Missile Defense Delusion: Sen. Joe Biden argues not only that abrogating the ABM treaty to pursue NMD will trigger a new arms race and that it will squander resources on threats the Pentagon itself assesses as low-priority, but that by provoking what defense analysts estimate will be at least a tenfold increase in China’s arsenal as well as inflation of the Indian and Pakistani n-weapons stables, we vastly increase the risk of a bin Laden getting his hands on a thermonuclear device. Not to mention the continuing stupidity of unilateralism at this point in history. Not to mention the technological unfeasibility of the intercept concept. Every time I rant about NMD, I suggest that, if we are serious in asserting that NMD is in the service of peace and stability, that we are defending only against rogue threats and that the other bona fide nuclear states have nothing to fear, we should share our anti-missile technology freely and magnanimously with Russia and China. If you can point me to links that counter this argument, please do. Washington Post

Joe Conason: Whitewater Critics Quiet About Enron: The White House as an Enron branch office. The New York Observer

The clueless defector in chief

He lacks the knowledge or the motivation to acquire the knowledge necessary to do his job and we all suffer. He continues to show his ignorance even of basic geography, asking Charlotte Church recently where the city of Wales is located. He displays a knowledge of the world only a barfly would be proud of. The teachers who gave him passing grades at Andover should be ashamed.

The meritocracy completely failed in the case of Bush. Instead, the same forces of wealth and influence that got him his position continue to fabricate a complimentary image of him. Their stories of his activities during September 11 change through time and contradict each other. The American people who had their peace and prosperity ripped from them must eventually see through this charade. It takes saturation coverage of a bin Laden to make Bush look good.

This article drips with a contempt for the Shrub similar to what I continue to feel. Despite my understanding that I’m hopelessly out of tune with the times in worrying about the man’s intellectual limitations, hypocrisy a quantum level beyond that of most other politicians, and the pitiful charade that he runs anything, much less an Administration or a nation, it is viscerally necessary from time to time for me to give out with such spasms of contempt. I do, however, quibble with the following:

September 11 happened on his watch. He is to blame. If he had been at work in the Oval Office, he would have been briefed on the threat. If he took his job seriously, he would have taken the trouble to become better informed about what the government already knew of bin Laden’s plans. He should have taken steps to prevent the carnage. Instead, he relaxed at his Crawford ranch.

I quibble with it not because it ‘blames the victim’ but because it doesn’t blame the victim nearly enough. Our intelligence failure in not tracking al Qaeda or anticipating its intentions and our pursuit of swaggering neoimperialist policy guaranteed to galvanize extremist rage are far deeper and more institutionalized than one man’s stupidity and noblesse oblige no matter how profound. Online Journal [via BookNotes]

On the other hand, the Washington Post reports that the Clinton administration took far broader steps against al Qaeda than is generally understood. And, while we’re at it, Helen Hightower asks Do You Love America? Do You?

Profiles in Courage, ’01: ‘(Danny) Glover is in the headlines these days for comments he made during a speech at an anti-death-penalty forum, comments that have right-wing talk show hosts calling for a boycott of his movies because he’s “un-American.” So, in an indirect way, seeing The Royal Tennenbaums could be $8.50 spent in defense of free speech.

On November 16, the Associated Press reported that Glover had “called on the United States government to spare the life of Osama bin Laden, even if he is found guilty of being involved in terrorist acts.” Since then, a storm of controversy has been building…’ AlterNet [via Book Notes]

Taliban Chiefs Prove Elusive, Americans Say

Troops May Scour Caves for Qaeda, U.S.

General Says NY Times Do they really think bin Laden is still there??