The Best That We Can Do

Well, the big news of the day, at least for the financial world, was going to be Alan Greenspan's testimony today before congress, which, by the way, Kevin Drum sums up the testimony pretty succinctly:

• The war with Iraq is bad for the economy.

• The proposed deficit is too large, and it's bad for the economy too.

• A big part of the deficit is caused by Republican tax cut proposals. Economic growth alone won't get rid of the deficit, no matter how often they say it will.

• Thus, taxes should not be cut right now. Eliminating the dividend tax is "a sensible long term program," but only if other taxes are raised to make up for it.
  

He goes on to conclude:

In other words, virtually every single thing the Republicans are doing is bad for the economy.

That said, one should be forgiven for thinking this to be today's big news, but BZZZTT -- sorry, try again! As everybody and their dead aunt in America -- even the dead aunt who is German and who, thus, would not have cared because she is, by default, either anti-American or lazy -- knows by now, Osama Bin Laden's BACK with a flash, and heading straight to the top of the charts! This is, I'm afraid to say, even bigger than Elvis' return to television in 1968. (Funny, don't you think, how this kind of thing always happens right around the time of bad domestic policies going public. Not saying there's anything to that, just saying . . .)

One anonymous talking head inside the Bush administration wins the award for quote-you-can't-go-today-(and probably tomorrow)-without-seeing:

"This clearly demonstrates a burgeoning alliance of terror between Iraq and al Qaeda."

The headlines are already being churned out, of course, that Bin Laden and Sadaam are not only tag-team buddies, they also (a) on a bowling team together, after which they go to Sadaam's crib to play Yahtzee; (b) were separated at birth, but were heartwarmingly reunited when they realized they both go to the same barber (yes, indeed, the very one who grooms their famous facial hair; (c) use puppies, like Vaara's, for target practice; and (d) secretly think the other is cute, but, before rumors get spread, it hasn't gotten beyond the phase of writing the other's last name down in place of their own.

I don't know, it's a little difficult to take this too seriously for a couple of reasons. Namely, and this is the most damning, I think, the statement that Powell is referencing kind of, more or less, goes out of its way to continue the long-held differentiation between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The BBC is helpful with their full transcript -- a few highlights:

O mujahideen brothers in Iraq, do not be afraid of what the United States is propagating in terms of their lies about their power and their smart, laser-guided missiles.

Note, "mujahideen brothers in Iraq" is not a reference to the Iraqi government, but to Islamic militants. The difference is even more pronounced a bit further on:

Amid this unjust war, the war of infidels and debauchees led by America along with its allies and agents, we would like to stress a number of important values:

First, showing good intentions. This means fighting should be for the sake of the one God.

It should not be for championing ethnic groups, or for championing the non-Islamic regimes in all Arab countries, including Iraq.

[. . .]

Regardless of the removal or the survival of the socialist party or Saddam, Muslims in general and the Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad against this unjust campaign and acquire ammunition and weapons.

[. . .]

Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists.

The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago.

Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden.

Now, obviously, one could read this as surreptitious, equivocal support of Hussein's regime, and I would respond with a sanguine nod, "Yes, possibly." However, equally valid, and perhaps a bit more plausible, considering the nature of Al Qaeda's fundamentalism, not to mention Bin Laden's popularity in those circles, is his very unshocking, unsurprising, damn well should've been expected all along manipulation of the situation. Did anybody honestly expect Bin Laden, or Bin Laden's successor, or whomever, to NOT use this war as a means to muster up defiance and violence against the United States and its allies, within and without Iraq? Anyone? I hear crickets chirping. If this is the smoking gun connection between terrorism and Iraq that the White House has been searching for, then it is a cap gun, at best. I concede, yet again, that Osama Bin Laden may simply be incredibly crafty in his choice of words here, and that he is actually hiding the Iraqi haven and support he enjoys, but the veracity of this concession relies upon somebody making a valid case that highlights the duplicity, that convinces somebody other than those who wanted to go to war without international support (yes, yes, I realize that it was the same Colin Powell who talked Bush into taking the UN-route that is today talking about the Bin Laden link). Smoke and mirrors, friends. Maybe not lies, per se, but definitely only part of the story, specifically that part of the story that sounds nice and coheres to the message (or the case) that, resistance and questions be damned, has not, since day one, changed.