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 yieled these kind of results, then what's the point of having a free press at all?
US pushed Brits to act faster -- attack "not imminent": Surprise, surprise. According to NBC, the plan wasn't as "imminent" as first reported. It's obvious that Team Bush is using this recent plot for their political agenda. They are not beyond forsaking national security for partisan politics -- something that reporters who cover Bush know is true since they've played a role in that.
Is England the next "central front in the war on terror"?: The Washington Post takes an in-depth look at what's going on in Tony Blair's country. The answer is that Britain has become an incubator for violent Islamic extremism, fueled by disenchantment at home and growing rage about events abroad, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. [LSB: So when does the U.S. invasion of Britain begin?]
After September 11, we did get hit again: It was called Anthrax. And Bush still hasn't caught the killer. So next time Bush/Cheney claim we haven't been hit again, ask them what happened to the Anthrax killer. Then ask them where Osama is.
Religious right wants activist judges to help it cheat in marriage debate: I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. They don't like the rules the state legislature established so they want a federal court to overturn it. Nice. Every bigot loves a fascist.
Don't forget: Bush stayed on vacation in August 2001: The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing warned Bush that "Bin Ladin (sic) was determined to attack in the U.S." Bush stayed on vacation. Just like he did during Katrina. Just like he did this week. 36 days after Bush got the warning, Bin Laden did attack in the U.S. [LSB: Start the clock!]
How can they give the confiscated airport items to the homeless if they don't know if they're explosives or not?: They say the products are unopened, so they're giving them to the homeless. How do you know they're not explosives that you're handing to the homeless, since you haven't opened them? Apparently, the airport people, in Phoenix and Pennsylvania at least, know quite well that the stuff they took off of the passengers in line were not explosives. So why did they take it in the first place?
The only "liquid explosive" I know about is Bushit: Mere days after the increasingly desperate Bush surrogate Dick “Dick” Cheney called half the Democrats in Connecticut “Al Qaeda types”— oh-so-conveniently just before the extremely non-political “liquid explosives” terror alert story broke — it turns out that Al Qaeda has nothing to do with the liquid explosives plot at all.
Aviation Critic Michael Boyd on our Airport Security: It’s amazing that almost five years after 9-11, where still having to deal with these huge holes in security.
Legal surveillance, not illegal eavesdropping, stopped the U.K. terrorist attacks. The WSJ offers up no proof, but the wingers fall in line.
Republican Campaign Strategy: "A Vote Against Us is a Vote for Osama!" David Sirota: The media elite finally admit the truth about themselves….but some news orgs and voters are wising up to Bush and Cheney’s reign of error.
"Why did the President Cut and Run from Afghanistan?": Randi Rhodes vs. Neal Boortz. Here’s what happens when you enter a war with the right ammo after doing your homework. Randi did just that. She knew what Boortz was going to say. She predicted it on her show yesterday, and he lived right down to her expectations.