Reading notes

Today’s priceless quote, this from Josh via Melanie:

It’s been clear for some time that one of the key shortcomings of this administration is the presence of so many loyalists and ideologues who can usually be counted on to shout “Onward! Onward! Onward!” as the ship of state sails off the edge of the world.

This image brings to mind bits of Rime of the Ancient Mariner, albeit as enacted by Monty Python.

Bravo to this young columnist:

In the wake of Richard Clarke’s dramatic personal apology to the families of 9/11 victims last week — on behalf of himself and his government — for failing to prevent the terrorist attacks, one might expect at least a few mea culpas related to the release of false information on the Iraq threat before and after the war.

This has not happened so far, with President Bush on Wednesday going so far as to joke about the missing weapons of mass destruction at a correspondents dinner in Washington.

While the major media, from The New York Times on down, has largely remained silent about their own failings in this area, a young columnist for a small paper in Fredericksburg, Va., has stepped forward. …

E. J. Dionne Jr. unleashes his White House/Richard Clarke observations with forcible clarity —

President Bush had two big things going for him in this year’s election. He was seen by a majority of Americans as a straight shooter. And he was viewed as the natural leader in the war on terrorism. Now both perceptions are in jeopardy. …

The attack on Clarke, the White House’s former anti-terrorism expert, could prove to be the fatal mistake of the Bush campaign. Instead of undermining Clarke’s credibility, the White House has called its own into question.

It is also calling new attention to the administration’s standard operating procedure since Sept. 11, 2001: Do whatever is necessary to intimidate and undercut all who raise questions about the president’s handling of terrorism, answer as few of those questions as possible and keep as many secrets as you can. …

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will surely come to regret his vicious speech on Friday accusing Clarke of, among other things, “profiteering.” Frist all but accused Clarke of perjury. … Frist called for declassifying Clarke’s congressional testimony.

How weak were the underpinnings of Frist’s form of McCarthyism Lite? So weak that Clarke easily one-upped Frist and the administration in his appearance Sunday on “Meet the Press.” Clarke endorsed declassifying his testimony in full, and any other relevant documents.

As I see the prevalence of responses like this to Sen. Frist’s Friday accusations, I see I’m not being too harsh at all in Saturday’s main blog entry The West Wing of Orthanc.

Larry Johnson, member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, former CIA, former State Department Counter Terrorism official, and registered Republican, writes —

Richard Clarke must be wondering if explaining what the United States did not do in the war on terrorism is more dangerous than actually fighting the terrorists. Clarke, the former terrorism czar for both Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, is now being vilified by a host of Bush officials, including Dick Cheney and Condeleeza Rice, as a liar.

The attack on Clarke, which consists of leaks, threats and intimidation tactics, has become the genuine hallmark of the Bush presidency. …

This invariable Bush WH response to criticism or questions — a barrage of obstructionism, threats, intimidation, smearing, character assassination — communicates to me more than anything else that its policy, its collective spirit, is now rotten to the core. Whatever it once may have been is gone. No one who habitually responds this way has the Spirit of Life motivating their actions. (I started to postpend that last sentence with In My Opinion, but it’s true by definition.)

On further reflection, I realize I cannot speak for the Spirit of Life, much as I might like to think I can. So I’m striking the assertion above.

Here is the bottom line—Richard Clarke was right, and the Bush administration and the people of the United States would have been better off if his warnings in the early days of 2001 had been heeded. Rather than attack Richard Clarke’s character, Republican operatives should focus their venom on the terrorists who killed Americans in the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. George W. Bush should set the tone and thank his former terrorism chief, apologize for this week’s ugliness, and focus on getting Osama Bin Laden. As one American, I say thank you, Richard Clarke.

Thinking about what-should-be-done leads me to this: As a practical matter, Mr. Bush cannot be an effective president, now or in a second term, because he’s damaged goods. His credibility is damaged goods. His ideology is damaged goods. His theology is damaged goods. And the damage is self-inflicted. Much of the world hates him with a vengeance and will never work with his team, and roughly half the people in the U.S. grimace at his every word. Is this state of affairs even arguable? Can any amount of spin — or even, at this late date, repentance — transcend it? Can anything good emerge from these ashes? I don’t see how. I think that even if I approved of his performance, I’d still have to assess that in terms of potential future efficacy in the world, Mr. Bush can only be at best a lame duck for four more years.

But I can’t for a minute believe that “at best” is the likeliest outcome.

Kevin writes well concerning Bush campaign criticism of John Kerry’s scripture-based observation in a St. Louis church Sunday —

Speaking of the Bush Administration Kerry asked:

The scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?” Kerry told the congregation at New North Side Baptist Church. “When we look at what is happening in America today, where are the works of compassion?”

Bush’s response was predictably shrill and ridiculous:

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry’s comment “was beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse and a sad exploitation of Scripture for a political attack.”

As usual, when faced with a criticism, the Bush Administration runs from the substance and attempts to smear the critic. Anyone who says their favorite political philosopher is Jesus Christ had best be prepared to defend his actions in the light of Jesus’ teachings. …

The language of religion has always been spoken comfortably on the left, even if the principle of tolerance has caused it to occasionally be spoken too quietly. John Kerry is not speaking quietly now. Whatever George W. Bush may desire, whatever the editors of the Washington Post and New York Times may decree, Christianity and faith are not the property of the right wing. I have a faith, too, as does John Kerry and millions of others. It is strong, and sincere, and, as Kerry has reminded us, powerful. And in the face of provocation and distortion, it has no reason to be silent.

(I added the italics because I’m struck by these words’ power. There’s no briefly excerpting Kevin’s entry; it’s all good.)

Thanks, Kevin. I am a person of faith, too, a follower of Jesus — which to my understanding demands of me a liberal worldview — who remains more or less Episcopalian, who can in no wise be silent. Here’s my “Amen, brother!”

[via JaBitB]

President George W. Bush has made his Christian faith and “compassionate conservatism” central to his presidency and campaign for re-election. But just how “Christian” are the assumptions underlying current US domestic and foreign policy?

In a book to be published in June by Continuum, retired Atlanta Bishop Bennett Sims provides a penetrating critique of the religious and political assumptions of the Bush presidency. He sets out contrasting versions of Christianity, both of which may be drawn from the Hebrew-Christian scriptures. …

Bishop Sims juxtaposes the violent, confrontational concept of power presented by George W. Bush with the enduring power of compassion, justice, and nonviolence exemplified by the Hebrew prophets and Jesus of Nazareth. He rejects the fierce Fundamentalism that expects an imminent and violent end to history and celebrates the movement of prophetic power from the shadows of history to the foreground of political action.

Thank heaven for another authoritative voice speaking truth to power. I find Bush’s interpretation of Christianity almost completely divorced from the Jesus I know, the whole arc of scripture I know, the full sweep of church history I know. I don’t mean I know the “whole arc” and “full sweep” in full; I mean only that I know enough of the whole to recognize — corroborated by my own experience of the numinous — that compassion, justice, and nonviolence are where God’s heart is, where God’s primary thrust throughout history is.

[via JaBitB]