August 11, 2006


Blair forewarned Bush of terror threat to US airlines (Patrick Wintour, August 11, 2006, The Guardian)

On the Tory and Liberal Democrat benches there was no attempt to make political capital. The shadow home secretary, David Davis, confined himself to praise for the security services.

Scramble starts for political advantage (Joseph Curl and Stephen Dinan, August 11, 2006, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)
Democrats said Mr. Bush has not done enough on homeland security, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California saying Mr. Bush has ignored key recommendations of the September 11 commission on airport security.

"We are not as safe as we should be," added Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

"The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists," said the Nevada Democrat, who yesterday also predicted that Democrats would pick up five seats in November to evenly split the Senate.

It's too minor a war at too important a time domestically for the reversal to be worthwhile, but the fact remains that the WoT wouldn't be divisive if a Democrat were in the White House.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 11, 2006 8:21 AM

I'm not so sure that will be true if (when?) Hillary becomes president. I halfways expect the Right to turn on a dime the minute and oppose the GWoT the minute she swears in.

As far as this being a minor war, I take it you aren't approaching August 22 with a sense of foreboding, are you?

Posted by: Brad S at August 11, 2006 8:39 AM

"The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists,"

Can I logically conclude from this that he believes that armored divisions, Special Forces and unmanned aerial drones should be protecting our ports?

Posted by: andrew at August 11, 2006 9:14 AM

Brad --

You can go back to President Clinton's bombing campaign in Bosnia to gauge the reaction. Some on the right were reflexively against the measure because it was done by Clinton, but most followed the (now trashed) historic line of not carrying politics beyond America's borders.

Should Hillary actually get elected, I don't think she would go wobbly on the WOT, since the missus would have a 2012 re-election bid in her sights. My fear would be all the Democrats in lower bureaucratic positions a new Clinton administration would bring in, and many of those people actually do believe the rhetoric being spouted by the Ned Lamont types today, and really do think the Islamist terror threat would vanish on 1/20/09 once George W. Bush and the Republicans are out of office (and if anything horrific did happen in the future -- even in the seventh year of a hypothetical eight-year Hillary term -- well, it would still be Bush's fault).

Posted by: John at August 11, 2006 9:59 AM


The nativists have already bailed on Bush, but they aren't the party.

Posted by: oj at August 11, 2006 10:23 AM

I'm not suggesting Hillary! will go wobbly on the GWoT. I'm suggesting a whole bunch of National Review-types will have "other priorities" than in helping support it.

After all, a lot of righty pundits made a lot of money and gained a lot of media face-time in the '90s for behavior somewhat similar to what the Dems do now.

Posted by: Brad S at August 11, 2006 10:43 AM

If she goes to war with Arabs or Latinos those types support her whole hog.

Posted by: oj at August 11, 2006 10:47 AM

Look to see if Chuck Schumer makes any nasty (or supportive) comments when he gets home from Europe. He got stuck at Heathrow yesterday (trying to get to Amsterdam for a family vacation).

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 11, 2006 11:27 AM

If you're looking for the reflexive right wing types that would automatically oppose Democrats on anything, look for the ones who make the most money from throwing red meat to their followers. That's not the NR/Weekly Standard types in general -- they have their own reflexive issues, but opposing everything Democrats say and do in a mindless fashion not one of them.

Now if you're talking Ann Coulter...

Posted by: John at August 11, 2006 11:30 AM

When did Republicans reflexively oppose everything the Democrats did? If anything, the rule was "go along to get along."

Posted by: erp at August 11, 2006 5:51 PM