Reality-based vs BS-based...

Ron Suskind has quietly risen to some prominence in the last few years as one of the few journalists to take any kind of in-depth look at the shenanigans of, what we must call for lack of any other words, the Bush Administration.

I first read his excellent piece on the sham that was Compassionate Conservatism - my personal opinion has always been that anyone who believed those two words fitted together deserved what they were going to get, but this was a long, calmly written article that was all the more damning for the unpartisan, reflective nature of the piece.

His book, The Price of Loyalty, was excellent - for the first time, there was conclusive evidence that Iraq was always on the agenda for Bush II. If 9/11 hadn't happened, something else would have, to enable them to pursue their dream of taking down one of the easiest targets in the Middle East. The rather flattering portrait painted of Treasury Secretary Paul O' Neill (who after all oversaw the ballooning of gigantic budget deficits fuelled by extraordinarily illogical tax cuts) can be at least excused by O' Neill's defiance in going on the record with his criticisms.

Then, this came out before the 2004 Presidential elections. While Suskind could not in any light be mistaken for a Bush supporter, the careful, even tone of his writing keeps it from sliding into hoarse polemic, though the message could not have been clearer. This was an administration that was led by a profoundly incurious son of privilege, used to getting his own way not through his own accomplishments, but his family name, his connections and lately, the trappings of the power he had acquired. It was also remarkable for his continuing to unravel the lies behind Bush's pose of being a man of faith, not an angle most liberal commentators were comfortable pursuing.

This new book, however, seems to call a spade a spade quite unflinchingly. It is a hard-eyed look at the GWOT (Global War on Terror, if you haven't been keeping up) and what it's been yielding. Apart from anything else, it is worth the price of admission for this: When his CIA briefer led George W. Bush through that famous daily briefing of 6th August 2001, which told the President that Bin Laden was determined to strike inside the US, how did the great defender react? What was his comment on it? Perhaps a stirring message to his troops on the need to fight? A thoughtful comment on how it would take years of struggle to defeat such an enemy?

Not even close. Apparently, it took the form of a sharp comment to the CIA employee in question - 'All right, you've covered your ass, now.' And no further questions or comments.

But surely, 9/11 changed everything? Since then, he has risen to the occasion?

Um, here's Sidney Blumenthal in Salon - "At one briefing in 2002, Suskind writes, Bruce Gephardt, deputy director of the FBI, told Bush that a group of men of "Middle Eastern descent" in Kansas had been discovered offering "cash for a large storage facility." "Middle Easterners in Kansas," said Bush. "We've got to get on this, immediately." Bush is reported to like barking orders, almost at a shout. The next day, he demanded a report. "Mr. President, the FBI has Kansas surrounded!" "That's what I like to hear," Bush replied. But it turned out that the men of Middle Eastern descent were operators of flea markets, not would-be terrorists. The diligent FBI had closed in on their accumulated piles of old clothing and Sinatra records."

Not much else left to say, except that I'm rather glad I haven't visited Kansas since 2000!