BETWEEN 12/12 and 9/11

It's getting harder and harder to get a read on how the Bush Administration is actually fairing in the war on terror. On the one hand, you have a admnistration that is obsessed with secrecy and its own image. It would be perfectly within the nature of Karl Rove, Ari Fleisher and co. to focus on brushing any mistakes under the rug. There is the lingering suspicion that the Justice Department simply detained large numbers of Middle Eastern men with no connection to terror (which may have been understandable in the panic after 9/11), and has kept many of them in custody far longer than necessary to make the detention appear justifiable.

On the other hand, its not as if I can trust many of the admnistration's critics on the war on terror, either. Hard core liberal Dems remained convinced that the biggest blow to this country occurred not on 9/11, but on 12/12 the year before, with the travesty of the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore. Since Bush by all rights should not be president, everything his administration does is suspect, whether it is a response to the events of 9/11 or an attempt to push forward with his original agenda. I'm not a big fan of John Ashcroft, but I don't buy into the hysterical claims that he is a bigger threat to this country than Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. And these claims make it harder for me to sort out the legitimate attacks on his policies of the past nine months. In order for this nation to be more secure and yet preserve our core liberties we need a vigiliant critique of our government's policies in the war on terror. As much as it pains me to say it, I think we need to get past 12/12 to do so.