Who woulda thunk...

that I'd be in total agreement with Newt Gingrich? Quote from today's Boston Globe:

"I think it puts into question all of the Homeland Security and Northern Command planning for the last four years, because if we can't respond faster than this to an event we saw coming across the Gulf for days, then why do we think we're prepared to respond to a nuclear or biological attack?"

This is exactly the line of reasoning that my favorite left-wing radio host, Rachel Maddow, presented on the Al Franken Show, where she was filling in. (Nothing against Al, but he picked a good week to take off. Rachel was perfect for the breaking news this week; she brings a high energy level and a stinging bluntness that were perfectly suited to the events that unfolded.)

The hurricane is a national crisis that pulled two other national crises onshore with it. One of these hasn't occurred yet--the next terrorist attack. The other is finally staring us in the face after years of denial: our energy crisis stemming from our dependence on fossil fuels, especially oil, made painfully obvious by the stinging price hikes to gasoline and home heating oil. Both of these crises are vitally linked to the president's favorite project, the War on Iraq, and both reveal the truth about that colossal mistake.

The obvious point about Iraq is that the National Guard troops and equipment are deployed where they don't belong, leaving us vulnerable to attack at home. The second point is a little more subtle but perhaps more devastating to Bush's political support, his "mandate" if you will, his "I've got political capital and I intend to spend it" attitude. I think a lot of the public support for the war was because of oil. No WMD's, no welcome parades for the liberators, no stability or security on the ground, no damage to al Qaeda, no functioning democracy to speak of--none of the many rationales that were offered turned out to be valid, yet people still supported the war. Why? Because the American people are smarter than a lot of people give them credit for. The unspoken rationale for the war, securing the oil supply, made sense to people no matter what the publicly stated rationale of the week. We all know that Saudi Arabia's not going to be our Sugar Daddy forever with all those terrorists ready to overthrow the monarchy. A stable, friendly Iraq would be a good thing for our oil habit, and if a bad guy dictator had to be overthrown to get it, so what? Everyone else in the world sees the war this way, and Americans by and large know it to be true as well.

Now, after months of rising gas prices 3 years into the war, prices have skyrocketed due to a crisis with origins in the Gulf of Mexico, not the Persian Gulf. Throwing Iraq into chaos has not achieved oil stability, and maybe it never will, now that the emerging democratic Iraq appears to be more interested in allying with Iran (d'oh!) than with us. Katrina has shown that oil stability has many vulnerabilities, and suddenly the policy of putting all of our resources into Iraq seems naive.

Sorry, W, but your political capital check just bounced.