Attack! Attack!

Be afraid. Be very afraid. And don’t say we didn’t warn you. Nothing changes an undesirable news cycle quite like another terror threat, does it? As the AP article notes: “The sudden warning returns the nation’s attention to terrorism, the issue that President Bush has highlighted as a central theme of his re-election campaign, after intense focus on other subjects like Iraq and prisoner abuses in Iraq. Bush has lost ground in the polls, falling in approval ratings to the lowest point of his presidency.“

To be fair, releasing pics of the possible suspects is probably more helpful in preventing a future attack than the usual exhortations to buy duct tape. And nobody want to see another 9/11, particularly those of us who live in NYC. Still, the very fact that news articles have to concede that Dubya may just be pushing the Panic button for political points proves how untrustworthy this president has become. And don’t you love how Bush officials keep suggesting that Al Qaeda wants to “have some impact on the electoral process,” as if voting Democratic means the terrorists have won? Sorry, but you’ll have to count me among the many Americans who thinks that terrorists have more to fear from John Kerry than they ever would from Dubya’s haphazard and crony-driven homeland security agenda.

Geneva Schmeneva.

Jan 25, 2002: “‘As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war,’ Gonzales wrote to Bush. ‘The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians.’ Gonzales concluded in stark terms: ‘In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.’ Dismissing the Geneva Conventions, two full years before the atrocities at Abu Ghreib? That giant sucking sound you hear is the void left by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales’s incredible imploding Supreme Court bid. He’s probably got less chance now than Ken Starr of taking the nation’s highest bench, and for good reason.

Shoot the Messenger.

Earth to Inhofe? Earth to Inhofe? Nope, no answer. While several GOP leaders are turning on Dubya (and Rumsfeld) after recent events, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is not among them. To the contrary, he lost it in committee today, proclaiming that he is “probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment” of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. (For their part, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) disavowed Inhofe immediately.) One would be tempted to write Inhofe off as simply a crank, until you peruse the many similar responses emanating from the Right about the relative newsworthiness of US soldiers engaging in torture and assorted other depravities. Mind you, these are the exact same Defenders of American Values who wore moral outrage like a cheap cologne all through l’affaire Lewinsky…some people have no shame. Update: Sure enough, the Right rallies around Inhofe.

Ring around the Rummy.

With Rummy on the ropes, Dubya and Cheney rush to the defense of their man in Defense. Hey, hold him to your breast as long as possible, Mr. President…maybe then, you’ll all go down together come November.

Blowback.

From The Economist to the NY Times, Salon examines the growing calls for Rumsfeld to resign as a result of Abu Ghraib. When even Karl Rove is forced to admit the damage done by these horrifying pics, you know it’ll be rough for Rummy in the weeks ahead, even with Dubya’s vote of confidence. Well, I’m all for getting rid of Rumsfeld, but I don’t think he should be the only fall guy for this Iraq fiasco…the decision may have began with Cheney, Wolfowitz, & co., but it ended with Dubya. For Abu Ghraib as with so much else, they all gotta go.

A Moral Abattoir.

I don’t know how we will ever recover from this. Medley aptly sums up my stomach-churning disgust at the Iraq atrocity photos now circulating around the world. If there wasn’t a connection between Dubya’s carnival sideshow in Iraq and the war in terror before, there assuredly is now. And if a picture is worth a thousand words, just think how many possible US-hating terrorists have been born with each one of these vile and grotesque snapshots. Our entire nation and way of life have been shamed by these depravities, perhaps to fatal effect.

Keeping Secrets, Keeping Suspects.

Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick reports in on the Bush administration’s twin attempts before the Supreme Court to lock up US citizens and hide their shady energy deals indefinitely. Update: The Times and Post weigh in as well.

A “Lawless Enclave.”

Despite Justice Scalia carrying water for Ted Olson and the Bush team as per usual, it seems that a majority of the Supreme Court may not be amused by Dubya’s defense of the Gitmo gulag.

Revisionist History.

Once again, it seems, the Bush administration is falsifying records to cover up their shadiness. This time, the Pentagon deleted key remarks made by Rumsfeld to Bob Woodward on the certainty of the Iraq war. (Regarding an invasion of Iraq, Rummy told the Saudis in Jan. 2003, two months before operations commenced, that they could “take that to the bank.”) Given the other times the Bushies have been caught doing this, their withholding of Reagan and Bush Sr. papers, and the general moral turpitude of this administration, one has to wonder how snarled up the historical record is at this point.

Meanwhile, in Room 101.

Nat Hentoff files another dispatch on Guantanamo, and it ain’t pretty. “The authority to unilaterally keep a defendant locked up — conceivably for the rest of his or her life — used to be reserved solely for kings, who could ignore any part of the realm’s legal system. This monarchical power — as I’ve indicated in reporting on the indefinite imprisonment, without charges, of American citizens Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla — has been expanded by George W. Bush to include defendants at Guantanamo.“