| |
|
Sunday, August 13, 2006
|
|
Abbreviated Fox, compact Lamont: Q: Does your victory show that at least some Americans are weakening in their will to fight the War on Terror?
Ned Lamont: On the contrary. What this election showed is that a lot of people in Connecticut think that the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with our War on Terror. It's been a terrible distraction.
Q: When Vice President Cheney said that your victory encourages the Al Qaeda types, did you find that offensive?
Lamont: I find that terribly harsh and wrong. Look, what's going to — what we ought to be doing is fighting the War on Terror in a serious way.
Q: You say that the NSA warrantless wiretaps are illegal. You've called for President Bush to be censured because he allegedly broke the law. You also have been very critical of the Patriot Act.
Lamont: it's not a question of taking away any laws. It's a question of having a president of the United States who follows the law.
Q: Patriot Act?
Lamont: I think it ought to be tightly drawn to respect our civil liberties but also give the American intelligence community all the tools they need to fight the War on Terror. And I think it's a careful balance.
Q: Pull-out from Iraq?
Lamont: Things are getting worse, and our very visible front-line presence is making the situation worse in many ways. So let's be clear with the Maliki government. Let's say we have no permanent intentions upon your military bases. We're going to not be here on a permanent basis. It's not unconditional. We're going to start bringing our troops home, and we ought to have them home within a year.
Q: What if you're wrong? You vote for this, to get them out, and there's a blood bath?
Lamont: There is a blood bath [now]. What if it keeps getting worse? What if it gets even worse?
Q: You've said Hezbollah has been emboldened?
Lamont: I'd say the war in Iraq has emboldened Iran. An emboldened Iran doesn't have its historical enemy, Iraq, right there, makes Israel more vulnerable. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah — there is a nexus there. Yes, I think we've destabilized the Middle East and we've done nothing for Israel's security because of this. our invasion of Iraq has done nothing for Israel's security and has emboldened Iran. Absolutely.
Q: Immigration reform?
Lamont: I'd certainly include a path to legal status.
Q: Drilling in ANWAR?
Lamont: That's going to buy us a few months, six months. Doesn't get the job done.
Q: Wind turbines in Nantucket Sound?
Lamont: I don't think it's for the federal government to pick and choose which of these renewable energy sources is going to be the winner, which is going to be the loser. I think the federal government ought to have a crash course when it comes to real research in terms of making progress.
Q: Any issue that you can identify right now where you break with liberal democrats?
Lamont: I'm a strong fiscal conservative. I think we've got to live within our bounds. I don't know whether that breaks with liberal Democrats or not, but I can tell you there's nothing conservative about this administration
Q: Is Joe Lieberman a legitimate candidate?
Lamont: I played by the rules of the primary. The primary I said I'm going to endorse the winner of this primary, we're going to go forward united. Is he playing the role of a spoiler? I wouldn't go that far. But I would say I wish he'd reconsider what he wants to do.
(Via Prairie Weather.)
2:20:46 PM 
|
|
Via Atrios: Stephanopoulos: "Senator Lieberman thinks that your approach will strengthen the terrorists and it's a victory for terrorists. What's your response?" Feingold: "Well, I like Joe Lieberman, but I support Ned Lamont. Because Joe is showing with that regrettable statement that he doesn't get it. He doesn't get it. The fact is that we were attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda and its affiliates and its sympathizers, not by Saddam Hussein. And unfortunately Senator Lieberman has supported the Bush Administration's disastrous strategic approach of getting us stuck in Iraq instead of focusing on those who attacked us. I mean, look at the places that have been attacked: India, Morocco, Turkey, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Somalia, Spain, Great Britain. What does this have to do with Iraq? And Senator Lieberman is stuck on that point. Ned Lamont and I believe that we should refocus on those who attacked us on 9/11 and not simply try to cover our tracks because this was such a very poor decision in terms of the overall battle against the terrorists who attacked us. Stephanopoulos: Do you think Senator Lieberman should get out of the race? Feingold: Well, you know, I think that's his own decision. It would be better for the Democratic Party, I think it would be better for the people of Connecticut, it would be better for the country if he did it. Not because he hasn't been a good Senator, not because he isn't a good man, but this is a critical time. And we have to change course. We have to focus on those that attacked us on 9/11 and get away from this very mistaken policy in Iraq. So it would be helpful if he would do it, but obviously Joe will have to make that decision for himself. Think Progress has the video.
(Via Daily Kos.)
2:19:15 PM
|
|
From the President's Radio Address, August 12, 2006:
This plot is further evidence that the terrorists we face are sophisticated, and constantly changing their tactics... We're dealing with a new enemy that uses new means of attack and new methods to communicate.
From the New York Times, Aug. 12, 2006:
In 1995, a plot to bomb 12 American jumbo jets over the Pacific with a liquid explosive was discovered when the bomb makers accidentally set fire to their laboratory in Manila.
From the New York Times editorial, Aug. 12, 2006 :
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.
From the Associated Press:
As the British terror plot was unfolding, the Bush administration quietly tried to take away $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection technology....Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks, and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short. ''They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using,'' Sabo said.
(Via The Huffington Post | Raw Feed.)
1:08:41 PM
|
|
More evidence of the Bush-Cheney cabal fucking up through hubris scenario:
The US government was closely involved in the planning of Israel's military operations against Islamic militant group Hezbollah even before the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.
The kidnapping triggered a month-long Israeli operation in South Lebanon that is expected to come to an end on Monday.
But Pulitzer Prize-winning US journalist Seymour Hersh writes that President George W Bush and vice president Dick Cheney were convinced that a successful Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential US pre-emptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.
Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah - and shared it with Bush administration officials - well before the July 12 kidnappings.
The expert added that the White House had several reasons for supporting a bombing campaign, the report said.
If there was to be a military option against Iran, it had to get rid of the weapons Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation against Israel, Hersh writes.
Citing a US government consultant with close ties to Israel, Hersh also reports that earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, several Israeli officials visited Washington "to get a green light" for a bombing operation following a Hezbollah provocation, and "to find out how much the United States would bear".
"The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits," the magazine quotes the consultant as saying. "Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran."
US government officials have denied the charges.
So the usual.
And the legacy no doubt will continue:
Nonetheless, Hersh writes, a former senior intelligence official says some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain deeply concerned that the administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should.
"There is no way that (defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this," the report quotes the former official as saying. "When the smoke clears, they'll say it was a success, and they'll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran."
(Via Rising Hegemon.)
1:00:06 PM
|
|
The Medicare drug Pharmaceutical company benefit is working according to plan. Few things these days annoy me more than claims that Bush's Medicare drug benefit was "what the Democrats wanted to do."
Via Mark Thoma:
Economist's View: The Medicare Drug Benefit is Working According to Plan: No surprise here. The Medicare prescription drug plan is providing large benefits to the group targeted by the legislation - health insurance companies. It's unsurprising because the insurance companies played a large role in writing the new rules. However the other intended beneficiaries, legislators hoping to win votes, may not fare as well. And many seniors, especially the poor who are most in need of help, have seen their drug costs go up:
Inside Job How Humana and other insurance companies rigged the Medicare prescription drug plan, by Barbara T. Dreyfuss, American Prospect: Last week saw the news that Humana, one of the country's largest health insurance companies, experienced much better second-quarter earnings than had been expected. The announcement amounted to confirmation that the Medicare drug benefit is working exactly as planned -- not for the people enrolled in it, but for the insurers who drafted it.
Humana's profits jumped 10 percent, much better than Wall Street had anticipated, helped by a surge in seniors enrolling in Humana's Medicare drug and HMO plans.... Humana has also doubled its Medicare HMO membership in the past year...
Simply put, the Medicare drug program has been good news for Humana. But for seniors who had hoped that the Medicare drug plan, which began in January, would relieve them of worries about drug costs, things are not so rosy. About one- fifth of seniors in the Medicare program, concentrated especially among the poor who had been on Medicaid, report that they now pay more for their medicines than they had before. Since insurers can decide which drugs they cover and which they won't, many seniors are finding that new medicines they need are not paid for by their plan. And millions of enrollees are now approaching the level of total drug expenses that will provoke a cutoff from any further Medicare help with costs -- the now-infamous "donut hole"...
(Via Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal.)
10:30:30 AM
|
|
Really a remarkable coincidence that the british terror arrests came hard after the Lieberman loss, on the very same day that the RNC sent out a fundraising letter from Rudy Giuliani asking for money to help the Republican party battle terror.
Or not.
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.
In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.
The source did say, however, that police believe one U.K.-based suspect was ready to conduct a "dry run." British authorities had wanted to let him go forward with part of the plan, but the Americans balked.
At the White House, a top aide to President Bush denied the account.
"There was unprecedented cooperation and coordination between the U.S., the U.K. and Pakistani officials throughout the case," said Frances Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, "and we worked together to protect our citizens from harm while ensuring that we gathered as much info as possible to bring the plotters to justice. There was no disagreement between U.S. and U.K. officials."
Another U.S. official, however, acknowledges there was disagreement over timing. Analysts say that in recent years, American security officials have become edgier than the British in such cases because of missed opportunities leading up to 9/11.
Aside from the timing issue, there was excellent cooperation between the British and the Americans, officials told NBC.
The British official said the Americans also argued over the timing of the arrest of suspected ringleader Rashid Rauf in Pakistan, warning that if he was not taken into custody immediately, the U.S. would "render" him or pressure the Pakistani government to arrest him.
British security was concerned that Rauf be taken into custody "in circumstances where there was due process," according to the official, so that he could be tried in British courts. Ultimately, this official says, Rauf was arrested over the objections of the British.
The official shed light on other aspects of the case, saying that while the investigation into the bombing plot began "months ago," some suspects were known to the security services even before the London subway bombings last year.
A remarkable coincidence. Just like the conveniently-timed terror alert on New York financial institutions that turned out to be based on years-old information and was quietly lifted the week after the election.
Or the subway terror alert that was held under wraps until the day of Our Fearless Leader's speech on terror.
It's funny, isn't it, that the whole administration agrees that nobody could have imagined the 9/11 attackers using planes as weapons.
They seem to have such marvellously creative imaginations when it comes to terrorism.
edit: and leave us not forget - they knew about this plot, in detail, and they still went ahead with plans to gut funding for explosives detection.
While they pushed for the Paris Hilton act.
(Via Sisyphus Shrugged.)
10:10:22 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2006 Steve Michel.
Last update: 9/1/2006; 6:58:32 PM.
|
|
|
