Reading notes

Excellent analysis by Billmon of points brought forward by the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank in today’s must-read 9/11 Panel’s Findings Vault Bush Credibility To Campaign Forefront, interwoven with other sources.

No one juxtaposes contrary utterances better than Billmon; the result is always revealing.

My favorite line in this particular entry is —

Claiming that that evidence [supporting Bush/Cheney’s insistence on Iraq-al Qaeda links] can be found in the pages of the 9/11 Commission’s staff statement is like claiming an endorsement of Bush’s fiscal policies can be found in the collected writings of Paul Krugman. It’s simply absurd.

Yes.

Another chunk I’m particularly impressed with:

The 9/11 commission, [Rep. Eric I.] Cantor [VA] argues, is partisan. Why? Because it went “off mission” by questioning the alleged relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Now since the 9/11 commission was specifically instructed by Congress to “make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the [9/11] attacks,” and to “investigate relevant facts and circumstances … including intelligence agencies … diplomacy … the flow of assets to terrorist organizations … and other areas of the public and private sectors determined relevant by the commission,” it’s fairly ridiculous to argue the commission exceeded its mandate by reviewing the evidence regarding Bin Ladin’s alleged contacts with Iraq. What Cantor is really arguing is that the commission went “off mission” by arriving at conclusions that were extremely embarrassing to the administration, and possibly damaging to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

I’ve rarely seen the GOP machine’s definition of partisanship so clearly stated: If you agree with us, you’re a patriotic non-partisan American. If you disagree with us, you’re a Kerry campaign operative, or at best a Democratic tool. And now that second label has been applied to a congressionally created commission split absolutely evenly between the two parties, and chaired by a Republican ex-governor selected by the White House itself.

The GOP machine is desperate now, as well they should be. Theirs is lying the overwhelming magnitude and transparency of which I never thought I’d see. The “coattails effect” of Bush et al.’s Big Lie won’t be sweeping Republican candidates into office; the sweep will be outward, out the door. Personally, I’m quite sure I will never vote for a Republican candidate again for as long as I live — that’s how bad the stench is. I’m lost to the Republican Party forever, but to retain those voters who are still recoverable to them, I suggest the sane GOP remnant start dissociating themselves from Bushco as rapidly as possible.

Who is the “father of lies”?
Who are his children?

A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America’s counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an “avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked” war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden’s hands.

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are “on the run” and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer.

Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work of a serving official [writing as “Anonymous”] with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment. …

Peter Bergen, the author of two books on Bin Laden and al-Qaida, said: “His views represent an amped-up version of what is emerging as a consensus among intelligence counter-terrorist professionals.”

Anonymous does not try to veil his contempt for the Bush White House and its policies. His book describes the Iraq invasion as “an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage. …

Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies’ Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.

“I’m very sure they can’t have a better administration for them than the one they have now,” he said.

See also Spencer Ackerman’s interview notes with Anonymous at Talking Points Memo.

[via mitch2k2 comment at Daily Kos]

2004-06-24 update: My emerging assessment after hearing more from Anonymous is that his diagnosis is near the mark — and therefore an important contribution — but his prescription is whack. I see Melanie agrees.

I understand Anonymous to be saying total war is the only course left to us. But that’s not sane: war tactics are what’s caused the situation to spiral out of control. Total war would take the spiral into warp.

Today’s editorial in the New York Times —

When the commission studying the 9/11 terrorist attacks refuted the Bush administration’s claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, we suggested that President Bush apologize for using these claims to help win Americans’ support for the invasion of Iraq. … We were surprised by the depth and ferocity of the administration’s capacity for denial. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have not only brushed aside the panel’s findings and questioned its expertise, but they are also trying to rewrite history.

Mr. Bush said the 9/11 panel had actually confirmed his contention that there were “ties” between Iraq and Al Qaeda. He said his administration had never connected Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Both statements are wrong. …

Mr. Cheney said yesterday that the “evidence is overwhelming” of an Iraq-Qaeda axis and that there had been a “whole series of high-level contacts” between them. The 9/11 panel said a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan in the early 1990’s, meeting with Osama bin Laden once in 1994. … As far as the public record is concerned, then, Mr. Cheney’s “longstanding ties” amount to one confirmed meeting, after which the Iraq government did not help Al Qaeda. By those standards, the United States has longstanding ties to North Korea. …

When it comes to this critical issue, the vice president is not prepared to offer any evidence beyond the flimsy-to-nonexistent arguments he has used in the past, but he wants us to trust him when he says there’s more behind the screen. So far, when it comes to Iraq, blind faith in this administration has been a losing strategy.

Shorter NYT editorial (as I read it):
Cheney is a lying son of a bee-atch.

Whoa. The gloves are off. Fool me twice … uh … won’t get fooled again.

Powerful writing in today’s Washington Post —

President Bush insisted today that “numerous contacts” between the ousted government of Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorist network showed that the former Iraqi leader was a threat to the United States, despite a report by the Sept. 11 commission that found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda.

“The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,” Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting at the White House. …

Now there’s some sound reasoning.

The [9/11 Commission] report challenged one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq. Along with the contention that Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein’s government and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network. …

The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda’s ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe “clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found. …

In September, Cheney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “If we’re successful in Iraq … then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” …

In January, Cheney repeated his view that Iraq was tied to al Qaeda, saying that “there’s overwhelming evidence” of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. He said he was “very confident there was an established relationship there.”

Remembering the biblical dictum that what you do is the basis by which you will be judged, let me put the consequences of these false beliefs and this resulting behavior in terms consistent with evangelical hellfire-and-brimstone theology as I see it:

If you attack a country that conceptually might be but factually most certainly is not a threat to you, especially when in so doing you outright kill 10,000+ of its inhabitants and maim tens of thousands — and you adamantly refuse to repent — then you will burn in hell. I know this is true because of all the things evangelicals have advised me I could “burn in hell” for, this exceeds the worst by at least 9,999 dead people.

If I’m right about the gravity of the situation — with or without literal hellfire — I think our appropriate response on realizing complicity is to (1) stop affirming lies, (2) stop the self-deception that conflates Christian faith with U.S. nationalism, and (3) repent. Rinse and repeat ‘til the blood stops flowing.

Now I personally think that any theology that dwells exclusively on a heaven-or-hell outcome tragically oversimplifies life in the Spirit. But for the “you’re either with us or with the terrorists” aficionados among us, a binary outcome is a compelling starting point.

My conception of hell, BTW, is less hellfire and brimstone and more along the lines of C.S. Lewis’ depiction in The Great Divorce: hell is self-chosen exile from God, a place whose inhabitants always have an invitation to the intense realness of heaven but from which almost no inhabitant ever chooses to leave.

My big risk currently lies not in being complicit with a criminal administration — I’ve renounced its motives and methods from the beginning — but with a looming lack of forgiveness for anyone who votes for Bush. I’ve got much work to do to grow past this unforgiveness, which after all damages the unforgiver far more than the unforgiven.

Well-put New York Times opinion today —

It’s hard to imagine how the [9/11] commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11. …

Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it’s possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. …

Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration’s actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.

(I added the boldface.)

My assessment is that Mr. Cheney knows he’s not telling the truth, but keeps saying it anyway, whereas Mr. Bush’s problem is he’s particularly prone to self-deception.

Neither version of unreality has any business in my country’s government.

I don’t listen to talk radio much, but I dip into an O’Franken Factor on Air America Radio occasionally because Al Franken always makes me laugh.

Widely respected evangelical Baptist minister Tony Campolo appeared on yesterday’s program and blew me away (again) with his understanding of what Christianity is about. He shakes up my stereotype of evangelical Baptists: he gets it. (MP3 link below.)

Some quickly noted Tony comments, for example —

• War is major cause of poverty around the world.
• The survival of America depends more on the friends we make around the world by serving the poor than on the armies we deploy.
• You don’t rid of malaria by killing mosquitoes, you get rid of malaria by getting rid of the swamps that breed mosquitoes. Likewise, you don’t get rid of terrorism by killing terrorists, you get rid of terrorism by getting rid of the conditions: poverty, the AIDS crisis, oppression, and humiliation of people around the world.
• Every time you kill a terrorist you don’t diminish terrorism around the world, instead you get probably 3-4 more terrorists to take his place.

Next, in response to a caller who asks —
“What do I say to my evangelical brother-in-law who called to tell me that ‘America is going to go to hell if we don’t vote for George Bush’?”

Tony replies —

I would ask your brother-in-law: What does Jesus say about poor people?

There are 2,000 verses in Hebrew and Christian scripture that say, “If you’re going to love God you’ve got to respond to the needs of the poor.” (God repeats ‘til we get it; he stays on message.)

The question to ask is, Has this administration done good for the poor of this country and for the poor of the world?

Another one: The only description Jesus ever gives of Judgment Day: [We’ll be asked,] How did we treat the poor? Did you feed the poor, did you clothe the naked, did you tend the sick …? (Refer to Matt. 25.)

How do you reconcile with Jesus who says “Blessed are the peacemakers …” We are not being peacemakers, we are warmakers.

How do you reconcile believing in capital punishment — as this president does — with Jesus who says, “Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. If you don’t show mercy you’re not in my camp.”

It’s all about living out love. Is this administration doing it?

Well worth listening to, IMO. Here’s the Air America Place mp3 Archive I know about.

Specifically, here’s the link to yesterday’s program:
O’Franken Factor, June 14, 2004 (MP3, 14.0 MB)

Note: Tony comes on the program at 82:00, and his most powerful points start at 93:10.