Here’s an Open Thread for tonight, with some possible topics for your consideration and comment.
On the day that the Department of Homeland Security announced new threats from Al Qaeda against domestic air flights in the coming months, the Bush Administration is cutting back on the use of Air Marshals as a cost cutting measure. So was the warning today really nothing more than a diversion away from the Saudi concerns over the 9-11 report redactions?
Read Jane Mayer’s piece in the most recent New Yorker and see how the Bushies let their fixation on Iraq and befriending Pakistan derail our progress in getting Bin Laden. It’s clear after reading this that Pakistan sees a benefit to keeping Bin Laden alive and away from the US. Another piece from the Asia Times questions how committed we are to Afghanistan.
This detailed summary of 9-11 clues that went unheeded by the Bush Administration not only calls into question why we were caught flat-footed, but underscores lies told by Condi Rice about 9-11. And John Dean points out the problems for the Bush Administration in the 9-11 report, specifically with what the Bushies said they knew and didn’t know about Bin Laden’s plans.
This display from Mother Jones magazine shows Bush’s (lack of) military record, including the time he was AWOL.
Howard Dean gets the extended treatment in tomorrow’s New York Times.
But this fresh poll from Ipsos-Public Affairs shows that in order for the Democrats to capture the important swing voting block in next year’s election, they will have to come up with a candidate who thinks that the war was worth fighting. The poll shows that even though these swing voters support the aims of the war, they believe that Bush misled the country into the war, and have lost faith in Bush over domestic issues. Such a profile causes problems for Dean in attracting this block, but it also plainly is a problem for others in the Democratic field as well.