ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Sunday, March 12, 2006

As Predicted

As I predicted on Friday (see comment), now that the Dems have attacked W. for being weak on terror by letting an ally in the WOT go forward with the acqusition of operations at our ports, they're shifting to attacking W. for being too aggressive in the War On Terror.

Senator Feingold is going to push for articles of impeachment unless Bush goes in front of a prayer breakfast and says he's really, really sorry for listening in to terrorist calls back to their handlers abroad and accepts a censure from the Congress.

It's interesting that when there's an issue which has little or no effect on the security of the US (management of ports by the very country that has our fleet docked in their country), the Dems champion that issue (in this case, terminating the deal). When an issue arises which has a clear and effective mission in the war on terror (as in the NSA terrorist surveillance program), the Dems attack the president for being so effective.

Let me pose this hypothetical... Suppose a dirty bomb arrives in a container in a US port (operated by someone other than DPW) and a phone call is made from Jiddah, Saudi Arabia (favorite vacation spot for algore) to a sleeper cell that has an operative working at the port, instructing them to expode the device. If the international call is intercepted and the dirty bomb is never detonated, do the Dems champion the fact that the ports are operated by a US (or Chinese?) company, while at the same time attacking the "illegal" use of the wiretap which ultimately was the reason for averting the attack?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler