"This is 9/11 in the United States." – Adel Abdul Mahdi, one of Iraq’s two vice-presidents.

Many a day I’ve rolled my eyes at the number of times George Bush can work the word "terrorists" into a sentence, as often as not one having nothing to do with terrorism. Sometimes the sheer, mindless repetition of it is comic, despite the serious danger of having a president who lumps every opposition to him into the category of evil. The use of the word, however, never made me hissing angry until now.

Yesterday morning I read with some apprehension Juan Cole’s post on the al-Askariya shrine bombing, which he described as "very, very bad, in a way that most Western observers will miss." The London Times has a very good piece on the significance — and apocalyptic symbolism — of the shrine.

The response wasn’t hard to predict. Dozens of Sunni mosques have been attacked. Six people, including three Sunni clerics, have been killed. Three journalists  working for Al Arabiya were also killed. Boding even worse for the future, Christopher Albritton points out that this event probably ends any meaningful participation by Sunnis in the Iraqi government. The main Sunni bloc has already withdrawn from negotiations over forming that government. Even Ayatollah al-Sistani, while calling for peaceful demonstrations, had these ominous words:

In what could be interpreted as a threat, al-Sistani said in a statement that "the Iraqi government is invited today, more than any time before, to bear its responsibility and stop the criminal actions that target the holy places. And if their security forces are unable to provide the necessary protection, then the believers can do that, with God’s help."

Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of SCIRI, was more direct. He blamed Ambassador Khalilzad for giving a "green light to terrorist groups" when he recently said that the United States was not going to spend money on Iraq’s security forces if those forces were "sectarian" — in other words, if it was about nothing but giving Shiites the tools to attack Sunnis. I love the New York Times’ wide-eyed innocence on this:

The Shiite leader, Abdul Aziz al Hakim, said he thought Mr. Khalilzad’s public comments on Monday, in which he drew attention to apparent death squads operating within Iraq’s Shiite-led Interior Ministry, were a provocation to the bombing. He did not explain how.

If you live in America, you know that the whole point of blaming people for encouraging the enemy is that no one will ever be so rude as to ask you to back up the statement. I believe it’s in Chapter 1 of Miss Manners’ Guide to Demagoguery.

Khalilzad’s was a stupidly provocative statement, no doubt, and a hollow one. You don’t spend billions on bases if you plan to pick  up your ball and go home. Still, although it’s difficult to criticize this administration and be wrong (pick a vice, any vice…), Hakim’s comments were an absurd slander. Telling the Shiite-controlled government that it should not make torture and death squads its policy for dealing with opponents, however hypocritical on Khalilzad’s part, is hardly giving aid and comfort to "terrorists." It’s a stupid formulation, designed, in much the same way the bombing was, to increase divisions. And, of course, it works both ways.

So guess who plugged in to the same stupid formula?

"The terrorists in Iraq have again proven that they are enemies of all faiths and of all humanity," Bush said.

Who, exactly, are the terrorists here? The Sunnis (presumably) who bombed the shrine? The Mahdi Army, brandishing AK-47s and vowing revenge? And is there another source of terrorism in Samarra?

Five days after the grenade attack, Lt. Call and his men from the 2nd platoon were planning an afternoon "hearts and minds" foot patrolto hand out soccer balls to local kids.

As Call sat in the schoolhouse, preparing to go out, he heard two loud bursts from the .50-caliber machine gun on the roof.

Specialist Michael Pena, a beefy 21-year-old from Port Isabel, Texas, had opened fire. Boom-boom-boom. Boom-boom-boom.

Call and his men dashed out the front door. Pena had shot an unarmed Iraqi man on the street. The man had walked past the signs that mark the 200-yard "disable zone" that surrounds the Alamo and into the 100-yard "kill zone" around the base. The Army had forced the residents of the block to leave the houses last year to create the security perimeter.

American units in Iraq usually fire warning shots. The Rakkasans don’t.

A few days later, Call said his brigade command had told him, "The Rakkasans don’t do warning shots." A warning shot in the vernacular of the Rakkasans, Call said, was a bullet that hit one Iraqi man while others could see.

"That’s how you warn his buddy, is to pop him in the face with a kill shot?" Call said incredulously. "But what about when his buddy comes back with another guy … that and the other 15 guys in hisfamily who you’ve made terrorists?"

It’s all a sad lesson in something painfully obvious: The term "terrorists" describes nothing meaningful when all involved parties are playing variations on the same theme.

The simplistic denunciation of terrorism was not Bush’s only statement on the bombing:

"I ask all Iraqis to exercise restraint in the wake of this tragedy, and to pursue justice in accordance with the laws and constitution of Iraq. Violence will only contribute to what the terrorists sought to achieve," he said.

Surprisingly wise words coming from a man who could think of nothing but violence and revenge when his own country faced a similar tragedy, and one who continues to have contempt for our laws and constitution. If he had followed his own advice four and a half years ago, it’s unlikely he’d have to be giving it today.

Saddest of all, I doubt that even now he has the slightest comprehension of his own words’ meaning.

The man who once informed us that “neocon” (a term coined by the neocons themselves) was a secret liberal code word for “Jew,” now chooses to enlighten us on the UAE/port controversy. In the world according to Mr. McBobo, looking askance at a secret deal which circumvented normal procedures in order to hand over control of U.S. ports of entry to a company owned and controlled by a government whose royal family used to hang out with Osama bin Laden — all of this is just anti-Arab racism, pure and simple.

There you have it.

(Edited per updates below).

Here’s an interesting little quote:

General Wayne Downing, Bush’s former national director for combating terrorism, says: “They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai.” [MSNBC, 9/5/03]

Problem is, it’s no longer archived on MSNBC anywhere that I can find. The only source I’ve got for it is this site, and I just don’t have enough context to judge its trustworthiness. Further problem is, MSNBC transcripts aren’t archived on Lexis, at least not the version to which I have access.

So–any journalists, anybody at MSNBC, or anybody else with super research skills who can verify this quote?

…Update: August and Atrios have both come up with transcripts from Hardball which suggest the above quote was doctored slightly — the quote’s very similar but it’s a discussion of Prince Turki al Faisal of Saudi Arabia, and there’s no reference to Dubai. This is exactly why I don’t take anything I read on websites I’ve never seen at face value.

This is still pretty significant, at any rate. (Here’s a secondary source.)

Second update: The problem here is that the site in question smushed two different quotes from two different stories together. Sharp-eyed reader James F. forwards a story from the Nov. 18, 2001 edition of the Los Angeles Times about Osama bin Laden’s activities in Afghanistan, headlined RESPONSE TO TERROR; SUNDAY REPORT; Long Before Sept. 11, Bin Laden Aircraft Flew Under the Radar. (Did you know that Osama once owned a surplus U.S. Air Force jet? I didn’t.)

Anyway, here’s the relevant section:

For years, Persian Gulf state elites hunted rare birds of prey, houbara bustards, in the bleak hills surrounding Kandahar. In the late 1990s, according to former U.S. and Afghan officials, a number of prominent Persian Gulf state officials and businessmen flew into Kandahar on state and private jets for secret hunting expeditions.

For days at a time, the hunters would roam the hills, releasing falcons trained to catch the bustards. Some satisfied hunters heaped donations on their Taliban hosts, officials said–and on Al Qaeda leaders who occasionally joined them.

Among the reported visitors were high-ranking UAE and Saudi government ministers. According to U.S. and former Afghan civil air officials, the hunters included Prince Turki al Faisal, son of the late Saudi King Faisal. He headed that nation’s intelligence service until late August, maintaining close ties with Bin Laden and the Taliban. Another visitor, officials said, was Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, the Dubai crown prince and Emirates defense minister.

Persian Gulf state officials cast doubt on the reports. “People go hunting in Pakistan. They don’t go to Afghanistan,” said Adel al-Jubeir, foreign policy advisor to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. Similarly, the UAE’s Alsadoosi said he did “not recall” any Afghan hunting trips made by Sheik Mohammed.

Iraq took a lethal step closer to disintegration and civil war yesterday after a devastating attack on one of the country’s holiest sites. The destruction of the golden-domed Shia shrine in Samarra sparked a round of bloody sectarian retaliation in which up to 60 Sunni mosques were attacked and scores of people were killed or injured.

The bomb attack has enraged the majority Shia population, who regard the shrine in the same way that Roman Catholics view St Peter’s in Rome.

In a number of respects civil war in Iraq has already begun. Many of the thousand bodies a month arriving in the morgues in Baghdad are of people killed for sectarian reasons. It is no longer safe for members of the three main communities ­ the Sunni and Shia Arabs and the Kurds ­ to visit each other’s parts of the country.

- The Independent

“January 2003 the President invited three members of the Iraqi opposition to join him to watch the Super Bowl. In the course of the conversation the Iraqis realized that the President was not aware that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. He looked at them and said, ‘You mean…they’re not, you know, there, there’s this difference. What is it about?’”

- former U.S. dilpomat Peter Galbraith

I’m going to repeat something I said a week or two ago, because the post went up over a weekend and a lot of you probably missed it — please be sure to click through the ads from time to time. It’s probably the easiest thing you can do to support this site, and as I said before, they’re usually pretty self-selecting, so chances are you might find something you’ll be interested in anyway.

I especially want to encourage you to click through the altweeklies.com ad running over in the right hand column. The fortunes of my strip are tied closely to the alternative press, so with one click you (a) support me, (b) support the altweeklies, and (c) demonstrate to the latter your support for the former.

I know a lot of you will ignore this, but my sincere thanks go out to those who don’t ..

From Human Rights First. PDF file here.

This groundbreaking study describes more than 20 detainee deaths in detail, to illustrate both failures in investigation and accountability. One such case involves Manadel al-Jamadi, whose death became public when prison guards were depicted in a photograph from Abu Ghraib giving the thumbs up over his dead body. No U.S. official has been punished for this death.
 
As long as commanders can get away with this unlawful behavior, the problem of torture and abuse will persist. Not only did commanders fail to give troops clear guidance, they inadequately investigated the cases – and they must be held accountable for unlawful acts about which they knew or should have known.

Profiling: “Hey, look at that dark-skinned driver! We’d better pull him over and make sure he didn’t steal that car!”

Not profiling: “Hey, look at that hereditary oligarchy with ties to Osama bin Laden! Perhaps it would be a bad idea for them to control a vulnerable piece of our national infrastructure!”

I hope this helps clear things up. I’m all about bridging the gulf of understanding.

(Hat tip: Atrios.)

…context. Contra Malkin, this isn’t about liberals suddenly recognizing the wisdom of profiling. It’s about conservatives acknowledging blatant corruption and incompetence, for once.

Reading Arianna’s account of her appearance on Hannity and the Other Guy reminded me of a debate I’ve had over the years with a few friends who are occasionally invited to appear on these shows. The argument in favor of doing so is that it’s important to make the noble, if futile, effort to counter the relentless flood of utter bullshit Fox unleashes upon its viewing public each night. And I’m not unsympathetic to that view — attempting to counter relentless floods of bullshit is pretty much what I do for a living, after all. Still — I can’t help but wonder if the Fox evening lineup wouldn’t be irrevocably crippled if everyone of a left/liberal persuasion simply stopped accepting the invitations. No one’s ever going to keep Hannity and O’Reilly from bloviating, of course, but they’ll certainly look a lot sillier doing it in a vacuum. And face it, Arianna: the few masochistic liberals watching these shows already mostly agree with you, and as for the rest of that audience, the ones who don’t understand that “fair and balanced” is meant as ironic Orwellian doublespeak, not literal truth — you’re not going to win them over. You’re just not. So why keep feeding the beast?

Just say no to Fox News.

What White House staffer wrote a memo saying this?

No written communications from the White House to the Departments — all information about the program would be transmitted verbally… documents prepared would not indicate White House involvement in any way.

That was by Fred Malek, during the Nixon administration. His official title was “Special Assistant to the President.”

Malek was writing to H.R. Haldeman, Nixon’s Chief of Staff, about Nixon’s “responsiveness program.” This was a scheme to politicize as much of the federal government as possible in support of Nixon’s 1972 reelection campaign. As the memo shows, Malek was extremely concerned that the program not be traced back to the White House. Unfortunately for Nixon, it was discovered and investigated as part of Watergate. (More details can be found in a recent Colbert King column.)

So, what’s Malek doing these days?

Well, he’s long been an influential member of the Republican establishment. (His rise was only slightly slowed when it turned out he’d carried out an order by Nixon to tally the number of Jewish staffers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in search of a “Jewish cabal.”)

And as Scooter Libby’s new website shows, Malek is part of the Libby Defense Fund’s “Advisory Committee.”

Which raises a natural question:

Why does Scooter Libby want the support of a political hatchetman from the Nixon administration who not only engaged in extremely unsavory activities, but then was caught trying to cover them up?

Is it because Fred Malek has completely changed since 1972, and Libby’s completely innocent, so they can have long discussions about the importance of ethics in governmental service?

Or…is Libby hoping for advice from Malek on how to avoid the mistakes he made?

In any case, the hubris of the Republican machine is flabbergasting. Again, Malek was Special Assistant to the President…while Libby, in addition to being Cheney’s Chief of Staff, held the title of “Assistant to the President.”

You’d think—just for the sake of PR—they’d want to keep Libby away from predecessors who’d done horrible things for presidents who later had to resign to escape impeachment. But apparently, no.

BONUS FOOTAGE: It takes a special kind of man to write a memo saying “be sure not to write anything down.”

Jonathan mentioned this one a few weeks back. According to the back copy:

THE YEAR IS 2040. New York and Washington are nuclear wastelands. The nation is divided between an Islamic Republic across the north and the Christian Bible Belt in the old South. The shift was precipitated by simultaneous, suitcase-nuke detonations in New York City, Washington, and Mecca, a sneak attack blamed on Israel, and known as the Zionist Betrayal. Now alcohol is outlawed, replaced by Jihad Cola, and mosques dot the skyline. Veiled women hurry through the streets. Freedom is controlled by the state, paranoia rules, and rebels plot to regain free will…

In this tense society beautiful young historian Sarah Dougan uncovers shocking evidence that the Zionist Betrayal was actually a plot carried out by a radical Muslim now poised to overtake the entire nation. Sarah’s research threatens to expose him, and soon she and her lover, Rakkin Epps, an elite Muslim warrior, find themselves hunted by Darwin, a brilliant psychopathic killer. Rakkin must become Darwin’s assassin—a most forbidding challenge. The bloody chase takes them from the outlaw territories of the Pacific Northwest to the anything-goes glitter of Las Vegas—and culminates dramatically as Rakkim and Sarah battle to reveal the truth to the entire world.

Yeah, yeah, I know what you’re probably thinking. But I read my review copy over the weekend, and I concur with Tbogg: anyone who picks this up hoping for anti-Muslim warblogger porn is going to be disappointed. Admittedly, the underlying premise of a mass American conversion to Islam is silly at best, but if you can suspend disbelief on that point, it’s a fine alternate reality thriller in the tradition of Robert Harris’ Fatherland. If the author was trying for agitprop, he failed — even after reading it, I couldn’t have really told you what his personal politics were.

Which is why I’m sorry I clicked through Tbogg’s link to Ferrigno’s own blog, where we find effusive references to Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt, and gratuitious slaps at Ted Rall (Ferrigno channels Ann Coulter and suggests that Rall should enter that Iranian Holocaust cartoon competition, har, har, har!). Whether we have another Roger-Simon-the-Man-Who-Created-Moses-Wine on our hands, or Ferrigno just spent a few weeks studying the blogs and decided that sucking up to the right wingers would be an effective marketing strategy, it’s a shame either way. I think the book would have had a wider reach and a wider appeal if he’d played his cards a little closer to the vest and just let the writing speak for itself.

At any rate, you know the old saying: trust the art, not the artist. The book’s still a fun read.