Let me start with a question, and it's not at all flippant: Why does Frank Gaffney hate America? Specifically, why is he so opposed to the fundamental philosophy of openness and free debate upon which this country was founded?

Anyway, on to the column.

He starts off with

It is, of course, unimaginable that the penalties proposed by one of our most admired presidents for the crime of dividing America in the face of the enemy would be contemplated — let alone applied — today. Still, as the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate engage in interminable debate about resolutions whose effects can only be to "damage morale and undermine the military" while emboldening our enemies, it is time to reflect on what constitutes inappropriate behavior in time of war.

Get that? Dully elected members of Congress can't say anything that Gaffney decides would constitute damaging morale and undermining the military. If they do, it's the noose for them. Or maybe lethal injection. One wonders whether holding oversight hearings on how contractors are overcharging the government and underserving the troops would count as "damaging morale".

Think I'm joking about the noose? Take a look at the very next line:

Scarcely anyone seems to consider the conduct of the Congress inappropriate, to say nothing of a hanging offense.

Gaffney then spends a lot of ink trying to convince readers that the prewar intelligence wasn't really warped and skewed to promote the war. That's a rehash, reprinted in the context of the Inspector General report about Feith and his "inappropriate" activities. He then calls Sen. Levin the Captain Ahab of the Senate, chasing the Great White Whale (Dennis Hastert? Rush Limbaugh?) of bad intelligence. Let's skip ahead toward the end of the column:

Doug Feith is an old friend of mine. He is among the most thoughtful, careful and conscientious public servants I have ever known. The only truly "inappropriate" behavior evident is the ongoing effort led by Sens. Levin and Rockefeller to impugn the integrity, quality and, yes, the appropriateness of policymakers' efforts to ensure that far-reaching national security decisions are made on the basis of the best information available.

The Journal has properly warned that Senator Ahab's misbehavior is likely to have implications far beyond the immediate disservice it does to Mr. Feith and those who labored so ably under him. It will likely also have a severely chilling effect on the willingness of policymakers rigorously to challenge, and thereby to improve, the quality of the intelligence they are getting about tomorrow's threats.

If there's one thing that really should be a hanging offense, it is behavior that results in our being even less equipped to deal with such threats than we were before this phase of the War for the Free World began on September 11, 2001

So, let's review. Carl Levin thinks that the Inspector General report reflects badly, to put it mildly, upon the administration's use and misuse of intelligence in support of policy goals. For sane people, this is called "conducting oversight of the executive branch", and it's one of the primary parts of the Senate's job description. But to Frank Gaffney, and others of his ilk, any criticism of the administration, as embodied by Douglas "stupidest f***** man on the planet" Feith, is proof positive of an intent to undermine the security of the country, and is quite literally a hanging offense. Let me repeat the question at the top: Why does Frank Gaffney hate America?

(More from Glenn Greenwald, who of course says things better than I ever could)

-dms