By my lights, it's Dick Cheney and his ilk who give succor to al qaeda. They are playing ball in his court -- and we will be living with the consequences for many years after they have had their last heart attack.
 

Yes, he knew about it. They've known about the rolling up of the plot since Saturday.

Gotta watch out, next thing you know they'll be politicizing the war on terror.
 

When your opponents do not share your views on how or even if you fight terror, then it would be irresponsible not to politicize it. That is exactly when you politicize something, when there is a clear difference between your approach and that of your opponent.

A piece on Slate put it very well:
http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/nav/tap1/

Iraq was indeed a "tragic misstep" but there are plenty of Democrats who wouldn't have even invaded Afghanistan. The fact that you both make snide flippant comments about the war on terror while 30 or 40 people are being arrested in the final stages of an elaborate plot to blow up a host of commercial airlines makes you look obstinate at best and at worst, dangerous. Luckily, most Americans don't share your naive appraisal of the Islamofascists.
 

WHAT relevant opponents of the administration do not share its views about "if" we should fight terror? Name one.

WHICH Democrats wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11? Name one, and give some basis for the claim. (And note also that Bush himself failed to 'invade' Afghanistan, bringing to bear nothing like the U.S. power needed to seal the deal. It was Northern Alliance all the way.)

And WHEN has the administration, or its slimy apologists like yourself, ever acknowledged the actual substance of "how" its political opponents would choose to fight the war on terror, rather than arguing against ridiculous straw-men? What "clear differences" besides Iraq could you possibly be referring to? (Leaving the British to make real headway?)

Moreover, how could we holders of well-informed opinions POSSIBLY be more dangerous than a President who does precisely what bin Laden wants at every opportunity? (except for causing the downfall of the Taliban, in his half-assed way).

Your gloating about a British law-enforcement and intelligence success as if it bore any relation to the tactics of THIS administration in the last few years of security efforts is grotesque, and shows a mental capacity stunted, twisted and scarred by many years of cognitive dissonance, misprojected fear, and self-deception. You're way beyond obstinate.


This whole line of argument that Cheney just tried to rev up again jumped the shark many months ago. (And Richard's point is a fair one: why would Cheney have possibly made the reach from the Lieberman loss to "Al-Qaeda types" unless he were setting the table for exploitation of this British-plot story breaking? When was the last time he intervened directly on a press conference-call in a matter of domestic politics?)

It's laughable to watch someone try to work up a lather on this topic yet again, long after it's become a joke to suppose that the party in power could possibly be better on the larger security issues than ANY imaginable alternative.

Seriously. I'd vote for Pat Buchanan at this point, or Pat Summerall, before anyone who'd cite the buffoonish logic-chopper Jacob Weisberg on this topic.


Standing Eagle
 

One little point that I think is funny: Weisberg has the gall to call Lamont a "callow entrepreneur." What does that make G.W. Bush circa 1994? Are failed entrepreneurs less callow than extremely successful ones?

But I'm posting again just to give us someone with just a little more of a reality-framework than Jacob Weisberg:

By Mark Schmitt | bio

Can someone explain what Senator Lieberman could possibly mean when he says the following:

“I’m worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us — more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War,” Mr. Lieberman said.

section break

First, there’s no antecedent to the word "threat" or "enemy" so we have no idea what threat he’s referring to. Is it al-Qaeda alone? Al-Qaeda plus Hezbollah and Hamas, plus Syria and Ahmadinejad? Or that thing out there that Little Green Footballs the President now calls "Islamic fascists"?

Who knows. But under any possible definition of "threat" or "enemy" it cannot possibly be as dangerous than the Soviet Union at the peak of the Cold War, with multiple thermonuclear devices pointed at every one of our cities and towns. And, I don’t know exactly how to score "evilness," but not much matches Hitler. I suppose in some way bin Laden and Zawahiri’s hearts may be as filled with evil as Hitler’s or Stalin’s, but they don’t have the SS and Luftwaffe at their disposal. Maybe they would send us all to concentration camps if they controlled half of Europe, but thankfully, they live in caves and can’t use the phone. Is Ahmadinejad "more evil, or as evil" as Hitler? Maybe the potential is there, with his holocaust denial and all that, but so far it’s mostly talk.

I’m sorry, but this is just a deranged, or at best deeply confused and manic, thing to say. It shows a lack of perspective and reality and responsibility, even in its lack of clarity about what exactly the threat is and how to defeat it. Why does anyone accept that this kind of blather can be considered taking the threat more "seriously"? It’s not. It’s hugely unserious in its trivialization of the great moral challenges of the Twentieth Century and it’s bald politicization of the current challenge.

And I’m interested in examples -- I know there are people from Paul Berman to the Malkin wing of the right blogosphere who like to say that Islamic extremists are sort of like fascism, or there’s a debate going on now on National Review Online about whether "Islamo-Nazi" is a better word than Islamofascist. But is there anyone else who has used that framework: "more dangerous than the Soviet Communists" or "more evil, or as evil, as Nazism."??

This is a man who has become so deeply unserious that I don’t think he should be a U.S. Senator, from either party.