ire and wrath in condensed form with new heapings of lunatic divine mandates

Frank Rich on the levels of media control attendant with the current administration - even more resolute than Nixon's.

"The fundamental right of Americans, through our free press, to penetrate and criticize the workings of our government is under attack as never before," wrote William Safire last month. When an alumnus of the Nixon White House says our free press is being attacked as "never before," you listen.

Link

Even scarier - Ron Suskind weighs in with the most damning and lucid critique of what is wrong with the current administration which will run in the Sunday NY Times magazine. This time he is backed by direct quotation from conservatives and religious leaders who have had dealings with the Bush Administration. The picture that emerges is the tenet of every central argument I make with Conservatives about George Wilhelm II Bush. That as conservatives they should be opposed to the fact that Bush is a monarchical leader transforming America into a Feudal Empire engaged in a Crusade. The establishment of our country and its core utopian values come from a very conservative argument; the right to self govern, as opposed to commands issued at the whim of a leader who has acceeded authority dependent on heredity and the notion that they have been chosen by God to lead. This is what gives all Emperors and Kings their power - the concept that God speaks and rules directly through them. I ask all conservatives who vote based upon rationality and reason and not Christian fundamentalism to look into their hearts and ask them if a leader who resembles a King more than any other poltiical leader of America fulfills what they have continued to argue is the defining trait of America.

It's a good theoretical, abstract argument - but this article actually proves that is the ailing heart of the Bush administration. Also, perhaps the most embarassing thing I've read yet.

The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.''

This story was told to me by one of the senators in the Oval Office that December day, Joe Biden. Lantos, a liberal Democrat, would not comment about it.

Link