Op-Ed Columnist: Who Gets It? By PAUL KRUGMAN, NYTimes

Earlier this week, Wesley Clark had some strong words about the state of the nation. ”I think we’re at risk with our democracy,” he said. ”I think we’re dealing with the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living memory. They even put Richard Nixon to shame.” …

The real division in the race for the Democratic nomination is between those who are willing to question not just the policies but also the honesty and the motives of the people running our country, and those who aren’t.

What makes Mr. Dean seem radical aren’t his policy positions but his willingness — shared, we now know, by General Clark — to take a hard line against the Bush administration. …

[T]he Bush people really are Nixonian. …

That doesn’t mean that the Democratic candidate has to be a radical — which is a good thing for the party, since all of the candidates are actually quite moderate. In fact, what the party needs is a candidate who inspires the base enough to get out the message that he isn’t a radical — and that Mr. Bush is.

PABLO’S REVENGE by Matt Miller Online

That our stunningly incurious president and his top advisers have little interest in such evenhanded decision-making underscores the primary lesson of O’Neill’s book: how radically conservative the Republican Party has become.

Think of O’Neill as some centrist Republican Rip Van Winkle, who came back to a GOP White House after 25 years, only to find that his pragmatic approach to public problem-solving made him an alien to be ignored or a prop to be used for “cover” by zealots.

O’Neill’s tragedy may be that he never realized, before signing on for this last costly hitch of public service, that in the GOP’s view, he was already an antique whose notions of responsible governance had long been purged from the center of Republican power.

John Leo: More Immigration Folly

But on hot-button social issues, Bush has a history of ignoring majorities and abandoning his base, and of backing the position of small but powerful and largely Democratic elites.

Obviously, the White House thinks there is more hay to be made by adopting the elite position ….

Oh My God! The über-conservative John Leo thinks Bush caters to Democrats?! After that hearty laugh, the best thing about this is seeing the Radical Right snipe at the most conservative president in memory. They always want more. mjh

Air Travel Database

As early as next month, the government could order airlines and airline ticket bookers to hand over all their passenger records.

The Washington Post says the government is moving ahead with plans for background checks, despite a lack of cooperation from airlines.

The computerized system would assign all travelers a number and a color code that ranks their potential threat. A separate program would speed business travelers and other frequent fliers through security lines if they volunteer personal information.

Critics say the system of background checks will create two classes of airline passengers. People who aren’t U.S. citizens could face additional questioning.

Coincidentally, donors to Bush’s reelection fund will be rated “Green-A-1”. Reading this blog just got you a Code Yellow. mjh

Study Published by Army Criticizes War on Terror’s Scope By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writer

A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration’s handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an ”unnecessary” war in Iraq and pursuing an ”unrealistic” quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat.

The report, by Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is “near the breaking point.”

It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the “global war on terrorism” and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al Qaeda terrorist network.

“[T]he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly . . . its parameters should be readjusted,” Record writes. Currently, he adds, the anti-terrorism campaign “is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security.”

Record, a veteran defense specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues, was an aide to then-Sen. Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In discussing his political background, Record also noted that in 1999 while on the staff of the Air War College, he published work critical of the Clinton administration. …

But retired Army Col. Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., director of the Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record’s 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. “I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered,” he said.

Publication of the essay was approved by the Army War College’s commandant, Maj. Gen. David H. Huntoon Jr., Lovelace said. He said he and Huntoon expected the study to be controversial, but added, “He considers it to be under the umbrella of academic freedom.”

Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said he had not read the Record study. He added: “If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it’s not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon.”

The Pentagon spokesman mimics his boss by saying he’s not interested in anyone who disagrees with the ‘one true view.’ mjh

[I]t is unusual to have such views published by the War College, the Army’s premier academic institution.

In addition, the essay goes further than many critics in examining the Bush administration’s handling of the war on terrorism.

Record’s core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew.

He also scoffs at the administration’s policy, laid out by Bush in a November speech, of seeking to transform and democratize the Middle East.

United Press International: Analysis: Bush still trusts his Teflon By Martin Sieff, UPI Senior News Analyst

[O]pinion polls continue to indicate a strikingly divided American body politic, with Democrats and liberals ferociously opposed to the president but Republicans and conservatives remaining extremely happy with his performance.

Therefore, while situations like the O’Neill interview, the continuing Plame probe and the Army War College report are certainly embarrassments for the president they remain fleeting ones. Bush continues to out-Teflon Ronald Reagan.

But it may not last forever. …

The president’s Teflon is still looking good. But it is a long way to November. And political Teflon has been known to peel.