Gonzales perjury, Part 2

Ask and you shall receive. 

I don’t think this really surprised anyone.  Now the Bush Administration is on record admitting that there were intelligence programs working alongside the Terrorist Surveillance Program authorized by one of Bush’s executive orders after 9/11. 

The NSA wiretap scandal disclosed by James Risen of the NY Times back in December of 2005 and acknowledged by the Bush administration as the Terrorist Surveillance Program was just one of many other intelligence programs. 

Which fits.  Bush claimed that the TSP only monitored communications where at least one of the targets was a known member of Al Qaeda. 

The evidence, however, pointed to activities which far exceeded this limited scope.  Data-mining, secret agreements with telephone/wireless companies for access to all of their records, federal agents who worked undercover to infiltrate organizations considered to be politically antithetical to Bush Administration policies. 

When I posted about this the other day, I thought it was interesting that in order to save Gonzales’ butt from perjury charges, the Bush Administration would have to disclose at least the existence of other programs. 

Can the apologists continue to pretend that we’re not at the edge of something irrevocably and undeniably unconstitutional here? 

Zap! Pow! Al Qaeda on the Run!

This is total crap. 

One of the new memes being pushed by the Bush Administration to bolster their shaky performance in Iraq is this idea that the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan is operating in Iraq. 

And wouldn’t you know it?  One day after releasing an unclassified version of the NIE, which despite intense efforts at sanitizing and spinning could not hide the fact that Al Qaeda is no worse for wear after six years of the Global War on Terror, the Bush Administration announces capturing the “leader” of the Iraqi version of Al Qaeda. 

Their official story is full of information which conveniently enough echoes the contention that the real Al Qaeda has been giving orders and controlling/influencing the Iraqi Al Qaeda.  So we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here or in Afghanistan/Pakistan.  So pulling resources out of Afghanistan/Pakistan and into Iraq wasn’t stupid.  It was far-sighted. 

Puh-leeze. 

Here’s what the Bush administration still doesn’t get about Al Qaeda.  It’s decentralized.  You can’t cut off the head and expect it to wither away. 

The Bush administration has been guilty since the day they took office of seeing terrorism as a state-sponsored threat.  It is exactly why they didn’t take the threat of Al Qaeda seriously in the first place.  And they are still applying the top-down state model to any analysis involving them. 

They replaced the government in Afghanistan and expected Al Qaeda to go away.  They pressure the government in Pakistan to “crack down” on Al Qaeda on the Western border, as if the Pakistani government could simply stop it if they wanted to.  They keep talking about capturing the “No. 2” or the “No. 3” guy in the organization. 

This is basically a reflection of the analysis we’d use to construct war plans against the Soviets.  Everyone knew that the Soviets ran their organizations from the top down, with little or no room for improvisation on the ground.  That is why we employed a “cut off the head” strategy against them in our war planning. 

We are used to constructing our foreign policy and war planning against centralized governments.  Well, Al Qaeda developed a management style that placed a premium on improvisation and adjustments on the ground.  It was an absolute necessity when fighting against vastly superior resources of the Soviets in the ’80s and everyone else in the ’90s.*  Less organizational control meant more operational security and a better chance to survive even the biggest setbacks. 

So take the recent news with a hefty grain of salt.  The fact that they are spinning the story in this way, in my opinion, belies a total lack of competence and progress on the ground. 

* For simplicity’s sake, I’m conflating the Afghan fighters from the ’80s with Al Qaeda, even though as a distinct entity Al Qaeda did not exist until the early to mid-’90s.  Al Qaeda was heavily influenced by the success of the mujahideen and so the point I am making is still relevant, even if technically anachronistic. 

Shampoo, Nail Polish, Soda, and other dangerous items

The WaPo has an article today about how the TSA will continue to restrict the possession of various types of gels for carry-on passengers.  Can I just say that this policy is more than annoying? 

It’s also a complete over-reaction to the supposed dangers of terrorists mixing liquid explosives on a plane in order to blow it up.  The scenario in which it would happen is so implausible as to defy common sense. 

If you believe it could happen, you are either speaking in purely theoretical terms with no concern for practical realities or you do not know what you are talking about. 

If you believe these security measures are important, either you believe mixing liquid explosives on a plane is possible (in which case see above) or you are the kind of guy who likes to “look busy” when his boss is walking around but doesn’t really care if what you do is actually useful. 

Anti-choicers and Al Qaeda

Update – It looks like Amanda at Pandagon wrote with a slightly different angle about what the anti-choice movement is really about.  There are some pretty neat examples of what I’m talking about in her post too so check it out. 

In blog years, this is ancient.  But Elyzabethe at Yellow is the Color commented on this last week and it looks like Jill at Feministe picked it up too.  It’s about the Ohio state legislature introducing a bill to ban abortion. 

This may not be news anymore but I did want to attempt to answer Elyzbethe’s question which was: 

But still ….. don’t these people have anything better to do then introduce pointless radical legislation? Aren’t there, like, actual problems in Ohio? Would it be too much to ask that our elected officials paid attention to things that might actually be beneficial to state citizens, instead of measures designed solely to demonstrate their superior morality?

This brings up a point that I think is often underestimated or overlooked by people who support choice.  Anti-choicers see this issue as a crusade or, if you prefer, a jihad.  The most radical among them do not simply approach abortion as one of many political issues.  It is the issue. 

In their mind, the fact that abortion is legal and that women are having them is a symptom of a larger cultural and spiritual “evil.”  An abortion clinic in their neighborhood is a spiritual blight and a cancer.  It is an insult to the God that gave them that land, which in their mind is a Christian land.  It is deeply offensive to them. 

Much like Christian soldiers occupying Saudi Arabia or Iraq are offensive to groups like, say, Al Qaeda. 

The most radical anti-choicers see their movement to get rid of abortion as part of a larger movement to spiritually cleanse this nation.  They operate their movement like one would operate an insurgency.  Insurgencies follow certain patterns.  Here are a few I’ve noticed. 

1. Maintain at all costs the illusion of momentum and inevitablity. 

This is all important, actually.  Insurgencies are, by their nature, minority movements.  In the anti-choice world, even with the recent losses in the last election and specifically in South Dakota’s decision to overturn their own abortion ban, the anti-choice movement is growing.  They can now claim to have very nearly taken over the Supreme Court and to have scored a huge judicial victory when the partial birth abortion ban was upheld.

They have an amazing ability to raise money and support their own candidates for public office on nearly every level.  They can also offer simultaneous abortion bills in multiple states.  The more radical a bill is, and the more attention it garners, the better.  And if one gets defeated, they can just propose another one again and again.  If one legislator is voted out of office, they have dozens to take his place. 

The effect is to put pro-choicers on the defensive, to create the illusion that there is a mass groundswell of public support of banning abortion all over the country, making it difficult to direct resources to educate and oppose their radical agenda. 

This is similar to the tactic that has become a hallmark of Al Qaeda.  Multiple suicide bombings in different areas at the same time offer the illusion of sophistication, inevitability, and power.  It engenders confusion and makes it more difficult for governments to direct resources to fight back.  Even when the bombs fail, it still serves its purpose.  Even if a suicide bomber gets caught, there are dozens to take his place. 

2. Claim moral highground, superiority, and obscure the ultimate agenda. 

The partial birth abortion ban was a great example of this tactic.  Here was a little understood procedure which was used as a medically necessary option in certain situations that was described in the most heinous terms and then attacked.  It allowed the anti-choicers to paint abortion as a sadistic, violent, and immoral procedure, which had long-term psychological consequences for mothers. 

The debate about partial birth abortion, for them, was never about what was the most medically sound option for women.  It was about horrifying the public and shaming women, doctors, politicians, and voters. 

And of course, the real agenda for the most radical anti-choicers is not getting rid of abortion and saving babies.  It’s about getting rid of dirty, nasty, unholy sexual relationships, which includes most sexual relationships and most sexual positions.  It’s not about having fun!  Sexual fun is a sign of moral sickness and depravity.  Sex is about making babies.  And we all know that the best babies are only made in the missionary position between a man and his wife-servant. 

Of course, Al Qaeda also makes a point to describe in self-serving detail the various moral crimes of Christian soldiers against Muslims and their chattel.  Ahem.  I mean “women.”  They play and replay the photos from Abu Graib, scenes of destruction after American bombing, dead bodies along the road, houses in rubble, crying women, maimed children, and the “Westernization” of Arab culture. 

Al Qaeda advertises that they simply want to “liberate” the Arab people from their corrupted and compromised governments, from the Christian soldiers who occupy their lands, and from the sinful, secular Arabs who have brought it all upon them. 

But of course, this obscures the fact that Al Qaeda ultimately wishes to introduce sharia law. 

3. Probe, observe, and always test the defenses of the enemy.  Never rest. 

And finally the reason for legislation that will probably never pass.  It lets people know they’re still out there.  It keeps the opposition on its toes.  It exposes they way the opposition operates and reacts, which may reveal a weakness or even a fault line of support.  The partial birth abortion ban came out of this tactic.  Supreme Court decisions were analyzed and picked apart, focus groups were tested, and ideas were floated around until it became clear there was an opening there. 

When the U.S. soldiers first got to Iraq and after the Taliban left the major cities in Afghanistan without a fight, there was a period of relative quiet.  Many people, including our Preznit, thought that major combat operations were over. 

But like any competent insurgency, the enemy anticipated a long war, and occassionally coordinated an attack, to let people know they were still there but also to study the U.S. military.  It made them a better, more calculated insurgency and the results have largely been on display for the last couple years in both countries. 

What this all means for pro-choicers, like me, is that we have to recognize once for all what we’re up against.  We have to fight the anti-choicers the way we should be fighting Al Qaeda (sans the military, obviously).  With educational initiatives, by responding effectively to the absurd and horrific claims of the opposition, and by exposing the truth behind its radical agenda. 

So these are my initial answers to Elyzabethe’s question.  I’m interested in other people’s thoughts. 

And let me clarify something.  When I use the word “anti-choicer,” I am not talking about everyone who is pro-life.  I am only referring to the most radical part of the pro-life movement that is fueled by the need to decide for everyone else the best way to live their lives.  They are actively trying to taking choices away from everyone else because they know best and, in their mind, God said it was okay. 

And before all you radical anti-choicers get your Jack Bauer underoos in a bunch and accuse me of comparing you to terrorists, let me clarify:  I am absolutely comparing you to Al Qaeda.  If the neo-fascist anti-democratic one-God-fits-all theocratic shoe fits…

The Potemkin Candidate

First we had the photo op president (see here and here).  Now it looks like we’re getting the photo op candidate in Rudy Giuliani. 

Now it’s no secret that Giuliani’s entire campaign is premised on his 9/11 performance when he became known as “America’s mayor” by breathless media pundits everywhere. 

Apparently, the substance of that leadership is being disputed by the International Association of Firefighters.  You can find more information here and here. 

So how will the media cover what basically amounts to a refutation of the entire reason Giuliani is considered a candidate?  As a horse race, of course!  Digby has more.  But here’s the heart of her point: 

But for some reason, the media has come to habitually weigh the prospective competence and leadership qualities of candidates on the basis of how well they thwart smears. This stands in for real questions of leadership and competence, even in the case of Giuliani, whose entire rationale for running rests on his leadership and competence on 9/11 — and which is being attacked specifically in this ad. There is no need to substitute his campaign’s response for the real thing.

Gut Feelings – Al Qaeda and the Meaning of Strength

By now everyone has heard of DHS Secretary Chertoff’s gut feeling that Al Qaeda was going to attack us this summer.  He was roundly and rightly ridiculed.  Apparently, our Preznit is the only one allowed to speak and fear from the gut. 

Now, in today’s Washington Post, there’s an article which says that Al Qaeda may be as strong if not stronger than it has been since 2001.  Notwithstanding the fact that, if true, this means that everything we’ve done, lost, sacrificed, bought, and tried since 9/11 has been wasted, I find the whole idea of measuring the level of Al Qaeda’s strength ridiculously difficult. 

First of all, it is in Al Qaeda’s interest to exaggerate its capability.  It relies on raising money and recruitment to survive and it can only do this if (a) it conducts effective operations and influences policy around the world and/or (b) everyone thinks it conducts effective operations and influences policy around the world. 

Second, it is in the Bush administration’s interest to exaggerate Al Qaeda’s capability.  A significant portion of the Republican/Bush political strategy is to convince people that the Al Qaeda barbarians are at the gate and this menacing specter can only be faced with Big Daddy Republicans in charge. 

So both Al Qaeda and the Bush administration are, in effect, promoting the same story.  Members of Al Qaeda are everywhere countering U.S. interests, attempting to foil and frustrate us at every turn.  They’re in Iraq, in Iran, in Syria, in Africa, in Europe, and even right here somewhere on your block, spying on your children, writing in their notebooks, patiently plodding, biding their time, and building a bomb. 

And they’re getting better and stronger and more lethal and sneakier.  And we just need to perservere, we just need to survive, and we just need to be trusted.  We’re in war, dammit! 

And every foiled “terrorist plot” is understood to reinforce that narrative. 

Except that most of these plots, when studied carefully and when the details are properly fleshed out beyond the scary “gut feelings” of what might have been, are amateur-ish and bungling.  Especially when compared to the awesome reputation of the super criminal infection that we hear about whenever Al Qaeda is described by our “serious” foreign policy makers. 

So what’s the truth?  How strong is Al Qaeda?  Are they planning something? 

All I can say is that, whatever the true strength, we’ve made Al Qaeda’s job a lot easier by our constant fear-mongering.