a Canadian anti-terrorism task force] supplied the American agencies with a good deal of inaccurate information about Mr. Arar, some of which was inflammatory and unfairly prejudicial to him. [...] [I]n its request for U.S. border lookouts, Project A-O Canada described Mr. Arar and his wife as Islamic extremists suspected of being linked to the al-Qaeda movement. Everyone who testified accepts that this description was wrong and should not have been given to the Americans. There was no basis for such an assertion. The request was sent to U.S. Customs in late October 2001, but it was also given directly to the American agencies five months later, in April 2002. The potential consequences of labelling someone an Islamic extremist in post- 9/11 America are enornous. (Report, p.27) (emphasis mine)

So, now you have a guy with a "terrorist lookout" message flashing on every computer screen in U.S. law enforcement, and a bunch of U.S. agencies have been notified that he's an Islamic extremist with ties to al Qaeda. Except it's all bullshit.

With this in mind, consider President Bush's statement yesterday about the necessity of his CIA torture program:

I had a single test for the pending legislation, and that's this: Would the CIA operators tell me whether they could go forward with the program, that is a program to question detainees to be able to get information to protect the American people. I'm pleased to say that this agreement preserves the most single - most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks, and that is the CIA program to question the world's most dangerous terrorists and to get their secrets.

The single most potent tool he has to protect the American people is his program to torture "the world's most dangerous terrorists and get their secrets." And how does he know they're terrorists again?

More tomorow.

Arar Commission Website

Here is a link to the official site of the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, where you can download the Report and other materials.

Surreal Bush UN Speech

I just saw a replay of the part of Bush's speech to the UN General Assembly today in which he purported to speak directly to the Iranian people. He said:

To the people of Iran: The United States respects you; we respect your country. We admire your rich history, your vibrant culture, and your many contributions to civilization. You deserve an opportunity to determine your own future, an economy that rewards your intelligence and your talents, and a society that allows you to fulfill your tremendous potential. The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism, and fuel extremism, and pursue nuclear weapons. The United Nations has passed a clear resolution requiring that the regime in Tehran meet its international obligations. Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program. We're working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis. And as we do, we look to the day when you can live in freedom -- and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace.

What. A. Moron.

That is all.

The Case of Maher Arar

More on the Maher Arar case soon, but for now:

1) Take a minute to read Arar's first-hand account of his ordeal here. He made this statement in November of 2003. Welcome to the reality of the War on Terra.

2) As you read about this story in US papers and follow the US TV coverage, consider checking out the coverage in the Canadian media as well. The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star will have tons of coverage of this. Also, the CBC has a helpful background page on the Arar case. It'll be interesting to see whether and to what extent the US coverage hits different notes than the Canadian coverage.

3) The Canadian commission of inquiry into the case of Maher Arar illustrates the type of conventional scrutiny of government that is literally impossible to carry out in the United States right now. In this respect, our political system no longer functions in a manner befitting a free, open and democratic society. How many Maher Arars are there out there? What is the government up to? Exceptional journalists like Dana Priest at the WaPo have shed some light on this shadowy world, but for the most part, we're in the dark.

I shudder to think of the stuff that's going to come out when Democrats regain control of the House and start investigating the conduct of the Bush Administration. Eventually, as control of the government passes out of Republican hands and as information trickles out from the shadowy network of torture shops the Bush team has set up, we're going to come face to face with the reality of what they've been doing. My sense is it's going to be very, very ugly.