Open Thread

CNN is running a "Countdown to Cease-Fire" clock for the conflict in Lebanon. What will CNN do once that war is over? Hmmm....if only there were another war they could cover so extensively -- maybe a war involving the U.S.

You won't see a similar countdown clock for the war the U.S. is actually fighting in Iraq....because there's no end in sight to that war. The daily carnage continues unabated.

What's on the agenda for this week? Read the rest of this post...

Is an armament sickening U.S. soldiers?

Depleted uranium. I always thought that was a bit of a wive's tale. Be curious if anyone who is TRULY up on this could weigh in. Read the rest of this post...

Howard Dean says Lieberman should drop out

From Reuters

"I know how hard this is for Joe, and he is a good person, but the truth is I lost one of these races and I got behind my party's nominee and I think that is what you have to do if you want to help this country," Dean, former governor of Vermont, said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"The way to help this country is to limit Republican power."

Read the rest of this post...

North Carolina paper editorial blasts Cheney and Lieberman for using latest terrorist threat to bash Dems

The Fayetteville Observer

Something else verges on terrifying too. The reactions by some of our politicians were a chilling reminder of their willingness to use our fear to further their own agenda.

The terrorists aren’t attacking one political party. They are attacking all of us. Politicians can, and should, debate our strategy against terrorists and the course of the war in Iraq. But questioning each other’s patriotism or resolve against terrorists should be out of bounds. It is unnecessary and divisive. And it is, quite simply, a diversionary tactic. Members of both parties have repeatedly shown by their votes strong support for the war against terror.

But even as British police were arresting some of the terror plot suspects, Vice President Dick Cheney was sounding off on Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman’s primary defeat by a businessman who successfully made opposition to the Iraq war the centerpiece of his campaign. It shows “the direction the party appears to be heading,” Cheney said. “What is particularly disturbing about it is from the standpoint of our adversaries. ... They are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.” Voting against Lieberman, he said, is encouraging “the al Qaida types.”

Sadly, Lieberman himself was unable to resist blurring the lines between the Iraq war and the war on terror. “If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Lieberman said. “It will strengthen them, and they will strike again.”

Read the rest of this post...

And what is stopping the liquid-bomb terrorists from blowing up subways and Amtrak?

Since George Bush has had six years to deal with the threat of liquid explosives, something we knew about ten years ago when the terrorists first tried to blow up US airplanes over the Pacific, I'm sure he already has a plan in place to stop terrorists from simply bringing their little explosive cocktails on trains and subways instead of airplanes. And Tony Blair has a plan to stop them from going after the Chunnel simply using the train?

Or did they forget about that?

I haven't heard a lot about train security. Or bus security. Then again, I'm just a blogger. I'm sure our governments have this one all figured out. So what are the rules about checking bags on trains and buses?

Speak of the devil, I just went to Amtrak's Web site and they have it all figured out. Our great secret weapon? Name tags:

While there is no specific threat against Amtrak or other U.S. ground transportation, Amtrak has increased security measures in the wake of the recent arrests in Britain.

Additional police and K-9 teams have been deployed, and Amtrak is vigorously enforcing its existing policy of requiring all checked and carry-on baggage be tagged with the owner's name and address. Also, additional on-board identification verifications are being conducted.

Yes, that will certainly stop a suicide bomber - simply require him to put his name and address on his bomb. And if you see any bags labeled Mickey Mouse, you got him!

As for the dogs, if bomb sniffing dogs could smell this stuff in advance, we wouldn't have to be dumping all our crap out at the airports. But hey, not to worry, it's not like these guys have a track record of going after trains or buses. Oh yeah, that's exactly their track record in Spain and England.

Face it, there's no plan. The same people who brought us Iraq and duct tape are now preparing us to fight the liquid-bombers. God help us. Read the rest of this post...

Lamont hits back against Cheney and Lieberman

AP

"My God, here we have a terrorist threat against hearth and home and the very first thing that comes out of their mind is how can we turn this to partisan advantage. I find that offensive," Lamont said in an interview Sunday with The Associated Press....

Lamont said Lieberman's swipe at his candidacy "sounded an awful lot" like Cheney.

"It surprised me," he said. "It seemed almost orchestrated. It's sort of demeaning to the people of Connecticut ... I thought the senator and the vice president were both wrong to use that attack (strategy) on the voters of Connecticut."

One thing that bothers me, AP refers to Lamont as "the anti-war candidate" in the lead paragraph of the story. That phrase is incorrect, and AP should know it. The word "anti-war" in American parlance means somehow who is a pacifist, a peacenik, who is against war qua war. I have never seen Lamont say any such thing. He is anti-Bush, and anti the Iraq war. But anti-war he is not.

Yes, it is easier and more economical for the Associated Press and the media writ large to call Lamont "the anti-war candidate." It is also incorrect and misleading. Read the rest of this post...

Stupid Coulter

Late last night, I was flipping through the TV and, being the nerd that I am, I checked CSPAN and CSPAN-2. You never know what's going to be on in the middle of the night, and sometimes they have interesting interviews or conferences from recent weeks. I had the great misfortune, however, of coming across an Ann Coulter Q&A; with some crazies, and I'm ashamed to admit that I was sucked in before I could change the channel.

I know she's an idiot, and I know she's been thoroughly discredited, but she said something that struck me. As I tried to gather the mental fortitude to tear my eyes away from the oratory equivalent of a ten car pileup, she said that while some of her conservative friends think that Democrats oppose the war on terror because they hate Bush, and therefore oppose everything he does, she thinks Dems oppose the war on terror and oppose Bush because they think he's doing a great job with it.

Beyond the tired slur and twisted logic, it seems to me that this is a particularly crazy idea. Democrats are, unfortunately, still viewed by many as less credible than Republicans on national security. So... um... wouldn't there be no greater political advantage for Democrats than a "total victory" in the war on terror? By anybody, I mean; by either party. If we could just get this darn terrorism stuff completely taken care of, wouldn't that be a huge political boon for Democrats? After all, the American people pretty much recognize that Democrats are better on education, health care, the economy, and virtually every other major domestic issue. Wouldn't Democrats, therefore, have the most to gain by a total victory over terrorism? If we could get back to the issues that affect people on a daily basis, Democrats would win all the time, right?

In reality, Democrats have better ideas for fighting terrorism, both its practitioners and its root causes, and we're slowly but surely demonstrating this fact to the public. But for as long as many Americans still believe the myth that Republicans can keep us safe, it's Republicans that need terrorism to be at the forefront of national consciousness, not Democrats. That's not to say we're trying to avoid the issue -- Democrats can and should beat Republicans on national security -- but we're not the party that needs it, that seems to relish THE SCARY. Read the rest of this post...

Why does Sushi hate America?

When we see a cat like Sushi reject one of its own, it would seem to say a lot about the state of the Democratic Party. It's an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party to see a cat like Nasdaq pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy.



(Note: I know it's really bad lighting, so the vid is a bit hard to see. Basically, the cats were cleaning each other, licking each other's necks, it was absolutely adorable. So I picked up my cam and started filming, then all of a sudden out of nowhere Sushi just attacks Nasdaq. I had been warned about this - Sushi has a petit vicieux streak in him. But geez, it was just bizarre. Then ten minutes later, they were both asleep together back on top of my suitcase.) Read the rest of this post...

Growing concern that the NYT pulled its punches in order not to hurt Bush before the 2004 election

Oh, I think it's pretty clear the NYT was afraid of being Dan-Rather-ed. It's also very sad. If the conservatives playing the refs has yielded these kind of results, then what's the point of having a free press at all? Read the rest of this post...

Feingold smacks Lieberman

On This Week, Russ Feingold was asked about Lieberman's recent Cheney-like comments. His response:

“Joe is showing with that regrettable statement that he doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get it,”

Think Progress has the video. Read the rest of this post...

Sunday Talk Shows Open Thread

An awful lot of exposure for Chertoff today. He did such a great job on Katrina. Is he supposed to inspire confidence in Homeland Security?

Ned Lamont is making the rounds, too. That'll drive Lieberman crazy....Joe loves being a darling of the Sunday shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY...: Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff ; Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.); Connecticut Senate candidate Ned Lamont (D).

THIS WEEK (ABC...: Chertoff ; Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.); Latin musician Jon Secada .

FACE THE NATION (CBS...: Chertoff ; Lamont ; Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.); Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.).

MEET THE PRESS (NBC....: Chertoff ; Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean ; Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman ; Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton , chair and vice chair, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.

LATE EDITION (CNN....: Chertoff ; Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.); Lebanese special envoy Nouhad Mahmoud ; former NATO supreme allied commander Gen. George A. Joulwan ; former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak ; journalist Seymour Hersh ; and Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad .

Commentary please. Read the rest of this post...

Why didn't Bush address the "liquid bomb" threat 6 six years ago, since we knew about it ten years ago? Oh that's right, he's been busy invading Iraq

NYT editorial, yesterday:

The most frightening thing about the foiled plot to use liquid explosives to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic is that both the government and the aviation industry have been aware of the liquid bomb threat for years but have done little to prepare for it.

Yes, well, we've been at war in Iraq in order to stop home-grown British terrorists from blowing up US airplanes.

Oh, that's right, no we're not. Iraq had and has nothing to do with stopping any of the terror plots that have been foiled since September 11. So why did we invade? We took out a state actor when state actors weren't the problem. And now we've got our military and intelligence (and monetary) resources bogged down in a war that has nothing to do with the actual threat we're facing.

So, basically, George Bush and Dick Cheney went on a wild goose chase while the terrorists continued to plot against us.

Like I've said before, I'm all for the war on terror. When does it start? Read the rest of this post...

Good morning

News? Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Oh the things that happen to me in Paris that just don't happen in DC. Read the rest of this post...