Something to think about while CNN is whipping you into a frenzy of fear over a bunch of guys in Florida

I was in a doctor's office this afternoon (nothing serious, just a consult before some middle-aged medical procedures that shall remain nameless) and the TV set therein was blasting CNN's frenetic coverage of the Florida arrests.

For some strange reason, I'm linked to today by none other than Pajamas Media (welcome, wingnuts!), the denizens of which seem to think that we liberals just can't give the Bush Administration credit for anything, that by arresting these guys, the Administration has just prevented a 9/11 attack from happening, even though there were no plans or equipment in place for such an attack, and even though this is yet another "thwarted attack" trumpeted from the rooftops at a time Bush and the Republicans in Congress who just voted to feed American kids into the meatgrinder that is Iraq in perpetuity need it most.

But those who continue to cling to the Bush is the Big Protective Daddy meme ought perhaps to take a look inside Ron Suskind's new book, The One Percent Doctrine. Gary Kamiya did, and found a few interesting things about He Who Claims To Be The Only One Who Can Keep Us Safe:

Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Rove pulled off a much more sophisticated job: a bureaucratic coup d'état. Without firing a shot, they silenced critics, squelched unwanted facts, and created their own false but salable reality. As a result, they were able to launch a war justified by lies and driven by nothing more than Bush's ignorant whim. It is, truly, the heist of the century.

[snip]

Suskind opens the book with a damning scene in which a CIA analyst warns Bush in August 2001 that bin Laden was planning to strike the U.S. Bush's response: "All right. You've covered your ass, now." That dismissive reply displayed not just Bush's frat-boy boorishness but his poor judgment. And after the terrorist attacks came, all constraints on Bush -- and Cheney -- vanished. Suskind depicts Bush as unbound, liberated by 9/11: While before the attacks senior staff worried that he wasn't thinking things through, now improvisation, not rational thought, was called for. This let Bush be Bush. "Left unfettered, and unchallenged, were his instincts, his 'gut,' as he often says, and an unwieldy aggressiveness that he'd long been cautioned to contain."

Once again, I ask you to think about the expression on Bush's face as he was told about the 9/11 attacks. Spiidey has it, in case you need to refresh your memory. Then think about the man in that photo dismissing a CIA analyst warning Bush -- IN PERSON -- that Bin Laden was planning to strike in the U.S. with "All right, you've covered your ass now."

I've always assumed that because of the Bush family connection with the Bin Laden family, Bush knew damn well what was going to happen and let it play out because he and his cronies stood to benefit hugely -- and certainly his conduct since then has backed me up. But what if it's more insidious than that -- what if Bush decides to know only what he wants to know -- and having tuned out the August 2001 warnings, 2900 people paid the price for his willful ignorance?

Kamiya again:

Suskind all but comes out and says what many have suspected: that Bush, although a man of deep faith -- he reads Scripture or a religious tract every morning -- is grossly intellectually unqualified to be president. Again and again, Suskind describes scenes that display his disengagement, his lack of curiosity, his ignorance of the most rudimentary facts. His inner circle knew his weaknesses, and assiduously prevented them from being known. "He is very good at some things that presidents are prized for, and startlingly deficient in others. No one in his innermost circle trusts that those imbalances would be well received by a knowledgeable public, especially at a time of crisis. So they are protective of him -- astonishingly so -- and forgiving."

[snip]

Cheney and Rumsfeld, Suskind writes, viewed Bush as an inferior, the child of their contemporaries. A master at bureaucratic stealth, Cheney quietly orchestrated the war, which was "about the only matter on which all three agreed ... So, as America officially moved to a detailed action plan for the overthrow of Hussein, only three men would be in the know: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld."

[snip]

But Bush, in Suskind's portrayal, was hardly putty in Cheney's hands (although Suskind reports that inside the CIA Cheney was nicknamed "Edgar," after the ventriloquist Edgar Bergen, whose famous dummy was Charlie McCarthy). Bush played along with the game. He didn't want to know any more than Cheney wanted him to know. "No one would dare say that the President made it clear to his most trusted lieutenants he did not want to be informed, especially when the information might undercut the confidence he has in certain sweeping convictions."

Now the charitable view towards the Administration would be that Bush has learned from his mistakes in August 2001 and is determined to do a better job this time -- and that's why we're seeing this drumbeat about seven guys in Florida. But since we've seen little from this president in the way of contrition, and even less willingness to admit that his Iraq war was a misbegotten adventure that is damaged beyond repair, I'm skeptical that this spate of "We stopped a terrorist attack" media blasts is anything more than yet another attempt to salvage what's left of a credibiilty that this man never should have been granted in the first place. This administration is all about the politics, and always has been. It has never been about leadership. Bill Clinton's administration stopped a number of New Year's Eve 1999 attacks and never uttered a peep about it. This bunch claims to thwart attacks every time their numbers are in the toilet and a swarthy guy with a bottle of iced tea gets on the F train.

Fool me once, shame on....shame on you. Fool me .........can't get fooled again.