« GOP Domestic Spying and "Trepidation" | Main | How Many Terrorists Does One F-16 Get You? »

August 11, 2006

Comments

A Republican businessman is a sensible American, but a Democratic businessman is a rabid moonbat? Seems to me you don't get much more bipartisan than having people like Ned Lamont as stand-up members of the Democratic party.

A Republican businessman is a sensible American, but a Democratic businessman is a rabid moonbat? Seems to me you don't get much more bipartisan than having people like Ned Lamont as stand-up members of the Democratic party.

Digby has an interesting take on yesterday's foiled terrorsit plot in England. Basically, the President and others knew in advance of the upcoming arrests and hurridly called pressers to call the Dems weak before this broke.

Appearently, HoJo was in the loop too.

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'...

Oddly enough, the Bush Administration has a cozy relationship with Pakistan, just as the Brits do - even though Pakistan is arguably the most dangerous country in the world. It already has nuclear weapons, and its intelligence agency (the same one that cooperated in exposing the liquid-bomb plot) has close ties to the Taliban and Osama.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't work with Pakistan, but it does raise the odd problem - which Kaplan only touches on - of why it's okay to deal with Pakistan but not with Syria.

I suspect that the answer goes back to the Cold War era. Pakistan lined up with us during the Cold War (mainly because India was loudly neutralist and vaguely friendly with the USSR). Whereas Syria - and, notably, Iraq - backed the wrong horse, aligning with the Soviets.

This in turn may explain some things about Bush policy that are otherwise utterly incomprehensible. The neocons were zealous, almost fanatical Cold Warriors. They came to hate the CIA, because the CIA assessed that the Soviet Union was not 10 feet tall, but a gradually declining society governed by old and very cautious bureaucrats.

The end of the Cold War left the neocons adrift in a world without a focus of evil - so thank God for Islamist fundamentalism. They're the ones who introduced the silly term "Islamofascism," defining the new threat in comfortably mid-20th-century terms. (It also reflects the ultimate roots of many neocons in the hard left.)

Thus the neocons' obsession with "state sponsors" of terrorism, and specifically with Saddam and Iraq. In their world view our real problem couldn't possibly be a Saudi billioniare's kid gone bad. States had to be behind it - specifically states that had once been associated with the USSR. If the CIA couldn't find any link between Saddam and 9/11, it just showed that the fancy-pants CIA types weren't looking deep enough.

It all holds together, in a demented sort of way ...

Yesterday I opened up my local newspaper to see Cal Thomas blaring a headline about the Taliban Democrats and how they issued a fatwah against Lieberman. I'm not making this up. I sure hope this nonsense is making other people as disgusted as it is me.

From Suskind, via Digby:

[CIA] analysts still puzzled over exactly why bin-Laden wanted Bush to stay in office.

This is a no-brainer. If your enemy is a fool, wouldn't you want to keep him in place, and not have to fight someone who might respond intelligently?

Seems to me that the majority of Connecticut voters who cast their ballots for Lamont are not going to take too kindly to the descriptions of their personalities and ideologies that the right-wing is trying to smear them with.
The polls in CT were not overrun with wild-eyed, rabid, fringe lunatics. Like every polling place in the USA, it becomes a friendly meeting and greeting place for people to touch base with others in their district. There's a lot of chatting, not arguing, going on in the parking lot. Only the people who find out too late that they are ineligible to vote are unhappy and angry. Many people came back into town from their cottages at the CT shoreline to vote. We all greet our neighbors, who we haven't seen for a few weeks, with open arms. Oh by the way, the Republicans had a primary in CT too. A two-way race for a challenge to Rep.John Larson's seat. So this was kissy-fest with our Republican neighbors too!
BTW-many of us CtDems believe that the tipping point for Lamont was due to the high re-registration of 30,000 unaffiliates who switched to the Democratic ticket for this primary. If so, this trend would not bode well for Lieberman in November - they are a large voting bloc here.

That Digby post is appalling. Cheney holds a rare conference call with reporters to denounce Dems as soft on terrorism just before he knows London will announce arrest of the suspected plotters?

What Suskind says at the end of the book after the passage Digby discusses is,

Yet there were some who had already arrived at this shoreline [what did it say about US policies that bin Laden would want Bush reelected] among those at the very top of the government. While CIA glimpsed at the issue of bin Laden's motivations and turned away, there were those who understood just how acutely this global dialogue--of ideas and message and the preservation of power, of us and them--was a mirror game, a two-way street. On that score, any number of NSC principles could tell you something so dizzying that not even they will touch it: that Bush's ratings track with bin Laden's ratings in the Arab world.
So what does that say as Bush's ratings languish in the high 30's? Bin Laden (if indeed he is even involved directly, as opposed to being an inspiration to these plotters) must be trying to boost his status too. None of this bodes well. Desperate people do desperate things.

Did anyone notice that late last week the Washington Post released a poll that included questions regarding which party was best prepared to deal with Terrorism. For the first time, the Democrats came out ahead on this frequently asked question, and by a spread of about eight points.

I suspect Republican Internal Polls may be telling the WH and the RNC about the same thing -- they have recently lost on this dimension of opinion, and it always was their great shining strong point.

I'd be interested in the deeper internals of this change -- what events, what well broadcast information has, over time, conditioned this shift?

Anyhow -- I think lots of the posturing the Pundits and Cheney are putting on in recent days is about trying to reverse this trend. If it continues it will be disaster for them.

Did anyone notice that late last week the Washington Post released a poll that included questions regarding which party was best prepared to deal with Terrorism. For the first time, the Democrats came out ahead on this frequently asked question, and by a spread of about eight points.

I suspect Republican Internal Polls may be telling the WH and the RNC about the same thing -- they have recently lost on this dimension of opinion, and it always was their great shining strong point.

I'd be interested in the deeper internals of this change -- what events, what well broadcast information has, over time, conditioned this shift?

Anyhow -- I think lots of the posturing the Pundits and Cheney are putting on in recent days is about trying to reverse this trend. If it continues it will be disaster for them.

unless george is gonna claim that this plot was cooked up in 48 hours, Ned Lamont had NOTHING to do with it

fact is, george bush allowed another plot to kill Americans to rise to fruition

this proves that george ISN'T making us any safer

5 years later, Al Queda is STILL out there plotting to kill Americans

who we elect in November will have NO EFFECT on the plots already in existence

this is a backlash against george bush's policies, and a direct indicator that if we do not stop george bush we WILL BE ATTACKED AGAIN

Mimikatz,

Bin Laden has been overshadowed by Hezballah's recent ride up the charts. Let's remember too that Heballah is Shia while al Qaeda is that most virulent of Sunni, Wahhabi. So, we're really in a pickle between the Republicans trying anything to stay in power and al Qaeda's attempts to put another hit on the disaffected Muslim dance top 10...

Thanks, Bushie. Heckuva job.

The Taliban and Al-Queda are the same people.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad