Hey, I'm out of town, and barely able to get Internet Access. Sorry for the interruption of your regularly scheduled rants. Be back online more next week. Will publish when able.

Be kind to each other.

Here I was getting ready to give McCain the benefit of the doubt for his role in standing up to Bunnypants on the torture bill. Eehh, not so fast. He's apparently rolled everyone, and is now "agreeing on a compromise" to allow Beloved Leader get most of what he wants.

It's 2002 redux. Democrats through their spinelessness have now painted themselves into a corner by hoping McCain was going to actually stand up to Preznit Waterboard'n'Shackles. All that remains is for the Democrats to stand up to the Torture-Happy Republicans now and they're gonna get a full load of double-ought Max Cleland-ing right up the ass.

This is starting to look like a Rove Operation, his fingerprints are all over this, from "handling" McCain's "insurrection" to Bunnypant's "belligerance". It seems like a classic Rove Roll.

Buh-bye Democrats, nice job snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the 2006 mid-term election cycle...

Yo! Congress. You of the eternally-inked rubber stamps... how do you like being played for fools and losers again?

Rep. Heather Wilson (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., offered to substitute her original bill on giving legal status to Bush's domestic surveillance program with a bill that would grant a key administration request: allow wiretapping on Americans in the event of an "imminent" terrorist attack.

In exchange, the administration would be required to share with Congress more details of the nature of the threat, presumably with the House and Senate Intelligence committees and some congressional leaders.

Because when you've pissed on the Constitution once, it's easy for it to become a way of life when you're a republican.

Ah, yes, Autumn is here and the smell of cordite is in the air in Old Baghdad; 'tis the season for detention, and the defense by Beloved Leader and his minions of capture and detention without end, even as they wax philosophic over the sweetness of exported Democracy to the heathen, who remarkably managed to have not only self-governing civilizations while the NeoCon WASP progenitors were still at the "fire good, winter bad" stage of their social and cultural development, but were pioneering international trade, social justice, and mathematics as civilizing skills to build communities and empires on.

The
Pentagon defended its monthslong detention of an Associated Press photographer in Iraq, asserting that it has authority to imprison him indefinitely without charges because it believes he had improper ties to insurgents.
...
"All indications that I have received are that Hussein's detainment indicates that he has strong ties with known insurgents and that he was doing things, involved in activities, that were well outside the scope of what you would expect a journalist to be doing," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. He refused to provide any details.

Seriously.

Whitman said that Hussein's case has been reviewed three times by U.S. and Iraqi detention authorities. But the AP had only been told of one review, and that had taken place without any representation from Hussein or his representatives, Tomlin said.

Orwell is so proud. Jefferson is so spinning in his grave.

I don't have the transcript, but while I was at lunch today there was a TV playing with Faux News. Shepard Smith was interviewing John Bolton concerning Iraq, and Bolton's rationale for the New Improved NeoCon logic for invading Iran was this: 'they have massive oil reserves, they have no need for nuclear power, ergo all their nuclear development is directed towards making weapons. Any other explanation does not hold water.'

Now that's not an exact quote (I am not a stenographer), but it's the gist of what he was saying to Smith. Right before Bolton, some other guy was on, and either he or Smith was saying "we don't negotiate with terrorists", with reference to Iran. As if.

I was looking up some information, and came across this old "Newshour" transcript of Jim Lehrer interviewing Bunnypants, the Candidate. It's very, very instructive. (bolded italicized material is my emphasis)

Isolating our enemies

JIM LEHRER: On a more general issue, Governor, the case in both Iraq and Kosovo or Yugoslavia, the sins that we moved against militarily and which you supported -- you say you support - I assume you support what your father did in the Gulf War. I didn't ask you about that.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I did.

JIM LEHRER: Right. And then what the Clinton administration did as a follow-up against Iraq.

George W. Bush: No, I don't support what the Clinton administration did as a follow-up. What the Clinton administration did as a follow-up is they -- is they allowed the inspection regime to wither. I think we need to have inspectors back into Iraq, and I think we need to make it clear to Saddam Hussein we want them back into -- we need to make it clear to our allies we expect the inspectors back in to make sure he's not developing weapons of mass destruction.

JIM LEHRER: OK. Well, then my question was a more general question -- that we had both Iraq with Saddam Hussein and Yugoslavia with Milosevic; they're the ones who committed the sins that caused us to move militarily, and they're not only alive and well -- many innocent people died -- they're not only alive and well, they're still in charge. What -- is there a realistic way to deal with that kind of thing when you have an evil person in charge and causing these things to happen?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, I think the most realistic ways to keep them isolated in the world of public opinion and to work with our alliance is to keep them isolated. I'm just as frustrated as many Americans are that Saddam Hussein still lives. I think we ought to keep the pressure on him. I will tell you this: If we catch him developing weapons of mass destruction in any way, shape or form, I'll deal with that in a way that he won't like.

Jim Lehrer: Like what, bomb him?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, it could be one option. He just needs to know that he'll be dealt with in a firm way.

JIM LEHRER: But you don't think that there's any way in our democratic society that we can move against individual leaders?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Do you mean to go assassinate him?

JIM LEHRER: Well, any way.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Actually, it's against the law, as I understand, for an American president to order the assassination of any world leader. I am -- I think that's right -- if I'm not mistaken, Jim, and yeah, I mean, obviously we need to keep the pressure on these men. At some point in time the forces of good will take -- will handle Saddam Hussein; I'm confident of that. But we've just got to keep the pressure on him.

JIM LEHRER: And just live with the frustration that that's what happens in our kind of society.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, that may be true, but keep the frustration down to a minimum by doing what we say we're going to do and when we do something make sure he understands loud and clear we mean it.

Pretty clearly the messianic "forces of good" thing was at play with Preznit Dimestore Jesus, it's just amazing that so many normally sharp people like Jim Lehrer chose to utterly ignore it to either keep his access via Rove and Bartlett or was just plain oblivious.

Back during my misspent youth in Naval Aviation, the A-6 guys (and I don't know why it was them) always said, "It's better to get even than mad". John McCain was a light-attack bubba, having been a Spad/A-4 and A-7 driver, so maybe he just spent enough time in the Ready Room Bar in Cubi listening to the Grumman Ironworks Drivers pontificate on interpersonal strategery, who knows. But you know, this sure is starting to look suspiciously like Payback, and in a good cause if it is.

Congressional Republicans had carefully orchestrated the finale of the legislative year to be a showdown with Democrats over which party is best equipped to keep the country safe, a handpicked fight on traditional Republican turf.

But the high-stakes standoff between President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) over military tribunals could ruin that legislative strategy, political analysts and strategists say. Instead of fighting Democrats, Republicans find themselves in the middle of an intraparty struggle between an embattled president and two of the most respected figures in their party, McCain and his ally on the issue, former secretary of state Colin L. Powell.

McCain has been playing the game with Bunnypants for the last couple of years, and is now in a perfect position to throw up more than a little AAA into Rove's election-year alpha strike with his stand on the Amendments that Deserter Boy and his courtiers want to make to the Geneva Conventions. After all, he lived with the protections of Article III, in so far as the North Vietnamese afforded US POW's any consideration under the Geneva Convention during Vietnam. I honestly don't see McCain turning his back on other servicemen and women now and into the future to help make Bunnypants look "Tough on Terra™"

Because in the end, there was always South Carolina. And I have to wonder if this become a case of "getting even" when it comes right down to it. It's free, no one is ever going to blame McCain (except Rove and perhaps a few shrieking Chickenhawk wingnuts) for this stand. He earns the gratitude of virtually every senior officer in DoD who understands the gravity and repercussions of the changes to the Article III "interpretation", and most importantly he sets himself up as "independant" of Beloved Leader on an issue that really counts to him personally, which gives him HUUUGE "character" points among the "McCainiacs" who have been disillusioned with is performance and sycophancy to the 1600 Crew over the past three and a half years.

So, South Carolina? Yeah, it makes sense to me. Your thoughts?

Payback is a bitch, isn't it?

To why you can call it Mess O'Potamia.

Un-be-fucking-lievable.

Like everyone else I had heard the stories of Heritage Foundation interns being hired and sent off to Baghdad. But the depth and breadth of this is staggering. Not only were the State Department and other agencies seemingly shut out of the process, the Pentagon was intent on hiring idealogues with ideas better suited to FantasyLand than a war-torn country.

Un-be-fucking-lievable.

OMG. Krauthammer is off his meds, in a big way. Check this out:

"...An aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lies just beyond the horizon of diplomacy. ..."

...The Arabs are terrified about the rise of a nuclear Iran and would privately rejoice in its defanging.
...
The Europeans will be less hypocritical because their visceral anti-Americanism trumps rational calculation.

Krauthammer needs to get a grip on reality and put away his copy of whatever trashy novel he's reading where the steely-eyed misslemen bomb a country into submission with a few "well-chosen" airstrikes. Ain't gonna happen. The only way to effectively project air power and make its impact be felt longer than a few weeks is to follow up with ground forces, and in the case of Iran, that's not going to happen, without a draft and the lead time to train the forces.

If he needs an example of the spectacular failure of such air strikes looking at the recent Israeli bombing campaign in Lebanon might be an instructive first lesson for him. I don't think that there was any long-term strategic advantage or even a short-term tactical advantage granted to the Israeli forces by their bombing campaign, or did I miss something?

Additionally, I have to wonder how good our intel is on the Irani air defense network. Stealth bombers are all Tom Swift neato cool, but the journeymans work is done by highly visible fast-movers that can loiter on target and deliver ordinance. They also tend to be the most vulnerable to SAM's and whatever modern-day AAA Tehran owns, or probably even the old ZSU-23/4, which I am sure the Irani's have stockpiled somewhere.

Yeah, once again it's all a big Risk board for the armchair pundits like Krauthammer who see the need to speak ignorantly and carry a bigger stupid stick to hit themselves over the head with, just to prove they're as stupid yesterday as they will be tomorrow.

I think that the doctor has just flunked calculus. However, he does get bonus points for inserting this into the current republican "All Fear, All the Time" narrative.

Our old buddy Bob Ney is apparently going to plead guilty to some sort of yet-to-be disclosed federal charges (Yay!).

Representative Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio, has agreed to plead guilty to federal criminal charges related to his dealings with the corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff, lawyers and others with knowledge of the investigation said Thursday.

A guilty plea would make Mr. Ney, a six-term congressman, the first member of Congress to admit to criminal charges in the Abramoff investigation, which has focused on the actions of several current and former Republican lawmakers who had been close to the former lobbyist.

As that weird guy says...Developing!!!

Color me a bit surprised. I thought that Colin was a company man through and through, from his ardent defense of the 1600 Crew lies at the UN to his deafening silence during the run-up to the rest of the Mess O'Potamian follies. I guess he's either had enough, or realized that sooner or later he's gonna have to grow a beard because he won't be able to look at himself in the mirror to shave.

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell, a retired general who is also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a letter.
...
Powell said that Bush's bill, by redefining the kind of treatment the Geneva Conventions allow, "would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

I guess he's off the Christmas card list now...

Firing back, White House spokesman Tony Snow said Powell was confused about the White House plan. Later, Snow said he probably shouldn’t have used that word.

"I know that Colin Powell wants to beat the terrorists too," he said.

Countering Powell's letter, the administration produced one from the current secretary of state to Warner. In it, Condoleezza Rice wrote that narrowing the standards for detainee treatment as Bush has proposed "would add meaningful definition and clarification to vague terms in the treaties."

I'm guessing that when a POW who is captured and is being mistreated they can always cite Condi's expertise to their captors, as they argue over the "vagaries" of detainee treatment. Then their captors would do exactly what Condi and her Office Husband advocate: torture the shit out of that American POW, because we do it too; all the while Condi would be shopping for those new Designer Shoes and collecting her checks for speaking fees and piano recitals. While her OH clears brush and acts the fool.

Oh, and General Powell, sir, I think the world was "...beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," the day the first bombs dropped on Baghdad. Just sayin' ... you've just been in the tank too long to know it.

This popped up in comments concerning the VoteVet ad below:

I really liked the ad and was planning on forwarding it to a few people but I wanted to learn more about Vote# 116, 108th Congress, 1st Session before I did. I looked it up here:

...and noticed that Allen voted "Yea" on it.

Umm...can you explain to me how he voted against it?

Clear as mud? I think I have the correct interpretation, if I'm wrong, I know you'll let me know ;)

Kos is right, Democratic candidates have to get away from the old factual presentations concerning their opponents. Well, this year (again) Karl Rove is running the Fear Smear against our party and our Candidates.

Maybe it's time to take back the dialog. When candidates close their commercials with "I'm so and so, and I approved this ad", perhaps they should stick something like this in every ad, radio, TV and print right at the end:

"Join me by voting against the message of fear from my opponent, he's more scared of losing his job than protecting you. Together we can work toward a safer future for [district] and our country by saying "No" to the republican politics of Fear, in November and for the new millenium".

Okay, it's wordy. But that's the idea. I know that some literary genius could distill that down to like seven words that say the same thing, and convey the message. How do we make that suggestion to the zillion dollar consultants or A-list bloggers who have their ears? if you like it, flog it...just a thought...

Seriously, the republicans whole campaign is to resurrect the fear factor. The republicans are able to scare Americans with visions of evil brown people more effectively than Ridley Scott with an actor in an Alien Suit. Surely "bringing it" straight on to the republicans can't hurt. It seems that sitting back and getting our asses handed to us time after time isn't working so well...just an observation.

Just Awesome.

How many other republican senators beside Felix Macaca Allen could get tagged with this Ad too?

Surely with the paucity of support that Beloved Leader seems to be getting from his minions as they run from him like lemmings heading to the sea as the mid-terms approach, we can find at least one or two Democrats whose Senate seats are not in danger this year to do the right thing (doing the right thing seems to be, in most cases, contingent on not having electoral issues, sad but true) and prepare to filibuster any changes to the War Crimes Act, which is being rewritten to become the Bush Administration Protection and No-Accountability Act of 2006.

Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten appealed to Senate Republicans during their weekly policy lunch to pass legislation that would let Bush begin prosecuting terror suspects. The legislation also would limit the circumstances under which a government interrogator could be prosecuted for mistreating a detainee.
...
The administration would forbid what critics call a bare bones list of violations -- such as torture, murder and rape -- under the 1996 War Crimes Act that potentially leaves open the door for harsher interrogation methods. Warner, Graham and McCain are pushing more precise definitions, as well as a ban on coerced testimony, to ensure tough interrogations do not lead to abuse or violate the Geneva Conventions.

These definitions of war crimes have "shown to be the toughest part" of negotiations with the White House because it must be done "in a way that would adhere to your values but would not put your troops at risk for trivial violations," Graham said.

For the wingnut contingent who have never held a Geneva Convention Card or know what the categories of prisoners are, well fuck off if you somehow think this makes us all "weak on Terra™" it has nothing to do with coddling terrorists (although I'm sure that the Chickenhawks will try and make that argument). For those who understand the Geneva Convention and what the War Crimes Act means, it's a powerful incentive for a foreign power to refrain from mistreating our soldiers who find themselves as POW's. It gives us the moral and statutory authority to ensure that prisoners are treated well, so our troops will be too.

Bottom Line: The War Crimes Act is sort of an ultimate expression of "We Support Our Troops", something that unfortunately, republicans are not very good at in this day and age.

They are very good at covering their own asses:

Noting that the statute "prohibits the commission of a 'war crime' by or against a US person, including US officials," he warned that "it is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges." The President's determination that the Geneva Conventions did not apply "would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution."

Unfortunately for top Bush officials, that "solid defense" was demolished this summer when the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruled that the Geneva Conventions were indeed the law of the land.

Markey adds, "Every American citizen should call the White House and their members of Congress because these changes being made in the dead of night could be the green light for other countries that capture American troops to treat them cruelly or torture them."

A filibuster needs to be discussed, and now. If this bill reaches the senate floor, it's gonna pass and be signed so fast it'll make the Terry Schiavo bill look like the worlds slowest piece of awful legislation. There's nothing that the entire 1600 Crew wants more than absolution for their deeds, and destroying the War Crimes Act gives them that, in spades.

Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry, two fine gentlemen who have less time on military bases than most recruits have taking a shit in the head offer up their solution to winning in Iraq. If there is such a thing.

More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment.

Certainly none of Kristol or Lowry's relatives will be among the increased numbers of troops, should escalation become a reality. Neither will any with the surnames Frist, Bush, Delay, Hastert, Santorum or legions of other war-mongering republicans/Neo-Cons.

Oh, and by the way, what I don't see mentioned in the article is where the additional troops are going to come from? Are they saying folks should go back for yet another desert sojourn because the Battle Twins are convinced that one more division will turn the tide?

Yeah, that'll play well in Peoria.

I love how they close their thesis:

Sending them would be a courageous act of presidential leadership appropriate to the crisis we face.

I've said it before.

We survived several decades of having thousands of thermonuclear-tipped missiles and bombers loaded with multi-megaton bombs pointed at every city in America. The Soviets could have killed us all at least ten times over, we'd have been so dead, they'd have had to dig up our ancestors and incinerated them twice more to make all that destruction meaningful.

But now, thanks to the fear-mongering, morally-bankrupt republicans we're afraid of brown people with water bottles at airports.

Post 9/11 Bedwetting America. Courtesy of the New American Century.

Every time I see another article about the mess in Afghanistan it just reminds me how utterly incompetant the 1600 Crew are. As if I really needed reminding after Mess O'Potamia, illegal spying on us, Katrina ... and the list goes on. Apparently, the NATO commander in-country is asking for more troops to help ... defend against The TALIBAN. Remember them? The guys about whom Beloved Leader did a Texas Two-Step about "beating" before he went on to Mess O'Potamia?

NATO commander Gen. James L. Jones said Thursday that the military alliance needs as many as 2,500 more soldiers and additional aircraft for its sweeps in southern Afghanistan, acknowledging that officers were surprised by the force of the fight being mounted there by the resurgent Taliban militia.

Jones said in Brussels that NATO was facing a "difficult period" on the battlefield but would prevail even at its present strength. But more troops for the alliance commander would be "a cushion . . . some insurance, if you will, that he has more than enough force to do the job."

Jones declined to say which member countries he felt should provide more forces. Canadian Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor said in response to the remarks that his country had met its commitments, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported.

German Defense Ministry officials played down suggestions that German troops stationed in the country's north would redeploy to the south, the Reuters news agency reported.

Jones said that NATO knew it was stirring up a "hornet's nest" when it took to the field in the south, but that the "tenacity of resistance" was more than expected. The militiamen were standing and fighting rather than employing their usual hit-and-run tactics, he said.

But he said that "the ultimate solution in Afghanistan is not a military solution." It will depend instead on "the cohesion and the consistent support of the international aid structure."

So, we're now seeing the price that we're going to pay in Afghanistan for taking our eyes off the ball (again) by not first, living up to the promises we made to the Afghani people after rousting the Taliban and Osama, and secondly diverting military resources from Afghanistan while there was still one strategic objective left undone: the capture and or termination of all of the top leadership of Al-Qaeda in a very public manner.

With the 1600 Crew in charge, nothing surprises me anymore, but much saddens me. And the utter failure of the policy in Afghanistan is one of those things that makes me despair of how we'll ever be a respected world leader again as a nation.

I guess taking back Congress this autumn and then the presidency in 2008 is a start. But it's going to be long road back. Just look at the mess in Afghanistan if you need a reminder.

Having been a recruiter, this leaves me a bit cold.

Bill Schulz flipped through a list of Army careers, carefully watching the reaction of Tim Mathis, the 19-year-old construction worker perched next to him. When the potential recruit shrugged in disinterest, Schulz quickly moved to the next job, pointing to those that had the highest signing bonuses or might generate the kind of experience future employers will value.
...
To Serco and MPRI Inc., it is good business. The two Virginia-based firms have more than 400 recruiters assigned across the country, and have signed up more than 15,000 soldiers. They are paid about $5,700 per recruit.

The companies have tried to apply business savvy to the work. They cut the military's typical seven-week training program for new recruiters to three weeks. And MPRI is using about 20 percent fewer people in the average recruiting station to get the same amount of work done, according to program manager Don Tarter.

The one thing about recruiters was they got the same deal everyone else did (for the most part, we won't go into the infamous "Freeman Plan" and how fucked up that turned out to be in some cases). A recruit might run into his/her recruiter someday as a fellow soldier/sailor, whatever and talk about their experiences good, bad, indifferent.

These contractors that the Army is using are all ex-Military and have certainly "been there and done that", but I doubt when they were on Active Duty many of them sought out recruiting duty as a "first choice". Also, the disparity in pay certainly has to make the active duty men and women assigned to recruiting duty now, wonder what the deal is with the whole program, if not look forward to getting out and making some truly significant cash doing what they do now for what is basically minimum wage (in the 24/7/365 world of the military).

It's gonna be interesting to watch this.

OMG.

Attaturk.

Do not drink anything while reading.

Enjoy. Nominate for a Koufax.

He he. I know, it's always wrong to spark an Apple-PC flame war. But this is just too good. After reading all the press about how Microsoft would not have an OS out for the holiday shopping season, thus helping to spark new computer sales (it's hoped), they release the release timeframe for "Vista".

Microsoft Corp. said Tuesday its Windows Vista operating system will cost the same as comparable editions of Windows XP, the current system.

The company priced the consumer edition of the new operating system, Windows Vista Home Basic, at $199. For consumers already running Windows XP, upgrades will cost $99.95.

But Microsoft hopes most consumers will opt to spend $239 for Windows Vista Home Premium, which offers entertainment capabilities such as the ability to record live television and connect to Microsoft's Xbox 360 game console.

Windows Vista Business, geared toward use at work, will cost $299; the company set the price for upgrades at $199.

Of course with the release will come that excellent, stellar tech support from Microsoft, which goes something like this: "Please call your PC manufacturer for help"...press one to kiss Bill's ass, two to kiss Steve's.

Or, if you have an issue with OS X, you can make a reservation at one of the growing number of "Genius Bars" at an Apple store, and get help from a real person. For free. Now that's a vista I like to see, as someone who uses both OS's and has for years.

In Virginia, how "Macaca" Allen and Jim Webb spent their Labor Day.

U.S. Sen. George Allen (R), who is fighting to keep his seat for six more years, rode down Magnolia Avenue on a horse named Bubba, wearing a cowboy hat and western boots as he waved to thousands of people who lined up for the annual Labor Day festivities.

His Democratic opponent, former Navy secretary James Webb, skipped the event to spend time with his son, Jimmy, a Marine lance corporal who is to deploy to Iraq this week.

Quite a comparison. Quite a contrast. Don't you think?

Preznit No Water Bottles:

The Bush administration proclaimed significant progress in the war on terror Tuesday but said the enemy has adjusted to U.S. defenses and that "America is safer but we are not yet safe."

The whole scenario of the British "bombers" who were caught allegedly plotting to blow up flights from the UK to the US has exponentially increased the fear factor for Americans who see mean brown people behind every bush (punny? I make'em, you decide). The August 10th incident which has led to the ludicrous banning of every liquid imaginable on US flights, when absolutely no evidence has shown that there was a plot to do anything at all here is such an incredible politicization of the event that it's just sad that people are buying into it.

The explosives that the shmucks in Britain were trying to allegedly make were apparently binary explosives whose formulation, while not overly complex would not have been exactly simple to create on an aircraft in flight. Besides needing all the right chemicals like among other things quantities of sulfuric acid and a lot of ice to control the temperature of the reaction, the smell apparently and the time required to formulate the explosives would have been dead giveaways that something was up in the lavatory on the plane. Unfortunately, the public's reference for binary explosives is probably "Die Hard with a Vengence", without a rational explanation of the difficulty of actually formulating an effective compound in sufficient quantity in a uncontrolled environment. Even in the movie, the binary components were already formulated and ready to go; there was no "back-story" on how they got there.

Even the dumbest fucking air marshal in the TSA might figure out that there was a problem when he saw a passenger going into the lav with heavy duty rubber gloves, an apron, several flasks and a cooler of ice. Really.

But listen to the voice of the adminstrator of the most useless government agency on the planet as he continues to beat the "all fear, all the time" drums:

Three weeks later, the nation's top aviation security official said the threat remains. "This continues to be a very serious threat and we are taking no chances on the security of our aviation system," said Edmund S. "Kip" Hawley, head of the Transportation Security Administration. "It would be a mistake to conclude that because of the arrests in the United Kingdom that we can lower our security posture."

The absolute paranoia that the 1600 Crew has induced has lead to a spate of incidents, none of which have proven to be any more related to terrorism than the man in the moon.

In the days after the TSA increased security, more than 10 flights were diverted or searched, and at least one airport was shut down. On Aug. 16, a flight from London to Washington Dulles International Airport made an emergency landing in Boston because an unruly passenger acted up in the cabin. The woman made references to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, told crew members that she had visited Pakistan and urinated on the cabin's floor, according to an FBI affidavit. The woman, who is under evaluation for mental illness, is being held on federal charges of interfering with a flight crew. She had no connection to terrorism, officials have said.

More security incidents followed. A Delta Air Lines jet was searched after a flight attendant became suspicious of a passenger who spent too much time in the restroom and may have tampered with a smoke detector. An American Airlines jet made an emergency landing in Tampa and was searched after the crew found that both lavatories were locked.

An airport in West Virginia was evacuated after a woman's glass water bottle and a container of face cleanser tested positive for explosive residue. The FBI later determined that the woman had no explosives.

The next week, a Northwest Airlines flight returned to Amsterdam shortly after takeoff when a U.S. air marshal became suspicious of 12 passengers who passed around cellphones and ignored orders to keep their seat belts on. The 12 were detained but released by Dutch authorities, who also said there was no connection to terrorism.

There have been other incidents of people being denied boarding because of things written in Arabic on their clothing, or their speech or appearance. Instead of going on with our lives, we are allowing the very idea of the possibility of terrorism to control our lives and our destinies. Wouldn't that mean that the bumbling, fumbling terrorists have won the day, and that we have become what they expect us to be, weak, scared people who crave the surety of Big Brother in the Nanny State at all costs.

Even and most especially our self-respect.

"We've educated the public to be afraid of things," said Bob Hesselbein, an airline pilot and chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association's national security committee. "Let's hope they never find a way to weave explosives into clothing because it's going to be pretty darned embarrassing on an airplane.. . . We are treating everybody as a potential terrorist, and that breeds more fear."

As the Church-lady would say: "How conveeeninent".

George F. Will, male chauvanist pundit? It's hard to believe, well not really that Will wrote about Claire McCaskill, running for Senate from Missouri. Will who often seems to write things like this about Al Gore:

Nevertheless, the likelihood that Gore will seek the presidency is suggested not only by the logic of what he says but also by what he does not say. Given how clear and present he says the danger is, he should be more specific and radical regarding the economic, indeed civilizational, changes he considers necessary.

So when will writes this about Claire McCaskill, it rings as hollow as a Ronald Reagan cowboy in a "B"-western.

McCaskill is imprudently forthright.

So it's better, in the opinion of Will to hide her views, be less than forthright, and most of all not have female genitalia while trying to fill a "mans job". That way he can continue to write his own unserious stuff in the Washington Post and make his appearances on PunditHead Programming where he can rail against the "unserious" Democrats who have no ideas, agendas, plans or reason for existance as a party.

"Mission Accomplished" for George Will is when he can beat up on a Democrat. No wonder the Post pays him.

1. Out of town
   
2. Rolled
   
3. Riiiight
   
4. Spreading Freedom, Democracy, Love and Understanding 101
   
5. More NeoCon Bullshit
   
6. Interesting stuff
   
7. Payback?
   
8. The Longer Answer
   
9. Krauthammer goes Whack
   
10. Ney to dance with Justice...