Three excellent commentaries

Two good columns, and one good editorial in the Washington Post today. Who would have thought they could still get writers who would take a whack at the Bush administration, even when it's desperately needed whacking. First, Richard Cohen.

Bicycling to War (washingtonpost.com):
Old joke: A man repeatedly rides a bike across the Mexican-U.S. border. Each time, he's stopped by Customs and the bike is taken apart. Nothing is found. Finally, one day a Customs official offers the man immunity from prosecution if only he will tell what he's smuggling. The man pauses for a second, shrugs and says, 'Bicycles.'

I offer you this because I have just finished Bob Woodward's compelling new book, 'Plan of Attack,' and while it contains several gasps per chapter -- more reasons why George Tenet should be fired, more proof that Condi Rice is in over her head and more reasons that Dick Cheney should be medicated -- the stunning disclosure that I expected is simply not there. I thought Woodward would reveal the real reason George Bush went to war in Iraq. It turns out we already knew.

The "bicycle" in this case has been in plain sight: Bush's conviction that he is a servant of God and history, chosen to liberate Iraq, bring democracy to the Middle East and make sure the United States is safe from terrorism. In the two lengthy on-the-record interviews the president granted Woodward, he makes it abundantly clear that, somehow, this is all one package in his mind... [emphasis added]

Second, E.J. Dionne on Kerry's campaign and Bush's counterattacks:

Kerry's Terrorism Offensive (washingtonpost.com):

In making his case against Bush, Kerry has several advantages over the 2002 Democrats. Because the war in Iraq has been more difficult than the administration predicted, voters outside the Republican base are more open to criticisms of the president than they were two years ago.

In 2002, by contrast, many Democrats -- especially those running in states that Bush had carried in 2000 -- felt intimidated by the president's high standing in the polls and obligated to embrace his terrorism policies. This created a vicious circle for Democrats and a virtuous circle for Republicans. If even Democrats were saying that Bush's policies against terrorism were right, most voters had little basis for thinking otherwise. Moreover, the argument two years ago was carried out on a highly general level: Whom could voters trust to be 'tough' enough on terrorism? Bush's lieutenants had hoped the argument would stay on the same abstract plane this year.

But this election is now about the practical results of Bush's policies. When it came to Iraq, did the administration know what it was getting into and plan effectively? Was it honest with the public, and itself, about the costs of the enterprise? Was it mistaken in not seeking more international support in advance? Thanks to the findings of the Sept. 11 commission, segments of the public are also questioning whether Bush had effectively organized the government in advance to prevent attacks.

(snip)

The Bush campaign wants to re-create the dynamic of 2002 and render criticism of Bush's anti-terrorism policies illegitimate and unpatriotic. Kerry wants Bush held accountable for the decisions he made. The side that wins this definitional war is likely to win the election.

And, finally, an unsigned editorial on the dustup between John Ashcroft and Jamie Gorelick, one of the September 11 Commission members

Mr. Ashcroft's Smear (washingtonpost.com):IN HIS TESTIMONY last week before the Sept. 11 commission, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft loosed a remarkable attack on Jamie S. Gorelick, a commission member who served as deputy attorney general during part of the Clinton administration. The 'single greatest structural cause for the September 11th problem,' Ashcroft said, 'was the wall that segregated or separated criminal investigators and intelligence agents,' and the 'basic architecture for the wall . . . was contained in a classified memorandum' from 1995 -- which Mr. Ashcroft had conveniently declassified for the hearing. 'Full disclosure,' he said, 'compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum is a member of the commission' -- that is, Ms. Gorelick. Mr. Ashcroft's allegations, which triggered criticism and demands for her resignation from prominent Republicans, are grossly unfair.[emphasis added]

(snip)

It took high-level action by all three branches of government, including an unprecedented appeal to a special review court that had never previously convened, to finally clarify that the wall was a kind of legal myth that never had quite the force that both the department and the lower FISA court had imagined. Pretending that such a deep-seated institutional problem was Ms. Gorelick's single-handed creation should have been beneath the attorney general.

Let me say again. For declassifying documents just to try to smear a member of a nonpartisan commission, impeach or otherwise remove John Ashcroft now.