I spent a good part of this Good Friday in various airports trying to return from a short trip away from Washington, and without benefit of services, prayerbook, or the Gospel accounts of the Passion, I wound up reading a very different and painful (if profane) story: Cobra II, Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor’s extraordinary military history of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I’m less than half-way through reading Cobra II, but it’s very clear the prime villain of the book is Donald Rumsfeld, whose folly was illustrated by (a) pushing for an invasion of Iraq as a simple illustration of American power, not as a response to genuine threats to our security; (b) deciding from the get-go, as a matter of ideology, against any nation-building responsibilities for post-Saddam Iraq; and (c) obsessively opposing any troop deployments that might undermine his determination to prove all the military planners wrong.It’s not surprising that the publication of this insider account of the Iraq war has coincided with an ever-growing cascade of retired military officials, including several top leaders of the Iraq invasion itself, demanding Rummy’s firing. But as David Rieff explains in a review of Cobra II in The New Republic, Rumsfeld’s apparent invulnerability to the manifest consequences of his sins reflects the Bush administration’s stunning inability to learn from mistakes or adapt to objective reality–and perhaps a broader post-Cold-War American elite habit of believing that our “sole superpower” status makes us Supermen. Good Friday is a pretty good time for reminding ourselves–especially those of us whose Christian heritage includes a messianic role for the United States of America–that while our country has enormous responsibilities and opportunities for bringing order, justice, democracy and freedom to the world, we are not immune from the consequences of human fallibility, or of the folly of proud men who wield power without accountability.

Speaking of The New Republic, can somebody tell me what’s up with the cover art lately? I missed this at first, because I typically read TNR online, but then a female friend from the conservative heartland drew my attention to the matter and suggested, since I know a few of the worthies there, that I had an obligation to “keep them straight.”Upon examination of the evidence, I realized she did not mean encouraging TNR to burnish its heterosexual credentials. The latest cover features a strange, computer-enhanced image of a nearly naked young woman dripping in jewels (supplemented by an additional bikini-clad woman in the background), ironically hyping Michelle Cottle’s indictment of The New York Times for succumbing to “Luxury Porn” in its fashion and advertising policies. The previous cover was dominated by a grotesque caricature of Anna Nicole Smith with prodigious breasts spilling out of an inadequate bodice. And going back still one more issue (and at least decisively tipping the balance from the erotic to the grotesque), the cover art for Damon Linker’s article on Richard John Neuhaus inexplicably includes an image of Pat Buchanan in his skivvies, along with the less-surprising if unappetizing figure of Ann Coulter in her trademark miniskirt.Is there some sort of magazine version of Sweeps Week? And is TNR’s flirtation with becoming known as T ‘N’ A its bid to outflank staid publications like The American Prospect, which during the same period has obliged its bloggers to conduct an NPR-style subscription campaign with every post?I dunno, but I am pleased this trend has not yet infected the DLC’s own Blueprint Magazine, unless I’ve somehow missed the memo describing our upcoming “Nude Democrat” campaign.

Despite my regular perusal of The New Republic, I somehow missed a massive cover article a couple of weeks ago about one of the most fascinating figures of the American Religious Right, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. It was penned, moreover, by Damon Linker, who until fairly recently was editor of the central vehicle for Neuhaus’ vast torrent of commentary, First Things magazine.Styled as a review of Neuhaus’ latest book, Catholic Matters, Linker’s piece is actually more of an intellectual biography of the influential Lutheran-turned-Catholic, and utlimately an indictment of Neuhaus’ contributions to the Religious Right assault on liberal pluralism in politics.I will not greatly indulge my hobby of amateur theological hairsplitting here, beyond noting that Linker views Neuhaus as offering a rigorous (if ultimately circular) natural-law justification for a coalition of conservative Catholics and conservative envangelical Protestants who agree for different reasons that fidelity to religious truth requires militant political action against legalized abortion, same-sex unions, feminism, and church-state separation. And Linker also rightly draws attention to the (literally) revolutionary implications of Neuhaus’ thinking as reflected in the famous colloquouy published by First Things in 1996, entitled “The End of Democracy? The Judicial Usurpation of Politics,” which challenged a host of conservative luminaries to respond to the proposition that they had a overriding obligation to think of “the current regime” and its “secularist” judges much as German Christians thought of Nazi Germany.I urge you–especially those among you who deplore the attempted hijacking of Christianity by the Cultural Right–to read the whole thing, but do want to quote Linker’s conclusory statement about Neuhaus:

[T]he America toward which Richard John Neuhaus wishes to lead us [is] an America in which eschatological panic is deliberately channeled into public life, in which moral and theological absolutists demonize the country’s political institutions and make nonnegotiable public demands under the threat of sacralized revolutionary violence, in which citizens flee from the inner obligations of freedom and long to subordinate themselves to ecclesiastical authority, and in which traditionalist Christianity thoroughly dominates the nation’s public life. All of which should serve as a potent reminder–as if, in an age marked by the bloody rise of theologically inspired politics in the Islamic world, we needed a reminder–that the strict separation of politics and religion is a rare, precious, and fragile achievement, one of America’s most sublime achievements, and we should do everything in our power to preserve it. It is a large part of what makes America worth living in.

While I’m less worried than Linker about maintaining “strict” separation, he’s right that people like Neuhaus pose not only a threat to America’s liberal heritage–but also to the religious freedom and religious creativity that continue to make this country the most observant and believing of advanced societies. Can I get an amen on that?

Via McJoan at Daily Kos, I was amused but not surprised to learn that Dick Cheney did not exactly elicit a hero’s welcome upon throwing out the first pitch at the Washington Nationals’ home opener today. In the best tradition of statistics-obsessed baseball fans, McJoan noted that Cheney took the mound sporting an 18% approval rating, which is the equivalent of a 9.50 ERA. And true fans understand that ERA’s should be adjusted for home fields; Cheney’s approval rating is undoubtedly lower than 18% in metropolitan Washington, and is probably well down in the single digits in the District proper. The funniest comment I’ve heard about the choice of Cheney to inaugurate the Nats’ season was on this morning’s Tony Kornheiser show, where one of his sidekicks suggested that fans show up wearing orange hunting vests.

During the lastest Iran War Scare, a number of bloggers have indirectly alluded to the 1979 “novelty” song, “Bomb Iran,” by Vince Vance and the Valiants. For those of you too young to remember this jingo-pop classic (much beloved of “wacky” drive-time disc jockeys during the Iranian Hostage Crisis), here are the full lyrics.Bomb Iran (to the tune of “Barbara Ann” by the Beach Boys)Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, BOMB IRAN! Let’s take a stand, bomb Iran. Our country’s got a feelin’ Really hit the ceilin’, bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Went to a mosque, gonna throw some rocks. Tell the Ayatollah…”Gonna put you in a box!” Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Our country’s got a feelin’ Really hit the ceilin’, bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Ol’ Uncle Sam’s gettin’ pretty hot. Time to turn Iran into a parking lot. Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Call the volunteers; call the bombadiers; Call the financiers, better get their ass in gear. Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Our country’s got a feelin’ Really hit the ceilin’, bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Call on our allies to cut off their supplies, Get our hands untied, and bring em’ back alive. Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Our country’s got a feelin’ Really hit the ceilin’, bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, BOMB IRAN!Let’s take a stand, bomb Iran. Our people you been stealin’ Now it’s time for keelin’, bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. In terms of compelling political lyrics, it sure ain’t Dylan, eh? Predictably, ol’ Vince and the boys did a 2002 retake of this song, redubbed “Bomb Iraq,” which I never heard but that probably made a few Clear Channel playlists. And to show that this band’s strange connection to the right-wing zeitgeist wasn’t limited to foreign affairs, Vince Vance and the Valiants penned a song in the 90s entitled “I Know What It Means To Miss New Orleans.” Well, no, you didn’t really know what that means, did you, Vince?I used to have a theory, back before the WWF turned rasslin’ into a slick entertainment empire, that you could get a good insight into American fears by checking out the latest villains of the pro wrestling circuit. When I was a child growing up in the Jim Crow Deep South, the reigning bad guy was a Yankee named Freddie Blassie (later the protaganist of Andy Kaufmann’s peculiar takeoff on My Dinner With Andre, entitled My Breakfast With Blassie), who would stand on the ropes at Southern wrestling venues and call the howling crowds “a bunch of grit-eaters.” Later came the pseudo-Commie wrestler Sputnik Monroe. During the 70s there were “Arab” rasslers, and in the 80s, various Asians.But jingo-pop has always produced a more efficient glimpse into American hostilities. The early 1980s-era tensions with Libya generated one of the best, or worst examples: a “song” called “Pluck Khadaffy Duck”, by someone named Roger Hallmark. I can’t find the lyrics, but I do recall from its high popularity on Atlanta stations at the time that after several verses of chortling about what “Uncle Sam” was going to do to kill Libyans, Hallmark, in his best redneck voice, concluded: “I ain’t afraid ‘a no Chicken Shi-ite,” exhibiting a bit of confusion about the religious orientation of Libya.All in all, this is a bit of Americana I would be happy to leave behind, if it didn’t keep coming back.

Kevin Drum has an astute comment up at Political Animal about the brouhaha over Sy Hersh’s New Yorker piece on Pentagon planning for a possible nuclear air strike against Iran:”The United States military has contingency plans for everything, they say, so it’s hardly a surprise that the military has contingency plans for Iran. William Arkin even tells us their names: CONPLAN 8022 and CONPLAN 1025.”You’d think maybe the President of the United States would make this point, if he addressed the topic at all. But here’s what Bush actually said at an appearance at Johns Hopkins’ SAIS today:

… We hear in Washington, you know, “prevention means force.” It doesn’t mean force necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy.And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What you’re reading is wild speculation. Which is, kind of a — you know, happens quite frequently here in the nation’s capital.

Maybe it’s just me, but given the elaborate recent revelations of the extent to which the administration secretly and systematically planned its Iraq campaign, and its manipulation of Congress and the public to secure the right to pursue it, the “prevention doesn’t mean force” and “wild speculation” arguments, coming from George W. Bush, aren’t terribly credible, are they?But it gets worse the more you think about it. Kevin Drum raises the possibility that a little buzz about the possibility of military action might encourage the Iranians to take negotiations to rein in its nuclear program seriously, and observes: “A subtle and well orchestrated game of chicken might be appropriate here. But please raise your hands if you trust this crew to play a subtle and well orchestrated game of anything.”And that gets right to the heart of one of the great under-acknowledged blows to national security created by this administration’s behavior in going into and prosecuting the war in Iraq. Its mendacity, secrecy, recklessness, disregard for world or regional opinion; its defiance of military and diplomatic advice about the consequences of an undermanned invasion and a cavalier, let’s-make-some-money occupation; and its perverse, election-driven determination to divide the American people by deliberately misrepresenting almost every fact about its reasons for going into Iraq and for staying there: all these decisions have undermined this country’s credibility in facing future national security threats, including that posed by Iran.Let’s just say for the sake of argument that it becomes necessary a few years down the road to seriously rattle sabers at Iran. I don’t think there’s much doubt that a Democratic administration would have far more credibility and support in rattling those sabers convincingly, and in convincing others to rattle sabers as well.My colleague The Moose suggests today that the Bush administration’s reputation for impulsive international behavior might help deter Tehran. That’s one way of looking at it. But the other way of looking at it is that threats–especially empty threats–from this administration provide Iran with the comfortable assurance that any overt move towards military action under George W. Bush will meet a firestorm of protests not only throughout the Middle East and in Europe, but in the United States itself.These guys have blown the one opportunity they had to demonstrate that unilateral U.S. military force is the indispensable source of security and stability for a troubled world. I doubt they will be vouchsafed a second chance. The case for a regime change in Washington must include the argument that true national security requires different leadership.

You might well share my surprise today in learning that the Senate immigration reform “compromise” announced yesterday afternoon had fallen apart by this morning. I followed this pretty obsessively over the last few weeks, and after watching Frist, Specter, McCain, Reid, Leahy and Kennedy high-five each other over the “deal” at a press conference yesterday, I pounded out a New Dem Dispatch praising the compromise as a “one sane step” towards immigration reform, while warning that the Troglodyte House GOP position on the subject might well make the whole thing meaningless.Turns out that Frist, who reportedly told Harry Reid he could definitely corral a majority of Senate Republicans into voting for the compromise, was talking through his hat, or worse. Republicans insisted on the right to provide for votes on a vast menu of Troglodyte amendents to the “deal,” and Reid quite appropriately said “Hell, no.” A deal subject to unlimited amendments is no deal at all. And so, the motion to move to a vote on the compromise went down hard.So basically, here’s what happened this week: Senate Republicans killed a bipartisan proposal reported by the Judiciary Committee they controlled. Senate Republicans then unveiled a face-saving compromise, got Dems on board, and then proved they couldn’t muster support for their own proposal. Now, incredibly, they’re pretending Democrats are at fault for sticking to the compromise and not agreeing to let it get unraveled through hundreds of amendments on the Senate floor. And let’s not forget that throughout this fiasco the President of the United States, who supported both the Judiciary Committee bill and the discarded compromise, sat on the sidelines, unwilling or unable to sway his partisan troops.It’s increasingly, abundantly clear that Washington’s paralysis on the immigration issue is an intramural Republican problem more than anything else. It would be very helpful if the news media, which typically described today’s developments as some sort of bipartisan breakdown, would figure out the GOP’s singular responsibility for this mess, and report it accordingly.

Aside from the Delayniac hijinks mentioned in my last post, there’s a far more serious example of House Republican misbehavior on display in Pennsylvania. Rep. Curt Weldon has launched a series of attacks on Democratic rival Joe Sestak that began with a Swift-Boat-style attack on the service record of the 31-year-Navy-veteran and retired three-star admiral, and quickly strayed over every conceivable line of decency by questioning the Sistak family’s choice of treatment for their daughter’s potentially fatal brain tumor. Jonathan Kaplan of The Hill has the whole outrageous story today, but here’s a precis: Weldon is retailing charges that Sestak, a Clinton administration National Security Council staffer, and more recently director of the Navy’s internal think tank, Deep Blue, made his subordinates and superiors unhappy with his hard-driving style. You can read the back-and-forth on this subject in Kaplan’s article, but it sure looks to me like Sestak was a tree-shaker who discomfited the notoriously change-averse Navy establishment, which is a good thing. But whatever the facts on this case, it’s incredible that Weldon would have the chutzpah to attack Sestak’s service record, while continuing to support the policies of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. After all, the former Texas Air National Guard veteran Bush spent much of the Vietnam War running an Alabama Senate race. And his hireling, the current Secretary of Defense, has caused a lot more unhappiness in the armed forces than any one figure in recent history, while compiling a disastrous record of incompetence. How can Weldon possibly suggest that Sestak’s service actually disqualifies him from serving in Congress? It gets, unfortunately, a lot worse. Weldon also attacked Sestak for merely renting a home back in Pennsylvania, while living in suburban Washington (a criticism which I am sure Weldon would not make of Leesburg, Virginia resident Rick Santorum). When Sestak explained that he lingered in Washington because his daughter was undergoing chemotherapy and various surgeries in a local hospital, Weldon breezily suggested that Sestak should have relocated his daughter to a hospital in Pennsylvania or nearby Delaware. This is beyond disgusting. My first impulse on reading Kaplan’s story was to propose that Weldon be horse-whipped. My second impulse was to demand that every other Republican repudiate Weldon’s tactics. And that’s why it’s especially troubling to me that Sen. John McCain, proud Navy veteran and war hero, and the victim of Weldon-style scurrilous attacks on his family by the Bush campaign of 2000, headlined a fundraiser for the Pennylvania Republican just last Saturday. Fine, support your party’s candidates. Fine, praise Weldon’s legislative record. And fine, maybe you didn’t know what Weldon was saying about his opponent. But please, don’t lend your name to a man willing to smear the record and family of Joe Sestak. There are some things that cannot be justified by partisan politics, and if this doesn’t qualify, I don’t know what ever would.

I have to tell you, Tom DeLay’s staff and supporters reflect his allegedly deep Christian values about as well as the Hammer himself. Aside from the fact that two of his former top aides are up to their necks in the dreck of the Abramoff scandal, and the additional fact that DeLay himself and a couple of close Texas associates are one trial away from a possible trip to the hoosegow, there’s the chronic habit of Delayniacs of engaging in some rather un-Christlike physical intimidation tactics. Remember the infamous Brooks Brothers’ Riot of 2000, wherein a bunch of pasty Young Republican types, including a DeLay staffer and a DeLay fundraiser, shut down a South Florida presidential recount effort? A group of Houston DeLay supporters brought back memories today by organizing a disruption of a press conference by Nick Lampson, the Democratic candidate for DeLay’s seat. It’s all of a piece with DeLay’s own snarling, unrepentatent attitude towards the behavior that has cost him his leadership position and his seat in the House.Somebody needs to tell DeLay and his friends they should stop while they’re behind.

Given all the well-deserved attention being paid to Tom DeLay’s resignation from the House, you might have missed an important new story in the L.A. Times, by Tom Hamburger and Ken Silverstein, about the latest stomach-churning tale involving Jack Abramoff. In 2001, the story goes, Abramoff proposed a $16-18 million lobbying contract to the Sudanese ambassador to the United States, offering to help dampen down Christian conservative hostility to the pariah state, partly through his connection to Ralph Reed. He made this pitch in his favorite site for such transactions, his Fed-Ex Field skybox, during a Redskins game. The allegation comes from the Sudanese ambassador, Kidir Haroun Ahmed. Through a flack, Abramoff denied the claim, and said he actually took the occasion to lecture the ambassador on his regime’s terrible treatment of Sudanese Christians during the long-raging North-South civil war. But the Times reporters obtained a second (by-request anonymous) eyewitness account of the exchange, from a “former associate” of Abramoff, that confirms the ambassador’s story. Abramoff’s protestations of innocence–yea, of righteousness–certainly smell to high heaven. Who would choose to coddle and feed a high-level foreign official in a posh skybox in order to deliver an objection to his government’s policies? And why would any Sudanese official pay any particular attention to Casino Jack’s personal point of view? Moreover, it’s certainly not as though Abramoff was above taking money from people he should have deplored. After all, he solicited and accepted $1.2 million for setting up a meeting between the anti-semitic president of Malaysia and George W. Bush. What really strikes me about this story are two things: First, the continuing importance of the Ralph Reed/Christian Right connection to Abramoff’s various shakedowns; and second, the bottomless avarice of this man beloved of the conservative movement and on very friendly relations with a wide variety of leading Republican officials in the executive and legislative branches in Washington. In that meeting at Fed-Ex Field, it’s clear both Abramoff and his prey were dealing with the devil. Just when you think there cannot possibly be more to the Jack Abramoff saga, yet another bad apple turns up, and you have to wonder what’s at the bottom of the rotten barrel.