So, to recap: Shiite Iran and Sunni Al Qaeda work in tandem and have since 1994 (at least). Bin Laden and his crew work for Iran, and have done so "for quite a while." And although we cannot prove that Iran was behind the 9/11 attacks, it is certainly possible, and there is "tantalizing" evidence suggesting this is so.

So Bill Kristol was right when he said that it was just “pop sociology” that to say that the Sunni and Shia can’t get along in Iraq. That’s because “Iraq’s always been very secular” he says, and secular people get along with each other.

At the same time the “serious people” insist that Bin Laden (a religious fanatic Sunni) could work with “secular” Saddam who “attacked us on 9/11” and they could get along because, um, one was secular and the other was religious……hmm.

And now, still at the same time, they’re arguing that it was “religious” Shiite fanatics in Iran are working with the religious Sunni fanatics of Bin Laden and they can get along because, um, they areboth religious fanatics.

So let’s recap: Secular people can get along with secular people because they’re secular, and religious and secular people can get along with each other because they’re both not religious, and religious fanatics of different religions can get along with each other because they’re both religious fanatics.

I’m sure glad they made that clear. When’s the next war start?

Goldsmith says that this entire controversy (in Ashcroft’s hospital room) was unnecessary because “the program” at least partially was eventually returned to the FISA Court.

This would seem to indicate that at least part of “the program” is still not under FISA supervision. This is what Congress needs to ask him: what part isn’t under FISA’s jurisdiction?

Goldsmith was sure that the government was going to “meltdown” because no one anticipated that the administration would back down, but they did. We still don’t know what, exactly, the administration backed down on. That’s quite a secret.

Is the administration actually capable of keeping this “secret” from the public indefinitely? Comey, Ashcroft, Goldmith, Mueller and others know it, but won’t say a word about it.

I know Bush is invoking “executive privilege” but it also seems that it is a “secret” so awful that no one will even think about leaking it. When someone such as Goldsmith (who dismisses “civil liberties” in a rather cavalier manner) is so appalled that even he had to resign, I’m at a lost to imagine just what Cheney and Addington were up to.

How long can they realistically keep this secret?

Yoo was a “godsend” to a White House nervous about war-crimes prosecutions, Goldsmith writes in his book, because his opinions reassured the White House that no official who relied on them could be prosecuted after the fact.

This demonstrates that they knew full well that what they were doing were war crimes. They weren’t bothered by that, they were only concerned with not being prosecuted for them – making sure they had “legal” cover to commit such crimes.

While Goldsmith did reject some policies he wanted to give other policies (expanding presidential power) a firm legal foundation, Addington just wanted to hide what they were doing.

Goldsmith has been gone a long time, and so have Comey, Ashcroft and others who attempted to thwart the policies Cheney wanted to hide – which is very troubling.

Because of that, the part of this article that I’m sure about is the conclusion that Addington’s efforts to expand presidential power ultimately weakened it.

Is that really the case, or is it too soon to tell? Did they really overplay “a winning hand” or are we still just one bomb away from everything Addington and Cheney want?

If I’m not mistaken, Glenn will have something to say about this article soon:

“We’re one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court,” Goldsmith recalls Addington telling him in February 2004.

It's a bit long, but there's lots in there about Jesus and his disiples - particularly Addington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09rosen.html

…but I cannot help being endlessly amazed by the capacity of right-wing authoritarians so blatantly to hold and espouse completely contradictory thoughts at once without realizing they are doing it.

I don’t know whether Sowell realizes he’s doing this or not – maybe he does and just doesn’t care because it serves his “movement” and its attacks on the enemy.

I’m not disputing Altmeyer’s thesis (with which I agree), but just pointing out that in some cases the contradiction is so blatant, their position so untenable to their previous rhetoric, that they have to be conscious of it.

The Republican’s stance on the “filibuster” comes to mind. When they were in the majority they demanded an “up or down” vote and were so upset by the “obstructionist” rights of the minority that they almost eliminated the filibuster completely.

Yet, without a moment’s hesitation, the second they became the minority they began filibustering and preventing up or down votes. Doing exactly what just weeks before they proclaimed with certainty was “unconstitutional.”

This is one case, and I’m sure there are others, where they realize they are holding contradictory positions, but just don’t give a damn, since it now serves their purpose.