Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Take It To The Wingnuts

by digby

Most of you have probably already read the fascinating polling data from MYDD that challenges the conventional wisdom about the Busby race in CA-50 (if you haven’t, be sure to do it.) If you don’t want to slog through all the numbers, here’s an interesting article from the LA CityBeat that gives the basic overview.

Busby’s campaign turns out to have been far less effective than the media suggested. While she certainly galvanized Democrats in the 50th Congressional District, and while Republican turnout was markedly lower than usual because of disenchantment with the status quo, she failed to capture the one constituency she desperately needed to put her over the top, which was independent voters. Her promise to push for better ethics in Washington fell utterly flat with them, because they were almost as suspicious about the integrity of the Democratic Party as they were of the Republicans. Things might have been differenBt if Busby had been running against Duke Cunningham himself, but the man was in prison, not on the ballot. Independents, according to the survey, either stayed home or voted for a third-party candidate.

What might have induced those independents to vote for Busby? According to Rick Jacobs, the Courage Campaign’s chair, all it would have taken was a simple promise to hold the administration’s feet to the fire. “Voters want a candidate to say, ‘I will hold George Bush accountable,’” Jacobs told me. “They think the country’s heading in the wrong direction, they disapprove of George Bush, and therefore they want to know: who is going to be most likely to call him to account and put the country on a better path? I don’t think Busby did any of that.”

[…]

Busby herself appears to have taken some of these lessons on board as she gears up for a rematch against Bilbray in November. Curiously, it might actually be easier for her to win this time – if she can use Bilbray’s few months’ tenure on Capitol Hill as ammunition to suggest that a Republican representative will do nothing to force the Bush administration to change course. According to Rick Jacobs, the party as a whole would do well to approach the midterms in a similar spirit. “This is how the party can define itself, nationally,” he said. “Bush is taking the country in the wrong direction, and Iraq is exhibit number one. Vote for us, and we are going to force the president to come up with a plan to get us out of the there. A Republican congress won’t do anything. That’s the message.”

That was certainly Ned Lamont’s message, and it worked. Now the Democrats need to stop fighting among themselves, and take the message to a broader national audience. They might not have had the courage to stand up against a popular Republican administration. Now all they need is the courage to oppose an unpopular Republican administration. Really, how hard can that be?

Democrats have been demonized as being weak and ineffectual for so long that Independent voters naturally figure that they can’t or won’t do anything to stop the Republicans. Democratic partisans may believe, but in order to get a robust turnout throughout the country, even many of them still need to be convinced that their party leadership will follow through. Democrats must make the case in no uncertain terms that they are prepared to hold Republicans accountable — which means that they must be willing to talk about the lack of oversight and they must promise to hold hearings into specific issues.

The Republicans will scream like banshees, but that actually plays into the Democrats’ hands if they have the nerve to just stare them down and tell them to bring it. Rove’s tried to innoculate against this with his little “omg! they’re going to act just like we did and impeach the president!” message but its primary purpose was to get Democrats to back off. He knew that if Democrats ran on holding his boy accountable they would win. Now we have the data to back that up.

.

Send Her Back To Normal

by digby

The President of the most powerful nation on why Hezbollah isn’t the real winner in this war:

The world got to see — got to see what it means to confront terrorism. I mean, it’s a — it’s the challenge of the 21st century, the fight against terror.

A group of ideologues, by the way, who use terror to achieve an objective — this is the challenge.

And that’s why in my remarks I spoke about the need for those of us who understand the blessings of liberty to help liberty prevail in the Middle East.

And the fundamental question is: Can it? And my answer is: Absolutely, it can. I believe that freedom is a universal value. And by that, I mean I believe people want to be free.

People want to be free. One way to put it is I believe mothers around the world want to raise their children in a peaceful world. That’s what I believe…

Could somebody please keep him away from Karen? This is just embarrassing.

.

Craven Hawk

by digby

Atrios flags this piece by Spencer Ackerman which I also thinks is worth reading. Ackerman points out that Lieberman’s reputation for sophisticated foreign policy smarts is nothing more than knee jerk me-too-ism:

Lieberman’s judgment on defense questions is like that of a stopped clock: the hawkish position, applied consistently, has to be right sooner or later. What Lieberman is asking Connecticut — and the Democratic Party, and the country — to accept is that the only secure America is a bellicose America. And that position is a guarantee of future Iraqs.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about Lieberman’s defense record is the difficulty of defining Liebermanism. On the central question of why a nation should or shouldn’t go to war, Lieberman’s answer is simply, “yes!” His Senate-floor explanation of his 1991 vote for the Gulf War wasn’t a ringing endorsement of the need to confront Saddam Hussein, or a defense of Kuwaiti sovereignty, or even a simple explanation of how the war served American interests – none of which were difficult cases to make. Rather, Lieberman contended that the war was necessary “because our president has asked us to vote to support him in this hour of challenge.”

This is not a matter of philosophy. It’s a lazy and craven purely political stance that was perfectly illustrated by Jacob Weisberg’s Slate piece the other day:

The Lamont-Lieberman battle was filled with echoes and parallels from the Vietnam era. Democratic reformers and anti-establishment insurgents weren’t wrong about that conflict, either. Vietnam was a terrible mistake for the United States. But like Iraq, Vietnam was a badly chosen battlefield in a larger conflict with totalitarianism that America had no choice but to pursue. In turning viciously on stalwarts of the Cold War era like Lyndon B. Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, and Scoop Jackson, anti-war insurgents called into question the Democratic Party’s underlying commitment to challenging Communist expansion. The party’s Vietnam-era drift away from issues of security and defense—and its association with a radical left hostile to the military and neutral in the fight between liberalism and communism—helped push a lot of Americans who didn’t much like the Vietnam War into the arms of Richard Nixon.

Lieberman, a charter member of the DLC, learned the lesson so well that he does not discriminate at all when it comes to military action. If a war is on the table, he’s for it. And that’s pretty much what Weisberg prescribes as the proper Democratic position if they want to be taken seriously on foreign policy and national security.

You can be craven about a lot of things, but war is one issue you really should think twice about. Not only is it a moral question it is a most serious question of national security. Once you unleash the dogs of war, all kinds of unintended, catastrophic things can happen as we are now witnessing in Iraq. It should never be just a matter of politics.

I think that it’s quite clear from Holy Joe’s record that, in his case, it is. He’s voted enthusiatically for every military action that’s been proposed since he took office. I doubt there are many Republicans out there with that kind of record (although their reasons for voting against military action in the 90’s were completely partisan.) He clearly doesn’t even think about it.

What Weisberg and Lieberman and other DLC types have done is back Democrats into the corner by agreeing with the GOP that they must always follow the Republicans over the cliff or risk being called weak on security. This is political blackmail and it’s exactly what led us into Iraq. The Democratic caucus was terrified of the repurcussions (especially post 9/11) of their votes against the first Gulf War and I have no doubt that guys like Lieberman were fingerwagging in the cloakroom every chance they got.

Joe Lieberman has taken the easy route on national security time after time and it’s led to this horrible mess we’re in. The sooner he’s out of the Democratic party the better for everyone. This lazy, rubber stamping of GOP warmongering for political purposes has paralyzed the Democratic party on national security and it’s time the party rids itself of it.

.

Unity ’06

by digby

George W. Bush is not committing to support the Republican nominee for Senate in Connecticut:

Q Does the President support the Republican candidate for Senate in Connecticut?

MR. SNOW: The President supports the democratic process in the state of Connecticut, and wishes them a successful election in November.

Greg Sargent asked the Lieberman campaign over the week-end if they would demand that the GOP stop using their candidate as a talking point. This is their reply:

“Joe Lieberman has no interest in being Dick Cheney or Karl Rove’s political football, just as he has no interest in being a political football for Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. In fact, he’s fed up with this kind of petty partisan game playing which is stalemating Washington and blocking progress on the problems people care about. That is exactly why he is campaigning for a new politics of unity and purpose that will deliver results for the people of Connecticut. The Republicans and Democrats in Washington can spin the results any way they want, but Joe Lieberman is focused on bringing meaningful change for his constituents.”

So we have Joe Lieberman claiming to be above partisan politics and George W. Bush claiming to be above partisan politics. Look for more of that rhetorical synergy going into the fall.

Update: Armando has more.

.
.

White Man’s Overbite

by digby

OMFG

Tucker Carlson set for ‘Dancing with the Stars’

pic via Mediabistro.com

.

Blowing Off Steam

by digby

It’s probably overkill for me to post about this hour long Pamela Atlas Shrugs “interview” with John Bolton since so many others have already commented. But I thought it was worthwhile to emphasize something about it that Glenn Greenwald mentioned in passing. This interview was done last Saturday. Does everyone remember what was going on last Saturday?

Masood Haider from UN adds: Kofi Annan announced on Saturday night that he had been in touch with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora of Lebanon and that both had agreed that the end of fighting would take effect at 8 am Monday in Lebanon and Israel.

“I am happy to announce that the two leaders have agreed that the cessation of hostilities and the end of the fighting will enter into force on Aug 14, at 0500 hours GMT,” Mr Annan said in a statement released here.

It wasn’t just an ordinary day. It was the day when the ceasefire was being finalized. And while I understand that he was probably still stinging from having had his ass handed to him by the French, it was still inappropriate to give an hour long interview with a psychotic fawning righwing blogger who asked him questions like this:

Pamela: So much faith in the Lebanese government I do not understand. A puppet of Syria, who is a puppet of Iran. Iran is Barzini here. You see the Godfather? Okay? So a question about it. Who props up that government? I mean if the Israeli, if the IDF, which is, although when I was in Israel, I gotta tell you, a bunch of baby-faced kids. I know they’re always portrayed in the media with Darth Vader helmets and the Israeli war machine. I’m telling you, the cutest kids ever. But if they couldn’t contain, and I think there’s an element of that that no one really wants to talk about. I wonder how much the US government was surprised that Israel didn’t go in, bing-bang-boom, and knock these suckers out. Forget about Israel for a second, even though it’s difficult for me, right and wrong, good and evil, and all that. Let’s discuss real politics, shall we? It’s in America’s best interest that Hezbollah be eliminated. I mean this is not just Israel’s problem. You know who Hezbollah is. You know where they are. So I think there was an element of surprise. Do I think it’s Olmert’s weakness? I do. Did I campaign wildly for Bibi? I did. Do I have a vote? I don’t. So I think Israel also, you know it’s interesting, when I was in Israel, you could see the country was in short of like a shock, like a 9/11 shock. Here they had banked so much on land for peace and peace, even this sh–, even a bad peace, sorry about that, John, is better than a good war, so to speak, although I don’t subscribe to that. I understand that the current, modern civilization does, to which they’re going to pay dearly, but that’s besides the point. Such stock we’re putting in the Lebanese government, who is totally kowtowing to Hezbollah. You put every remark by the crying Siniora, I mean, another Godfather moment. You remember Godfather, Frank Sinatra, it was supposed to be Frank Sinatra, he’s crying, you’re godfather. Same thing happens, somebody slap him. So how could you have so much faith in the Lebanon government? I mean, I want to believe, John. I believe in you. I want to believe.

It might be worthwhile to see if Chris Matthews or CNN are interested in this story. Pamela would be more than happy to go on television, I’m sure, and explain how she got an exclusive interview with the US Ambassador to the UN right in the middle of the biggest crisis of his tenure. It would be a fascinating story.

The last I heard, we were shy one vote for a filibuster. I think we all have noticed that appointments cannot be derailed on substance. A nominee can be a raving lunatic with a Nazi paper trail a mile long and they will still get through. A person will only be defeated or withdraw if the charge is trivial and easy to understand.

This could be it. Pamela is beyond crazy and this is actually the second interview, I believe, with her idol John Bolton (with whom she seems to have a rather odd familiarity.) I think she would look very fetching in a blue dress.

.

One Toe In The Water

by digby

A lot of people are going to take issue with Joe Klein for this week’s column about the Connecticut race, and with good reason. (Armando does so, here.)

But I am not going to join that party. I have been very hard on Klein for years for his anachronistic political analysis, but I am sensing that something has changed and I think it’s worth recognizing.

Setting aside his weak defense of triangulation as a governing strategy and his misplaced hope that after all the excitement of these last few years the political system will settle down into a nice bipartisan era of good feelings if the Democrats don’t go off the deep end (tell it to Dobson, Limbaugh and Kristol, Joe), I think his piece is actually amazingly right-on in some important respects. He seems to have had an epiphany recently and finally figured out how we got to where we are, if not how to get out of it. Since Klein is a major voice of the insider conventional wisdom, I think we are making progress.

Forget all the silliness he writes about “blognuts” and and his predictable he said/she said rendition of the post Lamont challenges to both parties and get a load of this:

Much was made of Cheney’s venting, and it is a bit too easy, after six years of this bilge, to dwell on the Vice President’s aura and miss the essential felony of the Bush White House—that it has tried to run a war without bipartisan support. Indeed, it has often attempted to use the war for partisan gain. To be sure, there is some grist to the Republican portrayal of Democrats as a bunch of wimpy peaceniks. All too often in the post-Vietnam past—the first Gulf War, for example—the default position of the Democratic Party has been to assume that any prospective use of U.S. military power would be immoral. But Bush’s initial post-9/11 response was not one of those times. The invasion of Afghanistan and an aggressive effort to destroy al-Qaeda were supported by just about every Democratic politician. Many leading Democrats even gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq, although most did so, I suspect, for reasons of political expediency. One of the most convincing arguments offered by the bloggers is that the Democratic establishment should have been far more skeptical than it was about a pre-emptive, nearly unilateral assault on an Islamic country.

In 2004 Bush and Karl Rove managed to flummox the Democrats by conflating the war in Iraq with the war against al-Qaeda and insisting that any Democratic reservations about Iraq were a sign of weakness. This was infuriating. It was Bush’s disastrous decision to go to war—and worse, to go to war with insufficient resources—that transformed Iraq into a terrorist Valhalla. It is Bush’s feckless prosecution of the war that has created the current morass, in which a U.S. military withdrawal could lead to a regional conflagration. Rove may avert another electoral embarrassment this November with the same old demagoguery, but his strategy has betrayed the nation’s best interests. It has destroyed any chance of a unified U.S. response to a crisis overseas. Even the Wall Street Journal’s quasi-wingnut [quasi???? — ed] editorial page cautioned, in the midst of a typical anti-Democratic harrumph, “[No] President can maintain a war for long without any support from the opposition party; sooner or later his own party will begin to crack as well.”

That’s about as harsh an assessment of Bush’s failures as I’ve read anywhere. He has absorbed the message that supporting Iraq was a bad move from the get. He has absorbed the message that the bipartisanship he loves and values was destroyed by the Republicans, not the Democrats. And while he still bemoans the fact that Dems are weak on security, he does so with much less energy than he has in the past and lays the current disaster directly at the feet of the Republicans and their hyper partisan governing style. This is a good sign.

It’s true that he fails to note his own (and others in the political establishment’s) complicity in the terrible decision to back Bush’s Iraq policy. And he blandly repeats the trope about the Democrats going back to the 70’s (but notably fails to conjure the magic “McGovern” word even once.) However, it’s far more important that he has come to recognize, somehow, that the Republicans “wave the bloody shirt of Islamist terrorism as a partisan bludgeon.”

This is a big deal as we go into the 06 and 08 elections. If the punditocrisy and the media chatterers can be encouraged to see this clearly, as Klein has done, we might finally be able to change this national security narrative and take these GOP thugs down.

Furthermore, despite Klein’s desperate attempt to find equivalence, anybody can see that compared to “waving the bloody shirt of Islamist terrorism as a partisan bludgeon,” the “blognuts” rejecting Clintonian triagulation isn’t even in the same league when it comes to extremism. After all, one is exploiting global death and destruction for political gain while the other (even if you think it’s a political mistake) is just routine internecine politics. There simply isn’t any equivalence and it’s quite clear that Joe Klein knows it, even if he isn’t ready to abandon his irrelevant position as a “raging moderate.”

So, I say welcome to the reality based pool, Joe. Go ahead, you can jump all the way in. The water’s fine.

.

Bad Move Rising

by digby

This is unbelievable. Rahm Emmanuel had better be behind the scenes twisting arms so hard he’s given himself carpal tunnel system because his public stance is ridiculous:

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the party’s congressional campaign committee, thought Lieberman’s presence could help Democrats, because the senator “will be talking about raising the minimum wage, energy policy – echoing the Democratic candidates’ message.”

Uhm no. The Senator will be talking about how the Democrats are weak on security and that the party is on the brink of being taken over by uppity negroes and dirty hippies. He made his position quite clear:

“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. It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

and

“I am committed to this campaign, to a different kind of politics, to bringing the Democratic Party back from Ned Lamont, Maxine Waters to the mainstream, and for doing something for the people of Connecticut. That’s what this is all about: which one of us, Lamont or me, can do more for the future of our people here in Connecticut. And on that basis, I’m going forward with confidence, purpose and some real optimism.”

The RNC couldn’t have written a better set of talking points. But they didn’t have to. Lieberman and his cronies have internalized all the anti-liberal propaganda of the last few years and have obviously come to believe it themselves (as have many others of the political class.) He has drawn the lines quite clearly.

Emmanuel’s statement really puzzles me which is why I posited that he must be twisting arms behind the scenes. I kind of get why Shumer might hedge his bets because if Lieberman pulls it out there will be a blow job contest of epic proportions to see with whom Lieberman will caucus. (I’m betting it’s the GOP. They always take their dates out for lobster and Dove bars before they take them home — just ask Margaret Carlson.)But Emmanuel stands to lose the whole enchilada if this message that Lieberman is really a Democrat persists.

Less than an hour after Lieberman announced he’d run as an independent, Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, rushed out a statement praising the senator; Reps. Christopher Shays, R-4th District and Nancy L. Johnson, R-5th District, later followed suit.

All three Republican districts are on every national insider’s list of the 15 to 20 shakiest House seats in the nation. Democrats need a net gain of 16 to win control of the House for the first time since 1992, and polls and pundits see the party as having a good chance.

Connecticut is one of the party’s key targets. Though each of the three Republican incumbents is considered moderate, and routinely opposes GOP leaders on social issues, they all have to defend consistent records of support for President Bush on Iraq and economic issues.

All seemed to be grabbing for Lieberman’s coattails.

Conveying Lieberman as even slightly acceptable is to say that the three endangered Republican congressional representatives’ mushy, useless centrism is acceptable too.

And in the big picture is devastating. Rove is obviously going to try to keep the focus on the Connecticut “Dems in disarray” theme and use poor old Joe as the poster boy for the good old days when Democrats were strong and manly. Every day that Joe stays in the race reinforcing GOP talking points is a good day for Republicans. (It’s an even better day for them when the Democratic establishment goes wobbly because of a little trash talk on national security.)

None of this is the fault of the Democrats of Connecticut who chose to replace Joe Lieberman. It’s the fault of the spoiler who refuses to take no for an answer and is going out of his way to help Karl Rove win in the fall. It is a bad tactic for any Democratic leader to now spit in the faces of Connecticut Democratic voters and imply that their decision doesn’t matter. It will help Republicans in Connecticut and beyond. Even worse, the message will demoralize Democrats nationwide just when they are feeling that they might actually be able to effect some change. If Democratic leaders want to suppress Dem turnout in the fall, going soft of Lieberman is the way to do it.

.

Friends And Allies

by digby

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. George W. Bush, September 20, 2001

U.S. and European officials described Pakistan yesterday as the hub of a plot to down transatlantic flights, saying the young British men allegedly behind the planned attacks drew financial and logistical support from sponsors operating in Karachi and Lahore.

At least 17 suspects in British custody for the aviation plot have family ties to Pakistan, and several had traveled there in recent months to seek instructions and confer with unknown conspirators, intelligence officials said yesterday, discussing several elements of the investigation on the condition of anonymity.

Pakistan’s government, portraying itself as a reliable ally against terrorism, said it had made at least seven arrests connected to the plot but insisted that the conspiracy was centered in neighboring Afghanistan. Two of the men in custody there were British citizens.

[…]

U.S. intelligence analysts say they believe that the principal remaining leadership of al-Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan. Despite increased cooperation between the Islamabad government and Western powers since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, they say, the number of extremists inside the country may be on the rise and elements of Pakistan’s intelligence services remain sympathetic to their cause.

On Friday, the British government portrayed Pakistan’s cooperation as vital in undoing the alleged bombing conspiracy, but some U.S. officials said that five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, they are far from countering, or even understanding, the level of threat emanating from Pakistan’s lawless regions and bustling cities.

[…]

Two intelligence sources suggested that Pakistan had replaced Afghanistan as a center for terrorist activities and expressed frustration with the attempts of Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to exert control over huge swaths of territory.

The senior administration official did not play down the problem but insisted that the situation is better today than it was five years ago. “Prior to 9/11, the whole region was a safe haven,” the official said. “You see attempts from Pakistan to affect this, but it’s still part of a long-term element of our battle against terrorism.” Pakistani officials say the country’s efforts are sincere and pursued at major cost in lives and money.

Ok. let’s be generous here and say that the Pakistani government is doing the best it can. The population is probably the most sympathetic to al Qaeda of anywhere in the world. It’s the epicenter of al Qaeda philosophy. It’s not easy even for a military dictatorship to deal with this and it’s more helpful to have them at least ostensibly on our side than otherwise.

But this makes absolutely no sense at all:

Pakistan is building a new nuclear reactor that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year, a report said.

It said the major expansion of its nuclear program could prompt an intensified arms race in South Asia.

But US officials and congressional aides, who confirmed the Pakistani plan, said it was unlikely to derail a nuclear cooperation accord with India or the sale of US-made F-16 jets to Islamabad.

News of the planned new Pakistani facility was confirmed as the US Congress faced targets for action this week on both an Indian cooperation accord and the F-16s deal.

“We have been aware of these plans, and we discourage any use of that facility for military purposes such as weapons development,” White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters.

He said the administration “discourage(s) expansion and modernisation of nuclear weapons programs, both of India and Pakistan,” nuclear rivals who refused to sign the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

While US officials knew about the reactor project, congressional aides said the US Congress was largely unaware until a report in the Washington Post on Monday citing an analysis of satellite photos and other data by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.

The analysis concluded Pakistan was building a second larger heavy water reactor at its Khushab complex that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year.

Construction apparently began sometime after March 2000.

But the analysis said Pakistan did not appear to be hastening completion, possibly due to shortages of reactor components or weapons production infrastructure.

The administration preferred to keep the project quiet because public disclosure “probably will aggravate concerns in India” as well as on Capitol Hill, one US official said.

Are you feeling safer?

And then there was the inexplicable decision to allow acknowledged nuclear proliferator AQ Khan to skate with a televised apology. This from an administration that continues to make a fetish of ensuring that nuclear weapons do not find their ways in to the hands of terrorists or nations hostile to the US.

So, last week we have what appears to be a rather elaborate but low tech terrorist plot unravelled that shows that terrorists are still operating out of Pakistan. Pakistan is also ramping up its nuclear operations with the knowledge of the administration, which kept that knowledge from the US congress until a couple of weeks ago.

Why is this not considered a problem by anyone in Washington? Do they honestly believe that this combination of al Qaeda, nuclear weapons and a tenuous military dictatorship whose intelligence services are sympathetic to bin Laden is not worth worrying about —- while we obsess over Iraq and Iran?

Apparently. It’s one of those issues that has confounded me from the beginning. Al Qaeda style Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is a real threat. Their methods are designed for maximum effect and are almost guaranteed, if successful, to create a disproportionate and inchoate response. And yet the country that is the hive of such terrorism (with a government police force that is reputed to be sympathetic to it) is considered to be an ally on the par of Great Britain — which is a target just like the US. It makes no sense and it’s one of the primary reasons that we can be sure that the neocons are no more serious about terrorism than they have ever been.

Repeat after me — these people do not really care about terrorism. They never have. If you read their manifestos from before 9/11, terrorism is a footnote. They ignored Richard Clark and the CIA when they took office. Bush told his briefer on August 6th 2001 “ok, you’ve covered your ass” when he was told “bin Laden determined to strike in the US.” They think that terrorism is only threatening as part of an official nation state apparatus. They are completely rigid in their thinking, refusing to consider new evidence, even decades after they’ve been proven wrong.

And not only do they not see terrorism as a real threat, their own obsessions with toppling middle eastern states virtually guarantees that terrorism will continue to rise. Their unearned reputation for competence in this area is another case of Republican upisdownism in full effect.

.

The Fall Line

by digby

NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

Waiting normally wouldn’t have been a problem, but because of the Connecticut primary they had to roll out their new product in August this year.

Update: The plot thickens

.