Two recent posts over at FiredUp! strike me as telling. One draws our attention to Kit Bond’s assertion that the actions of our Democratic controlled congress to craft and pass health care insurance reform is comparable to suicide:

I think it may be more accurate to say they [i.e., Democrats] put red bandanas on their head, took a drink of sake, and went out on what I believe to be a Kamikaze mission.

The other posting describes Bond’s and Roy Blunt’s willingness to put their names to a hasty, Republican-sponsored measure designed to repeal the health care reform package lock-stock-and barrel. In view of today’s USAToday/Gallup poll that shows that Americans favor the reform bill 49% to 40% against, they and their buddies may have just blundered onto the Kamikaze plane by mistake – because that margin can only get better as their erstwhile followers begin to notice that the legislation did not bring about the Armageddon these fearless leaders have been frantically predicting.

Given his position as the ranking minority member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, it was probably too much to expect that Kit Bond would refrain from joining the chorus of what David Brooks, in an unexpectedly excellent column, called the “rabid denunciation and cynicism”  that has characterized the right’s response to the Christmas bomber incident. On the topic of the bomber, Omar Abulmutallab, Bond holds, along with the rest of his party, that treating terrorist crimes in the criminal justice system is to privilege terrorists in some inappropriate way:

This is not a case for a series of criminal trials, … .  We should have held him as an enemy combatant and tried him in a military commission.

Earlier, on the issue of the Gitmo detainees, he had this to say:

The Obama Justice Department has prioritized political correctness over protecting the citizens of this country.

Apart from seizing an opportunity to ring the proverbial Pavlovian bell with phrases like “political correctness” applied to Obama and terrorism, one wonders why would-be tough guy politicians like Bond fail to remember the equal determination of one of their close allies, Margaret Thatcher, to deny IRA men “special status”.  This status would have accorded IRA members a prisoner of war status not too dissimilar to that accorded to those held in the military system of detention and justice that Bond and his pals prefer.

In 1981 Thatcher permitted ten young hunger strikers to starve to death, one after another, in a protest against the loss of political status for those convicted of terrorism-related offenses. As Padraig O’Malley notes in his book about those events, Biting at the Grave (p. 19):

Having what amounted to de facto prisoner of war status was of immense propaganda value to the IRA. It allowed the movement to describe the conflict in Northern Ireland on its own terms  …  and to claim that the British government accepted the IRA’s legitimacy and hence the legitimacy of its cause.

So do Bond et al. really want to legitimate Al-Qaeda by according their members military status? Do they really want to keep on handing Al-Qaeda these great propaganda tools for recruiting purposes? For that matter, if they don’t want to glamorize the terrorists’ cause, maybe they ought to shut up about the “war on terror.” Didn’t they learn anything from their onetime good friend, Dame Margaret?

Of course, in pointing out this disjunction, I do not mean to overlook the obvious – which is that what Bond and his pals really mean to say is that it is hard to torture folks when the process is open to scrutiny. And of course, no matter what status prisoners enjoyed in Northern Ireland, Dame Margaret had the Special Powers Act which gave her almost unlimited power to do whatever she wanted. Thank God we still have a few rights left. Maybe.

ADDENDUM:  Via TPM, Bond amplifies his position today:

We have learned the hard way that trying terrorists in federal court comes at a high price, from losing out on potentially life-saving intelligence to compromising our sources and methods. We must treat these terrorists as what they are–not common criminals, but enemy combatants in a war.

In December 2001, the Shoe Bomber, Richard Reid, was immediately charged in federal court, rather than being designated as an enemy combatant and questioned about his terrorist ties,” says Bond. “Fortunately, the Bush Administration did not repeat this mistake with Jose Padilla who was named an enemy combatant, which allowed him to be interrogated, before eventually facing criminal charges.”

He continues: “Yet today with the experience of eight years in this war behind us, we have regressed, treating the Christmas Day bomber and the Somali pirate as common criminals, rather than seizing the opportunity to obtain timely intelligence from these terrorists. This is a grave error that could have dangerous consequences for our nation.

AS TPM notes:

It’s worth noting that President Bush had military tribunals as an option by November 2001 when he signed an order establishing rules for tribunals. That was a month before Reid’s attempted attack on American Airlines Flight 63.

…..

A search on Nexis found no evidence of controversy over Bush decision to try Reid in federal court, and no criticism from Bond on the handling of the case.

The Politico article on Bond’s comments (2nd link above) reported that that the administration already has a deal underway to get information from Abulmutallab, but that Bond, seemingly with no real information to back up his prescience, declared that that it “would take too long.”  He either has second sight or, like a dog with a bone, he just can’t stop demagoguing the issue.

Kit Bond wasted no time before joining the Republican attack dogs frothing about the decision to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of the 9/11 cospirators to New York to stand trial.  Spouting what seems to be the agreed upon Republican rhetorical figure, he characterized the decision as prioritizing “political correctness over protecting the citizens of this country.” (Compare John Boehner’s similar statement that the decision “puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people.”)

In regard to this line of attack, Glenn Greenwald gets it absolutely, spot-on right:

As always, the Right’s tough-guy leaders wallow in a combination of pitiful fear and cynical manipulation of the fear of their followers.  Indeed, it’s hard to find any group of people on the globe who exude this sort of weakness and fear more than the American Right.

Bond’s fearfulness is so extreme that it leads him to an implied repudiation of constitutional values:

…it an insult to the memories of those who were brutally murdered on September 11th that the perpetrators of these cowardly acts of terrorism will sit in a courtroom blocks away from Ground Zero and reap the full benefits and protections of the U.S. Constitution.

Strange sentiments indeed from a man who claims to value the principles embodied in the Constitution. When push comes to shove, Bond, clearly thinks that we can’t trust our form of government or our system of jurisprudence. Or maybe he just thinks that it’s in bad taste to insist that justice be served when you don’t like the folks it’s being served upon – that might be why he thinks that real justice, rather than unproven allegation and torture, would “insult” the memories of those who died on 9/11.

Perhaps Bond could take a lesson from the 9/11 victims’ family members who speak out about the promised trials in the ACLU video below:

After Todd Akin’s recent diatribe – the one in which he trashed the CIA along with the rest of the “big government” bogeymen that worry him so much – we chided his fellow Republicans, including Kit Bond, for their inconsistency.  Bond, if you remember, had gone ballistic when Nancy Pelosi asserted that the CIA had lied to the Congress, but seemed content to hold his peace about Rep. Akin’s remarks.

Now it seems that perhaps Senator Bond might have learned something that led him to decide, however belatedly, that discretion really is the better part of valor. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, has confirmed five instances in which the CIA lied to Congress since 2001, including the situation cited by Pelosi. Schakowsky is pretty unequivocal about what she expects from the Republicans who ganged up on Pelosi earlier:

Schakowsky was asked on MSNBC whether Republicans now owed Pelosi an apology. “I certainly think they do,” she said.

Will Senator Bond be big enough to step up and offer a public apology? I don’t know about you, but I’m not holding my breath.

*corrected

Say what you will about the current Republican strategy in their ongoing war against reality, but they are disciplined.  Give them their cue and they respond right on time with the set pieces they have committed to memory and to which they will will hear no dissent, or, God forbid, any competing facts.  

Missouri’s Todd Akin (R-2nd) and Kit Bond are no exceptions. Today, they both mounted their favorite hobby horses, respectively health care reform (a.k.a. “big government”) and  energy policy, especially cap-and-trade legislation.

Speaking in the House today, Akin voiced his opposition to:

…socializing healthcare in America regardless of any so-called “opt out” provisions.

Congressman Akin noted that giving states the alternative of “opting out” of the proposed public option is a misnomer in the sense that is does not insulate the residents of state form increased taxation, Medicare cuts] and overall drag on the U.S. economy.

The key word above is “socializing,” as in socialism,  and it has the effect of drowning out any real-world issues for Akin and his fellow alternative reality enthusiasts.  

Of course, since not everybody has been trained to salivate upon hearing the magic words, Akin must manufacture claims about taxes, chimerical Medicare cuts and persistently ignore the real drag on our economy that will result if nothing is done abut the spiraling costs of our current, out-of-control health care delivery system.

Bond’s shtick is a little more subtle if just as narrow in focus. It consists of an appeal to cupidity with unfounded assertions about the costs of cap-and-trade. During his weekly conference call with Missouri reporters today, he once more cited bogus studies that assert that cap-and-trade would raise electricity rates.

If you are curious about how Bond thinks we need to go about fixing the climate crisis which, to his credit, he does not entirely deny, he offered this prescription:

Add a hundred new nuclear power plants, use electric-powered vehicles, conserve more energy and we could add jobs, produce more tax revenues, and avoid expending very expensive taxpayer subsidies on things like wind and solar which only work when the wind blows and the sun shines

Sounds familiar doesn’t it?  It’s all seems so easy when Bond puts it out there – go nuclear and just ignore long-term problems with safety and increasing piles of radioactive waste.  In a similar fashion, pretend that you don’t know that solar power, for example, contrary to the assertions of our Republican friends, is proving so viable that France plans to build solar plants in every region  and that even China recently jummped  on the bandwagon.  

If you listen to Mr. Bond, you would think that cap-and-trade is intended to happen in a policy vacuum. Bond is getting really good at banging that one-note drum to rally the forces against clean energy.  Too bad, as Media Matters demonstrates, he isn’t as good at facts.

Do contact these and other Missouri congress members and make sure they have their facts straight, but don’t expect Akin and Bond to change their tune.  Inconvenient facts only disrupt the harmonies that both these sons of Missouri like so much. No matter what arguments you raise, rest assured that Akin knows no other tune than his signature “Big-Government Rag,” while Blunt will continue to croon the “No-Cap-and-Trade Blues” no matter how often you show him he is wrong.  

Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Kit Bond appeared with Senator Diane Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to discuss the disclosure of a second, secret Iranian uranium enrichment facility:

Bond’s demeanor during this interview illustrates the dilemma that faces erst-while moderates in the age of radical fringe Republicanism. On the one hand,  he is not a total ideologue so he strives for the appearance of rationality:

… I think that the election riots and the continuing unrest in Iran shows that there’s a significant body of Iranian people who don’t like the direction that they’re going.

And that’s why I think that strong economic sanctions, which have to be applied by the world community, not just us – we can make an impact – are the best way to go.

To get an idea about how much Bond is leaning toward the center here, contrast his statement with the rabid diatribe by former counselor to the Bush State Department, Eliot A. Cohen, that appeared in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.  Cohen states unequivocally that:

Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time.

In comparison to such knee-jerk neocons, Bond seems positively sane.  

On the other hand, however, lest Bond’s more virulent fellow Republicans get the idea that he’s a weak sister, he does have to rattle his rather moribund sabre just a little and make a feint in the direction of the diplomatically inclined Obama administration. On the topic of Iran’s recent short-range missile tests, he declares in his best testy, elder statesman mode:

Today’s action in firing the missiles is really a poke in the eye to those who think that diplomatic efforts and agreements and inspections are going to change the way that Iran is going.

Has anybody ever implied that diplomacy or inspections unaccompanied by some source of leverage constitutes a viable strategy?  Or is Bond implying that sanctions are just a necessary run-up to military action (while somehow managing to agree with Secretary Gates that military action would be futile)?  Perhaps he is a little annoyed that Obama is so skillfully using the fact of Iran’s supposed intransigence to try to wrench cooperation from the Russians and Chinese.

Or, perhaps he’s just dancing around the issue trying to appear tough. Poor Senator Bond!  Trying to be responsible when you live in a nest of two-headed vipers must be stressful in the extreme.  No wonder he plans to retire.

Incidentally, if you you would like to fill in the holes in this interview with an alternative point of view, take a look at what Glenn Glenwald has to say.  He makes a good argument for exercising caution about the media coverage of Iran’s new facility, as well as the breathless alacrity with which our politicians, Democratic as well as Republican, have jumped on the bandwagon for what must seem to all of them a sure-fire political bet.

Seems Kit Bond, in his best huffing and puffing style, has thrown a noisy little tantrum and resigned from the Senate Intelligence Committee panel charged with reviewing CIA Interrogation policies. He claims that the appointment of a federal prosecutor by Attorney General Eric Holder might bias the hearings and lead to a general unwillingness on the part of CIA officers to be forthcoming about their possible, past misdeeds:

“Had Mr. Holder honored the pledge made by the President to look forward, not backwards, we would still be active participants in the Committee’s review,” the ranking Republican on the intelligence panel, Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, said in a statement. “What current or former CIA employee would be willing to gamble his freedom by answering the Committee’s questions? Indeed, forcing these terror fighters to make this choice is neither fair nor just.”

Bond’s resignation doesn’t seem to bother panel chair, Dianne Feinstein, who has indicated that the panel will complete its task with or without bipartisan contributions. Perhaps one reason for her equanimity might be relief that she won’t have to deal with the overt bias that Bond himself displays when he speaks about the temerity of the DOJ in investigating individuals whom he salutes as “terror fighters.”  

Bond might just be worried, good Republican soldier that he is, that when faced with hard evidence about what the CIA actually did, he could find himself in a very hard place. He himself might be forced to condemn his beloved terror fighters.  Can’t somebody please explain to the senator that there is a word for governments that allow secret intelligence agencies to run amok, and that word is “dictatorship”?