Two great WaPo Opeds today:

[grytpype]

Ignatius has a nice tutorial on the Khan Affair:

Don't Politicize Terrorism
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6679-2004Aug16.html

By David Ignatius
Tuesday, August 17, 2004; Page A15

The mixing of anti-terrorism policy with the 2004 presidential campaign is becoming destructive. It is creating a vicious cycle of hype, skepticism and mistrust that puts the country's security at risk.

...

In the administration's eagerness to demonstrate the seriousness of the threat against financial centers, something terrible happened. An official in Washington or Pakistan, it's not clear which, leaked the name of the captured al Qaeda operative who was a main source of the information -- a 25-year-old Pakistani named Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. His name was leaked to the New York Times on Aug. 1, the same day the terror warning was issued, in a seeming attempt to bolster the credibility of the intelligence report.

Whatever the reason for the leak, it was disastrous for intelligence operations.

...

Dionne give Bush a smackdown and has some advice for Kerry:

A Test of Toughness
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6682-2004Aug16.html

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004; Page A15

In a purely technical sense, you have to admire President Bush's campaign for its skill in shaping public perceptions and in grasping at any and every opportunity to make his opponent look bad.

When John Kerry said he still would have voted to give the president the authority to wage war in Iraq, the Bushies accused Kerry of being a flip-flopper.

How can sticking with a past vote make you a flip-flopper? Well, Kerry -- like many Americans -- is now critical of how Bush waged this war and how he failed to plan for its aftermath. The Bushies seem to be saying that Kerry should have known better than to give Bush the benefit of the doubt

...

[JDPriestly]

1. Thanks for posting this.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Great Meme in the Article!

E.J. Dionne wrote: "The Bushies seem to be saying that Kerry should have known better than to give Bush the benefit of the doubt."

[Southpaw Bookworm]

3. Another good one in there

Discussing the unintended effects and flaws present in the national list of suspected terrorists:

Antonio Romero is what my mother calls me. Antonio Romero is also how I am known to many of my friends and family members. Unfortunately, the name Antonio Romero also appears on a U.S. Treasury Department list titled "Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons." The government provides only this name, some known aliases and a date of birth for Antonio Romero. No further attempt is made at delineating one Antonio Romero from the next. A quick Internet search found no fewer than 10 of them in New York, not to mention four Anthony Romeros.

The proliferation of government watch lists is a troubling development in the war on terrorism. I recently learned more about this list because my organization, the ACLU, had signed a funding agreement with the Combined Federal Campaign in order to receive $500,000 it gathers from federal employees. The agreement required the ACLU to affirm that it would not knowingly hire individuals named on various watch lists. We believed that we were not required to affirmatively check employees against any list. But when we later were told that indeed we would have to check all current and potential employees, we withdrew from the CFC.

All Americans have an important obligation and role in this country's efforts to protect us from those who would harm us. But these lists, which are notoriously vague and riddled with errors, are not the best way to fight terrorism. Just take me as an example.

The CFC would require the ACLU -- and the more than 2,000 nonprofits that receive its funding -- to affirmatively check the names of our employees against the lists. But what do we do if there is a match? What if the ACLU had checked my name against the watch lists and found the name of Antonio Romero? If it hired the Antonio Romero targeted by the government, knowingly or not, the ACLU would open itself up to civil or criminal sanctions. So the stakes are high. To make matters more complicated, CFC recipients are not alone in this new wonderland.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6680-2004Aug16.html