Evidence Mounting In Taliban Connection To Times Square Bombing

I'm not particularly surprised that Faisal Shahzad apparently has connections with Taliban terrorists in Pakistan despite Shahzad's claims that he acted alone, although the Washington Post reports that such links are not yet confirmed. From the New York Times:

Officials said that after two days of intense questioning of the bombing suspect, Faisal Shahzad, evidence was mounting that the group, the Pakistani Taliban, had helped inspire and train Mr. Shahzad in the months before he is alleged to have parked an explosives-filled sport utility vehicle in a busy Manhattan intersection on Saturday night. Officials said Mr. Shahzad had discussed his contacts with the group, and investigators had accumulated other evidence that they would not disclose.

On Wednesday, Mr. Shahzad, the 30-year-old son of a retired senior Pakistani Air Force officer, waived his right to a speedy arraignment, a possible sign of his continuing cooperation with investigators.

As his interrogation continued, Department of Homeland Security officials directed airlines to speed up their checks of new names added to the no-fly list, a requirement that might have prevented Mr. Shahzad from boarding a flight to Dubai on Monday night before his arrest at Kennedy International Airport.

The failed attack has produced a flurry of other proposals to tighten security procedures, including calls by members of Congress to more closely scrutinize passengers who buy tickets with cash, as Mr. Shahzad did. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Senator Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, proposed stripping terrorism suspects of American citizenship, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg asked Congress to block the sale of firearms and explosives to those on terrorist watch lists.

The whole notion of stripping terrorism suspects of American citizenship is nonsense. There is a wholly appropriate crime that takes such actions into account, and that is treason. The US Constitution sets forth explicitly the crime of treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

By taking up arms against the United States and working with the Taliban and received terror training at one of their terror camps in Pakistan's frontier provinces, Shahzad committed treason. He admitted to the actions of carrying out the bombing, which is an open admission (and if he allocutes in court, then the conditions for a treason conviction are met). People like Sen. John McCain and Joe Lieberman are stoking out space for campaign slogans and trying to show that they're tough on terrorists, but they could have also been tough by simply calling for the imposition of the appropriate criminal sanctions - treason.

So, why did Shahzad decide to join the jihad? Well, the Daily News reports that he was slowly radicalized because of the war on terror and personal failures. After downplaying the links, the US is now focusing on Shahzad's travels to Pakistan and his contacts there. Someone was providing him with the financial support upon his return to the US, and that has to be fully investigated.

It's also come to light that Shahzad made a dry run the day before, and even then botched things. He left the keys to his getaway car in the Pathfinder.

The source, who did not explain how Shahzad had attempted to set off the bomb, said he then took a number of turns and wound up entering Times Square by driving south down Seventh Avenue. The source said Shahzad told investigators he turned right onto 45th Street toward Eighth Avenue because he saw a place to pull over.

It's unclear why Shahzad left the Pathfinder's engine running and hazard lights blinking.

But because of an incredible goof, Shahzad couldn't use his escape car. He had accidentally left the keys to that vehicle in the Pathfinder that he thought was about to blow up, the source said.

He apparently went to a train station, where he boarded a Metro North train back to Connecticut.

That fortuitous goof on his part gave investigators still another piece of evidence to tie the attack to Shahzad.

UPDATE:
Emirates Airlines has pushed back against claims by the Obama Administration that it didn't check the no-fly lists more frequently, claiming that it complied with then existing rules for a check once every 24 hours. More pertinent is that the FBI apparently told the TSA not to warn airlines:

But officials could have called all the airlines themselves in such a critical situation — they've done it before.

This would have put Shahzad on the radar of the carriers, and it could have prevented him from being able to board the Emirates plane headed for Dubai.

The FBI asked the TSA not to make the calls, according to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the ongoing investigation. The FBI did let the TSA call a few domestic air carriers, which did not include Emirates.

It's possible that the FBI didn't want to compromise their investigation and hoped to perhaps catch any potential coconspirators and that alerting the airline might have tipped off Shahzad and others to the investigation. Still, there wasn't much more that the airline could do under the circumstances since it was the TSA responsibility to clear the flight's manifest.

Connecticut Democrats Plan Censure of Sen. Joe Lieberman

This makes no sense.

Connecticut Democrats, angry that Sen. Joe Lieberman is campaigning for the Republican presidential candidate and criticizing his own party's nominee, agreed Wednesday to circulate a resolution to censure the veteran politician but won't consider acting on it until after Election Day.

The state party's central committee Wednesday voted to send copies of the resolution to every Democratic town committee in the state. The resolution condemns Lieberman for speaking at the Republicans' convention and backing John McCain.

Party officials say the group plans to get input from the town officials and revisit the issue in December.

"If you have someone who says they're a Democrat, who is registered as a Democrat and is a national figure supporting a candidate who is opposed to all the ideals and beliefs and positions that we hold as Democrats, he's diluting, in my opinion, the meaning of our party," said Audrey Blondin, a 30-year party veteran, before the meeting.

Democrats essentially drummed Lieberman out of the party when the far left lunatic fringe supported Ned Lamont over Lieberman in the primary.

Lieberman ran as an Independent, under the Connecticut for Lieberman party banner, in the statewide election and won handily.

Now, these same left wingers want to censure Lieberman, who is no longer considered a Democrat, because he's supporting McCain, a Republican?

I think they've forgotten to take their medication, even as Lieberman votes with the Democratic caucus most of the time (excepting the war in Iraq). Lieberman is an Independent, thanks to these kooks who run the Democratic party in Connecticut. Censuring someone who is no longer a member of the party reeks.

Divining Motives and Outcomes

There are a couple of things that I've been mulling over the course of the day. The GOP isn't in as bad shape as some are making things out to be. Sure, things look bleak now, but what exactly were the margins in a dozen of those races they lost. They're a lot closer than one would think when looking at the overall loss:

At a luncheon on the Hill today sponsored by FreedomWorks, Republican pollster Ed Goeas said that the losses we saw last night are average for mid-term elections, particularly mid-term elections in a time of war. He also said, “One of the things that is different from 1994, is that in 1994 when Republicans won 56 House seats, all but a handful were won by a range of 10 or more percent. Last night if you look at the election, of those 28 House seats, 22 were won by 2 percent or less — 22 of the 28. And of those, 18 were won by less than 5,000 votes, and four of those by less than a thousand votes.” Later he went over the numbers again, and concluded, “In other words you can basically go back and say that we lost control of Congress by 11 seats. You’re talking about less than 50,000 votes.”

So many races in the country, and so many decided by a few thousand votes each. Each independent vote has an impact beyond the borders of the district.

That's 50,000 votes out of the millions cast last night. It's the kind of razor thin margin that drives people absolutely insane (2000 and 2004 and now 2006). But here's what the GOP needs to consider going forward. What are they going to do to woo folks like me?

I'm a registered Democrat and I've found their national candidates wanting, their foreign policy laughable, and some of their domestic policies insincere and unserious. I know there are those who read this blog and think that I'm the reddest of red staters, but those folks cannot be more hopelessly wrong.

What policies and stands resonated with voters that will get the GOP back in office. Being against a thing is not the same as a policy. The Democrats will quickly learn this.

Democrats too will learn that razor thin margins carry a burden as well. Governing is not the same as ankle biting.

Let the GOP loss sting for a bit. That's pride talking. Hastert is gone. That's a start [and should have been gone after his laughable excuses for William Jefferson's malfeasance]. Now let's see what the GOP has in store for the next two years. That's two years the Democrats will have to either show that they mean to fight the war on terror and keep the nation safe or they're simply paying lip service.

The GOP also appeared to be more concerned about staying in government than limiting government. I think that makes a lot of sense. Quite a few GOPers got knocked out because they strayed from their conservative roots. Yet, what to make of the New Jersey GOP hold? How were they able to ride out the storm that cast out GOPers elsewhere, including in GOP strongholds in the South and West.

Democrats did a better job of convincing people that a change was needed, even though it was short on specifics.

Is this a race to the center? I'm not entirely convinced. It may have worked for Joe Lieberman in Connecticut against the nutroots. Will the Democrat leadership take the prudent and adult course of action, or are they going to revert to type - the type that has been spewing calls for impeachment from they found that the situation in Iraq wasn't to their liking.

Here's what the Democrats think are going to be the issues to deal with in the first 100 hours.

_Military: Force an immediate drawdown of troops in Iraq and conduct oversight hearings on missteps on the war. The announcement Wednesday that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was resigning met Democratic demands that he step down to take responsibility for the situation in Iraq.

_Intelligence: Increase attention given to emerging terrorist threats in Africa and Southeast Asia and devote more resources to North Korea and Iran. More oversight of terrorism and government surveillance.

_Minimum wage. Pass legislation to raise the minimum wage from the current $5.15 an hour to $7.25.

_Energy and environment: Increase incentives for biodiesel, ethanol and other alternative fuels as well as wind, solar, geothermal and other sources of alternative energy. Renegotiate oil and gas leases that waived royalty payments to the government. Impose a national cap on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. Resist Bush's efforts to open more public lands to oil exploration.

_Judiciary: Conduct oversight hearings on treatment of terrorism detainees, domestic surveillance programs and President Bush's use of "signing statements" affecting some requirements in the laws he signs.

_Agriculture: Increase conservation programs and require more corn- based ethanol in motor fuel blends.

After reading through them, my concerns only grow. This is a party that realizes that we're at war with an intractable foe that doesn't surrender. It simply waits out its enemies until such time that things favor them.

I actually found that their general position on intel sounds reasonable enough. We do need to pay more attention to emerging threats in Africa and Southeast Asia. The devil is in the details. Will the Democrats unleash the CIA so that they can gather evidence or are they going to implement so many rules and hoops that gathering intel from unsavory sources is not allowed. And what about those intel leads that show emerging threats from those locations. Will the Democrats have the intestinal fortitude to actually deal with them instead of kicking them forward for someone else to deal with them?

The call for investigations on the military is laughable and simply the first step to defeat in Iraq. Our allies in Iraq and around the world are watching and counting their options since the Democrats appear more than willing to let our Iraqi allies hang out to dry all in order to claim to be supporting the troops and bringing them home.

The Democrats' energy policy is schizophrenic. And that's being charitable. They want increased incentives for biodiesel and other renewable sources, but they want to limit oil and gas exploration. They want more corn-based ethanol blends, despite the fact that the energy costs are far higher than if no action were taken.

They want to close the gap between the taxes owed and what's paid. How they intend to do that is unstated. The Democrats will settle for increased taxes, especially if the Bush cuts are allowed to expire January 1, 2010.

Raising the minimum wage affects how many people to be a key issue? This is a national issue of such significance that it demands action above and beyond other issues like the ongoing problems with the Army Corps of Engineers and the rebuilding following Katrina or the fact that our borders are so porous that no one has a real good idea of how many people are getting into the country illegally, let alone who is coming across our borders? I don't think so.

States have already chosen to deal with the matter of minimum wages locally. If they want to raise their state minimum wages above the federal minimum, they'll get to reap the rewards of lower job growth. Saddling the entire nation with a higher minimum wage makes the entry level position all the more scarce as employers will simply higher fewer people for those jobs. Wage growth depends on the region, and imposing a national solution not only distorts the marketplace, but puts yet more pressure on people leaving high cost of living areas for lower cost of living regions. Watch for an increased migration from the rust belt and northeast to the Southwest and Southeast, where costs of living are lower.

Technorati: bush, kean, lieberman, menendez, gop, democrat, election, politics, exit poll, diebold, voters, vote, 2006 elections, republicans, democrats.

Rumsfeld Resigns

Rumsfeld has submitted his letter of resignation. That's the word on the street. If true, here's one possible outcome: Joe Lieberman gets nominated to replace him, leaving Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell (R) to select Lieberman's replacement for the seat. Considering that the GOP needs every seat in the Senate with the way the election turned out, this might be the way to save the situation in the Senate.

Rumsfeld was the focus of ire by the Left - and he bore the brunt of the criticism on how the US dealt with the post-invasion situation in Iraq. He led the US military through some difficult times, and the shrinking size of the military will be an ongoing issue for not only the remainder of the Bush Administration but for years to come.

Modernization of equipment isn't enough. Withdrawing from Iraq and other committments isn't going to improve the US security posture. A larger and more efficient military is just the start. Don't look for any of that to happen in the next two years as Democrats have shown themselves to be opposed to increasing military expenditures.

UPDATE:
The Rumsfeld fighting style has finally met its match. No one could contain it, let alone stop it, not even Darth Rove.

UPDATE:
Bush is nominating Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, to succeed Rumsfeld. I think that's a mistake, especially with the potential to sway events in the Senate.

Technorati: rumsfeld, robert gates, bush, iraq, war on terror.

Election Shakeout

To me, yesterday was "Black Tuesday". The Democrats have taken control of the U.S. House of Representatives by picking up 24 seats. In the Senate, the Republicans maintain a 2 seat advantage, but there are 2 seats still close to call, Virginia and Montana. In both of these races, the Democrat Candidate has a slight lead. To be practical, the Democrats will control both houses of Congress.

So now what? What does this mean? Democrats were elected seemingly as a reaction to the war in Iraq. So can congressional Democrats change the war? No. The President is still the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Congress can control the purse strings, but the President would veto any appropriations bill that didn’t include sufficient funding for the military, and there is not enough votes to override such a veto. Moreover, Democrats who were elected by slim majorities in traditional military counties who cut and run or who cut spending for the military would face tough reelection runs. So, Iraq policy probably doesn’t change at all.

Top on the Democratic agenda will be to reverse the President’s tax cuts. Here, by not renewing the current tax cut laws, they essentially eliminate the tax cuts, without passing a bill to raise taxes. A nice neat ploy…”we didn’t raise taxes, we eliminated tax cuts for the wealthy.” Except, the tax cuts on the wealthy also cut taxes for the middle class. So lets all be prepared for new taxes. They aren’t called the tax and spend Democrats for nothing.

Look for Democrats to push ethanol use in automobiles and higher gas mileage. Generally, either is a bad thing. GM and Ford have already invested tons of money in E85 cars, as opposed to Honda and Toyota which put their bread in the hybrid basket. So Ethanol initiatives help U.S. Farmers and GM and Ford. However, until Ethanol roles out, higher gas mileage helps Toyota and Honda. Way to go Democrats, help Japanese car production! Also, forget about looking for new oil reserves in Alaska or elsewhere, or exploiting black shale deposits in Colorado.

So the only good thing about the Democrat’s victory is that they will have to govern. No more can they blame failures on the Republicans and sit back and say “if we were in control things would be different!” Well you got what you asked for. Now the question is, did you actually want it?

Technorati: bush, kean, lieberman, menendez, gop, democrat, election, politics, exit poll, diebold, voters, vote, 2006 elections, republicans, democrats.

The Mourning After

If you're a GOPer this morning, you don't have a lot to cheer about. The House went to the Democrats (but don't blame New Jersey for that). The Senate is still up in the air and it might be a tight squeeze as Montana and Virginia are too close to call even this morning. Recounts might be in order in both.

It didn't take long for the world reaction to come through. They think that the Democrat wins are a huge loss for Bush. Wonder what the terrorists will think? I don't. I know that they're going to bide their time and hope that the US folds on Iraq and fighting the war on terror - such that they'll be able to find their safe havens around the world and press the jihad on their terms.

The tenor at the Times' blog suggests that the Democrats can't wait to get control of the House to start all sorts of mayhem. From investigations, rolling back tax cuts, to impeachment talk, it's all in there. That's what the rank and file left wingers want - and that extends to the likes of Rangel, Conyers, and Murtha. All three stand in line to have chairmanships of key committees (from appropriations to armed services to intelligence). Don't doubt for one moment that they're not going to use those positions to undermine the US war on terror and seek to redeploy US forces from Iraq.

New Jersey's incumbents all won. There were no upsets, and despite Bob Menendez's ethical quandries, he was sent back to the Senate by a comfortable margin. The GOP didn't lose any seats as a result of New Jersey. I guess there's cold comfort in that. Meanwhile, here's how the NJ ballot initiatives went (and my positions on each):

The NJ initiatives are as follows:

1) Do you approve the amendment of Article VIII, Section I of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, to provide for the annual dedication and annual appropriation of an amount equal to the annual revenue derived from a tax rate of 0.5% imposed under the New Jersey Sales and Use Tax, exclusively for the purpose of property tax reform, through a special Property Tax Reform Account established in the constitutionally dedicated Property Tax Relief Fund?

I voted against this one. This is a tax burden shifting scheme that will only result in higher taxes for everyone.

2) Shall the amendment to Article VIII, Section II, paragraph 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, expanding the authorized uses of the constitutionally dedicated Corporation Business Tax Revenue, to allow the use of 15% of the dedicated funds to fund the development of lands for recreation and conservation purposes, and beginning on January 1, 2016, allow the use of an additional 17% of the dedicated funds to fund the development of lands for recreation and conservation purposes, be approved?

I voted for this one. Open space and conservation makes a lot of sense in New Jersey, which is one of the most heavily polluted states in the country. Preserving what open space we have makes good sense, even if it means higher real property costs - by limiting the places where one can build new homes.

3) Do you approve the proposed amendment to the State Constitution, agreed to by the Legislature, which changes the current $0.09 per gallon dedication of the motor fuels tax to $0.105 per gallon to be used only for the funding of the State transportation system, subject to previously enacted laws dedicating any of these revenues for debt service on bonds of the State or for any other uses of these revenues?

Among the three initiatives, this is the most pressing issue. The transportation trust fund had been depleated over the years because the gas tax had been diverted to other purposes. This ends that practice and helps insure that the fund is funded to rebuild the state's highways and byways and mass transit. I voted for this bill because the revenue would be guaranteed to go where it belongs - helping maintain and expand the state's transportation infrastructure.

All three ballot initiatives passed by a wide margin. In fact, siphoning the sales and use tax to pay for property tax relief passed with a 67-33 margin. Well, when property taxes continue to rise and the sales and use tax has to be raised to cover for additional spending, don't come looking here for support. I told you so. This was a tax burden shifting scheme that did nothing to address the underlying issue of property taxes in the first place. All it does is cover one tax payment with another. The state hopes that there are enough people who aren't New Jersey taxpayers who are coming to New Jersey to spend their money and pay sales tax to lessen the burden on property holders. Too bad that isn't how it works in real life. The property taxes will continue to go up, and there's nothing in this initiative that solves the problem.

So now everyone will spend the next few days sorting out the Senate - and if the Senate does go to the Democrats, the calls for impeachment and censure and investigations will only grow louder as the left wing of the Democrat party will seek to assert itself more vigorously. That will only play into GOP hands going into the 2008 elections, which are only 2 years away. Let the fun begin!

UPDATE:
And for those that are interested in such things, I paid off my wager with anonymous emailer this morning. He was gloating, of course, but knows that things could have turned out quite differently. He even had someone take a picture of me handing over the money, but I refused to give it over glumly. Had a big smile on my face because that's just my style.

Technorati: bush, kean, lieberman, menendez, gop, democrat, election, politics, exit poll, diebold, voters, vote, 2006 elections, republicans, democrats.

Counting the Votes

It's still early, but some of the votes are starting to be tallied in places like Virginia where the polls have been closed for about an hour. And if the early returns are any signal, it's going to be a very long evening for both parties.

Democrats need 6 in the Senate and 15 in the House to win control.

CBS News is calling Casey over Santorum and Brown over DeWine in Ohio at 8:02PM. Those would be two seats picked up for the Democrats. Seems just a bit early to make that declaration though.

Hot Air has the skinny on the early returns thus far.

As Jason Smith notes, we're into the waiting game.

I voted earlier this evening, and the polling place was somewhat busy as people were taking their time reading through the ballot. There are a total of three statewide initiatives in New Jersey and two local initiatives. All have tax implications.

I did find one disconcerting thing though. The person operating the machine was getting impatient with some of those ahead of me, and was saying that there was a 2 minute time limit in the booth.

That conflicts directly with the Bergen County's Voter Bill of Rights. As a voter, you have a reasonable time to complete your ballot. Considering that one has to read through and understand those ballot initiatives, I'd say that 2 minutes is insufficient.

The NJ initiatives are as follows:

1) Do you approve the amendment of Article VIII, Section I of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, to provide for the annual dedication and annual appropriation of an amount equal to the annual revenue derived from a tax rate of 0.5% imposed under the New Jersey Sales and Use Tax, exclusively for the purpose of property tax reform, through a special Property Tax Reform Account established in the constitutionally dedicated Property Tax Relief Fund?

I voted against this one. This is a tax burden shifting scheme that will only result in higher taxes for everyone.

2) Shall the amendment to Article VIII, Section II, paragraph 6 of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, expanding the authorized uses of the constitutionally dedicated Corporation Business Tax Revenue, to allow the use of 15% of the dedicated funds to fund the development of lands for recreation and conservation purposes, and beginning on January 1, 2016, allow the use of an additional 17% of the dedicated funds to fund the development of lands for recreation and conservation purposes, be approved?

I voted for this one. Open space and conservation makes a lot of sense in New Jersey, which is one of the most heavily polluted states in the country. Preserving what open space we have makes good sense, even if it means higher real property costs - by limiting the places where one can build new homes.

3) Do you approve the proposed amendment to the State Constitution, agreed to by the Legislature, which changes the current $0.09 per gallon dedication of the motor fuels tax to $0.105 per gallon to be used only for the funding of the State transportation system, subject to previously enacted laws dedicating any of these revenues for debt service on bonds of the State or for any other uses of these revenues?

Among the three initiatives, this is the most pressing issue. The transportation trust fund had been depleated over the years because the gas tax had been diverted to other purposes. This ends that practice and helps insure that the fund is funded to rebuild the state's highways and byways and mass transit. I voted for this bill because the revenue would be guaranteed to go where it belongs - helping maintain and expand the state's transportation infrastructure.

Ah, and there go those exit polls again.

UPDATE:
Are there big problems in Colorado with voting equipment failures? Apparently state Democrats are going to seek to extend voting by two hours to compensate. The polls are supposed to close at 7PM local time.

UPDATE:
The NYT frontpage has key races and shows Allen/Webb tied with 40% precincts reporting. They also have Kean Jr. leading Menendez though it's way too early (no precincts reporting).

UPDATE:
Did I mention that the exit polls were flawed? Really seriously flawed? All those early calls for Democrats? Might as well throw them out the window because the exit polls, despite being embargoed until after some of the polls closed, are still as flawed as they were in 2004. There's a 6-8 point Democrat tilt, which throws off the predictions, especially in the close races.

And there are still plenty of close races.

The pollsters will have much to account for in coming days as their efforts will once again be scrutinized and they will claim to make amends in time for the next election. The Leftists, of course, will cry that any races that do now hew to the exit polls are being thrown for the GOP. Never mind that the exit polls are statistical mumbo jumbo and based on self selected responses. The actual votes are just that - how people actually voted.

Technorati: bush, kean, lieberman, menendez, gop, democrat, election, politics, exit poll, diebold, voters, vote, 2006 elections, republicans, democrats.

Decision Day

So, we'll finally find out whether the months of mudslinging and vitriol will make any difference in the makeup of the House and Senate. Will the Democrats crack the GOP hold on the House or will they fall short? Can the GOP hold the Senate? I'm betting that the Democrats fall short, and while it might be a tall order, it's not out of the realm of possibility.

The most recent polls suggest yet more tightening, though take it with a grain of salt.

The NYT is already walking back from the outrageous predictions of huge Democrat gains. That shouldn't surprise anyone. When a gain will seem like a failure. The fact is that if this election holds to form (prior midterm elections of a second term incumbent President), the Democrats should pick up seats. The question is whether they'll pick up enough to switch control, and despite all the claims of a Blue wave, it appears that there was nothing of the sort.

Voter turnout will be the key to making sure that the Democrats are spending the next two years sputtering about wondering about what if and what could have been. They'll wonder about Kerry's gaffes and the ability to win elections when supposedly everything is supposed to be breaking their way.

On the flipside, Democrats could really take control of the House, and that's not a total loss - losing seats in a midterm is the norm, not the exception. However, what Democrats do with that control will shape the 2008 Presidential election quite clearly. The Democrats will have to come up with an actual agenda, not simply run every anti-Bush policy imaginable. There will be votes. And candidates for President will have to take sides (and some might even take all the sides on the same issue).

If they think that they can spend the next two years cutting funding for the war in Iraq, impeachment/censure talk, or endless investigations, you will see a backlash like none other.

The stock markets will probably cheer if the Congress splits or stays in GOP hands because it means gridlock and/or favorable economic measures. The markets are probably favoring the gridlock and are showing nice gains today after yesterday's strong gains.

More ominiously is that there are reports of chicanery in Philadelphia and scattered problems with electronic ballots. Be assured that these problems will be magnified as the day progresses and the close races prove to be closer than anyone possibly imagined. We'll also hear lots of rumors through the course of the day. Many will go unsubstantiated. Some may prove to be accurate.

I'm not talking about the claims that Diebold is stealing the election, which inevitably will come from the deep recesses of the blogosphere on the left. I'm talking about election fraud, dead voting, and other real examples that lead to disinfranchisement for legitimate voters.

Further, I'm not going to pay attention to the exit polls, given their unreliability. Sure, they might make for some exciting discussion around 5PM and could affect turnout in those jurisdictions where the polls are still open. They will probably not reflect the overall vote, which is the only poll that counts. I'm expecting the polls to undercount the GOP by 1-3 points, which follows prior election year trends. And expect those on the Left to crow about such exit polls as though they're the divine word, and if the actual vote diverges from the exit polls, they'll scream holy hell despite the fact that those exit polls have been notoriously unreliable in the past.

Charles at LGF has an open thread on the election day (where I'll be posting from time to time).

AJ Strata offers his predictions, as does Dynamobuzz and EnlightenNJ for NJ.

Fausta notes Orson Scott Card's essay that the overriding issue for this election, and all future elections should be the War on Terror, and which party is best equipped to win it. Simply put, he doesn't think well of his party - the Democrats. I happen to agree. As a registered Democrat, I found the Democrat party message to be one of failure, no clear plan, and nothing that would constitute leadership other than simply thwarting Bush. Ankle biting is not leadership. That's Michael Kinsey saying those things (no lover of the Bush Administration either). Americans are a generally optimistic bunch, and claiming that the situation in Iraq is a failure is only seeing what they want to see, not what is really going on there. They hear what the soldiers on the front lines are saying, and it's one that calls for completing the mission and not abandoning the Iraqis to the fates just as we did after 1991, or the South Vietnamese after the so called peace with honor in 1975. Millions died as a result of those withdrawals before completing the mission.

It is not a simple mission, but it is one of the most utmost urgency.

The Corner is near live blogging the vote, and the usual caveats apply about news, rumor, and gossip.

Pajamas Media is covering the election.

UPDATE:
It didn't take long for the nutcases to already start claiming that the election is rigged and the results already predetermined. (HT: gang of one at LGF)

Hot Air is covering things, including with a chat room (those things are spreading wildly). Michelle Malkin is keeping tabs on the problem areas, the general nailbiter situation, and the lunatic fringe.

UPDATE:
Those who will be covering the election returns this evening include Wizbang, Outside the Beltway, and LaShawn Barber.

The media outlets are going to try something new to embargo the exit polling data - ostensibly to prevent its leakage to the bloggers. Yeah, that's right. Bloggers. Considering that the exit polls in 2004 were so screwed up, why anyone should consider them worth the effort except as to potentially subtly alter the races that are still to be decided.

The new electronic ballots aren't doing so well either. Voter intimidation? Check. Fraud? Check.

This is going to shape up as one heck of a day/night. Stay tuned.

UPDATE:
Can you say litigation? I knew you could. Check out the Election law blog for updates on the potential for litigation over today's election.

UPDATE:
Scattered problems in Essex and Camden counties in NJ. Hmmmm, that bears watching.

Technorati: bush, kean, lieberman, menendez, gop, democrat, election, politics, exit poll, diebold, voters, vote, 2006 elections, republicans, democrats.

Lamont Nosedives in Polling

Now this is interesting. The headline blares that the giant killer Lamont stumbles. Well, that's just a wee bit misleading isn't it? The Leftists in the Democrat party in Connecticut engaged in a purge of the party, which led to Lamont's narrow win in the primary. Lieberman shrewdly decided to run as an independent in a state he carried handily six years ago (which coincidentally was when he was running as Vice President). He's now leading polls by double digits, and this is somehow a mystery?

It's interesting that the reports think that Lamont needs the GOP candidate, Schlesinger, to cull votes from Lieberman. I don't think the margin is there as Lieberman is comfortably ahead.

Lamont never had much appeal outside the leftists in the Democrat party who put ideological purity on Iraq over all else. Never mind that Lieberman voted with the Democrat caucus 90% of the time, which puts him in the same league as Kerry and Kennedy. The difference is that Lieberman has not waivered on Iraq.

Lieberman did not leave the Democrats. The Democrats left him.

PATH To Better Commuting

Inova spokesman David Lieberman said each PATH train car will be equipped with four pairs of high-resolution, 12-inch television screens that will broadcast pre-programmed news and train information. In the stations, larger screens will broadcast information about arrival times and delays, Lieberman said.

The project, which coincides with the $809 million undertaking to modernize the PATH system, is expected to begin in early 2008 and be completed by 2011, Lieberman said.

"A lot of urban centers are interested in this technology. But in the U.S., we're way behind what's been happening in Europe," he said. "There's a lot of catch up that needs to be played."

Lieberman said similar technology already is in use in Frankfurt, Vienna, Geneva, Madrid and Athens.

The modernization of the PATH system will include the complete overhaul of all 340 trains in the fleet, as well as improved lighting, air conditioning, and heating on both the trains and the stations, among other modern amenities, according to the Port Authority. The project is expected to be completed by 2011.

The new railcars cannot come soon enough, as the existing rolling stock is in poor shape. However, I worry most about the conditions of some of the stations, especially 9th Street and Christopher Street, which have limited egress in case of an emergency. Those situation were supposed to be rectified after 9/11, but appear to be in a holding pattern. This article notes some of the opposition to adding a second exit to Christopher Street. Now, more than 5 years later, and there's still no additional exit to the PATH stations at Christopher or 9th Street.

Polling On The November Election Outcome, Part II

I previously wrote about what I thought was going on with the polling and general sentiment around the country. Namely, I believed that Foleygate had little to no effect on the outcome, as the GOP was in substantially the same position as it was in at the beginning of September - before Foleygate broke and before President Bush began his more emphatic defense of the war on terror and defending the conflict in Iraq as the right thing to do.

Election Projection, which all but nailed the 2004 elections and did far better than the professional prognosticators, seems to confirm my take on the House, which would remain in GOP control. The Senate is a dead heat, with the GOP retaining power on the tiebreaker (aka Dick Cheney). That particular scenario also gives someone like Joe Lieberman quite a bit of power since his fellow Democrats all but screwed him in the aftermath of the primary. They'll now try to butter him up to make sure he sticks with the caucus. Given his voting record, that shouldn't be that difficult, but he could extract quite a toll on Democrat leadership. The currently weekly wrapup is here.

That isn't going to stop those from trying to argue that polls show the GOP losing the House. The poll itself is here.

Polling On The November Election Outcome

Sad as it sounds, but this election will be about which party is the lesser of the evils.

The Washington Post claims that the GOP is predicting anywhere from a seven seat loss to a 30 seat loss. Should anyone be surprised at this? Seven seats strikes me as low, and also would signal that the GOP retains control in the House. A 30-seat loss would mean a shift in control in the House, but I don't think that will come to pass. It's also close to what many were predicting even before Foleygate, North Korea, and the uptick in violence in Iraq.

Tradesports historical data shows that the contract on GOP control of the House is about where it was a month ago, before everything hit the fan, and that the GOP control of the House has been trending down for most of the past year. Losing seats appears inevitable, but that was apparent for much of the past year. Foleygate has not changed the calculus - just look at where the contract was at the beginning of September and now and realize that the bounce in September was largely due to the GOP pushback on national security issues. The situation in the Senate is similar to where it was in late November 2005, though the GOP has to be concerned because of the sharp dropoff in the past month.

Real Clear Politics is the place to go for the best roundups on election news. Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to retake the House, so what should they reasonably expect? I think 10-14 seats is quite possible, especially in an off-year election.

Both parties are trying to nationalize the elections to the extent it's possible. Democrats want to criminalize the GOP over Foleygate and Abramoff and Cunningham, while trying to avert the eyes from Menendez, Mollohan, and their own Abramoff ties. GOPers are trying to cast the Democrats as the party that's weak on defense and national security, though they're trying to make folks forget that they're wishy-washy on border control.

Since all politics is local, the party control of Congress will depend on the outcome of 435 separate local elections, and there are only a handful of races that are competitive or likely to change hands. RCP puts the figure at 40. That's roughly 10% of the seats in the House.

The Senate is even more difficult, with only 14 competitive races.

So, for all the talks about national sentiment and how people rate Congress, it really does come down to how people feel about their own representatives. Just ask yourself whether you like your representative. You probably do (if you even give it much thought), but you probably despise Congress as a whole and how they've mangled everything from national security to immigration and border control or Social Security reform or budget or tax reform (just to name a few key issues). Yet, an individual voter has no control over all of Congress, just his or her own representatives.

GOPers who are concerned about the race and are considering sitting out ought to reconsider their positions because of this basic fact. Those who have blogged that they would sit out the election, like Malkin (who then reversed course), ought to remember that all politics is local, and that their own local representatives could lose despite the fact that they've done a good job for their constituents.

Democrats, meanwhile, have to be concerned that despite the GOP shooting itself in both feet with the handling of Foleygate, an inability of the GOP to exploit the border fence bill passage (though that may still come), and all the ongoing problems with Iraq, Afghanistan, and now North Korea, they aren't severely trouncing the GOP candidates. That should tell them that they've got to do more than simply say that they're going to offer something different or that the Democrat candidates will do a better job. There's absolutely nothing to indicate that they would, and their calls that they're the more ethical party fall flat on its face (look no further than how Pelosi and Hastert both sought to extend congressional immunity to protect William Jefferson him from law enforcement investigation and searches of his office, despite the fact that investigators already found $90,000 in cash stashed in his freezer). Many voters realize that the Democrats don't have a message that resonates other than "We're not the GOP, Vote for US."

For some, that might be enough, but not for me.

National security will continue to dominate many of the races, which includes the issues of Afghanistan, Iraq, border control, and defense spending. The fence bill will be signed into law by President Bush, when GOPers think that they can time things for maximum effect. That time is fast approaching as they need to get inside the news cycle and find some other issue to bump down for at least a few days.

Which party do you trust more with the keys to the national security establishment? I don't trust the Democrats, not when they offer up various statements that in toto say that they're going to cut and run from Iraq as soon as possible, including cutting funding to the Iraq operation. What kind of message do you think that sends to our allies, including those Iraqis who have been laying it all on the line hoping for a better tomorrow? All they have to do is look at what happened when Congress cut the funding for our allies in South Vietnam to know what could happen in Iraq. Millions dead and displaced. Not a pretty picture, and one that is infinitely worse than what we're seeing now in Iraq despite the loss of American lives thus far.

Democrats like to say that the Bush Administration handled North Korea wrong, though one can rightfully point out that the Democrat position failed miserably to stem North Korea's ambitions when they were still in the development phase and used the time between 1994 and 2000 to reach the nuclear threshold and there was little for a Bush Administration to do. Bush committed to Six Party Talks, and Democrats think that the right course of action was direct negotiations, though there's no reason to believe they would have been any more successful, and that would have given North Korea exactly what it wanted - split the US from the Japanese and South Koreans who actually have to live with the outcome.

Yet, there are many who think that the GOP is going to go down like the Titanic and are already casting blame. RedState has more on that phenomenon.

As for the situation in New Jersey, all I can say is that Menendez is a lout, and his ethics are more than questionable. Fausta has more on his latest batch of dirty tricks. The alternative is Tom Kean Jr., and I find that he falls short on many areas, but he's not as bad as Menendez.

Others blogging: AJ Strata, Don Surber, Dan Riehl, Sister Toldjah, Hot Air, Stop the ACLU.

UPDATE:
Now here's a scary thought. Kos actually makes sense for a change on election outcomes.

I'm getting a little nervous with people thinking we have any race this fall in the bag. While things look great for us right now, the election isn't right now. And if Republicans can do anything, it's close the deal. And quite frankly, we're not a sure thing anywhere.

We've got to pick up six seats for a majority, seven if we want to avoid a potential Lieberman blackmail situation (if he wins his race). We have to hold all of our own endangered seats (looking solid in MN, okay in MD, and iffy in NJ). Then, in the Republican-held competitive races left -- MO, MT, OH, PA, RI, TN, and VA -- all but one feature incumbents, always the hardest races to win. Incumbents rarely, rarely lose.

He wonders why Democrats are getting so excited. They haven't won anything yet, and Democrats are at a disadvantage monetarily on several key states, where the GOP can pour funds in to help races. And he's right. They haven't won anything, and haven't figured out how to close the deal. To the Left, getting close to winning is a big deal, but it's still a loss when the seat goest to the other side.

These are important things to keep in mind going into the home stretch of the 2006 election season. Nothing is certain and the dynamics of the races leaves lots of room for movement as people finally become engaged in the various races.

We'll be treated to lots of fury and noise, signifying not a whole lot of new information that is actually useful to voters who are trying to make decisions.

Fence Watch 2: The Senate Approves Measure 80-19

For those who chastized me for suggesting that the President focus on the remaining 80 percent of the folks who could potentially be convinced of the importance of major issues because there's 20% who refuse to accept anything the GOP says or does, it's interesting to note that the 700 mile fence bill was passed by the Senate 80-19. Here's how the Times describes matters:

The Senate vote, 80 to 19, came as lawmakers finished a batch of legislation before heading home to campaign. It sent the fence measure to President Bush, who has promised to sign it despite his earlier push for a more comprehensive approach that could lead to citizenship for some who are in the country illegally.

House Republicans, fearing a voter backlash, had opposed any approach that smacked of amnesty and chose instead to focus on border security in advance of the elections, passing the fence bill earlier this month. With time running out, the Senate acquiesced despite its bipartisan passage of a broader bill in May.

House Republicans feared a backlash, but the Democrats in the Senate completely caved, with how many Democrats joining the GOP in voting to approve the measure? That's not counted towards the fear of voter backlash? The Times partisan agenda shines through once again, because anyone with a pulse should know that the Republicans do not have 80 members in the Senate. That means quite a few Democrats crossed the aisle to vote on this legislation.

Here's the Senators who voted against the bill:

Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM, Cantwell (D-WA), Chafee (R-RI), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Kerry (D-MA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Lieberman (D-CT), Menendez (D-NJ), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Salazar (D-CO), Sarbanes (D-MD)

While Chafee, who's facing a tough reelection bid crossed the line to vote with against the bill, by my count 24 Democrats voted for the fence legislation, including Senators Schumer, Clinton, Rockefeller, Feinstein, Obama, and Dodd. Ted Kennedy did not vote.

Perhaps the real reason that the bills were passed by the House and Senate by the margins they were was because everyone realized that the fence first option did the most to improve national security and gives ICE the ability to begin to catch up on their mandated job of policing illegal aliens currently in the country and lets Congress punt the issue of how to deal with those illegals already in the country into the future. That so many Democrats voted for this bill suggests that so much of the discussion about the fence legislation was bluster on the part of Democrats who realized that there were real security gains to be had by getting a fence appropriated.

That said, there's still issues to deal with the fence. Funding for the fence appears limited to only build about half of the 700 miles. That's got to be corrected in the new session.

UPDATE:
There's another possible reason that Democrats voted for the bill - they wanted to enhance their credibility on national security, and some of the possible presidential candidates for 2008 voted for this bill, including Biden, Dodd, Clinton, and Obama. So, far from this being all about GOP voter backlash, it can just as easily be a preemption by Democrats to burnish their security credentials. That part escaped the Times analysis. Figures.

The full roll call vote is here.

UPDATE:
The Washington Times has a far more comprehensive take on the border control bill, and Ed Morrissey runs through some of the numbers and rationales for the switches among those Democrats who voted against cloture and then for the bill.

Others blogging: Mickey Kaus, Blue Crab Boulevard, Scott at Powerline, and Hot Air - who notes that Michelle Malkin doesn't think much of even this version as it's underfunded and doesn't quite get the job done.

I've got to disagree with Malkin on this. Something is better than nothing, and it shows that there is sufficient support to get the fence done first. There was insufficent support to go amnesty first and then the fence, or to do the two concurrently. Therefore, I'd suggest that this was a good first step. The next will be to get the rest of the 700 miles built and soon, and then finish off the rest of the US border with Mexico.

Technorati: border control, fence, immigration, mexico, national security.

Investigations Continue in British Air Terror Plot

Details continue to emerge about the plot to blow up multiple passenger airliners in a mass casaulty event that could have exceeded the death toll of the 9/11 attacks and was similar to the thwarted Operation Bojinka plot hatched by Ramzi Yousef.

19 of the suspects have been identified. Their financial assets have been frozen as part of the investigation. The scope and complexity are hallmarks of an al Qaeda operation, but that link hasn't been made definitively. The tip came on the heels of the 7/7/2005 London Tube bombing that killed 52 in London. The tip came from someone within the Muslim community who had suspicions about someone in their midst. Well, there's hope that the West can thwart these terror attacks if there are people within the Muslim community willing to out the extremists and jihadis in their midst.

Liquid explosives are a scary thought because most folks don't think of liquids as explosives. The terrorists were going to try and exploit that.

So what does the Left think of this plot? Well, they have predictably gone into complete Bush Derangement Syndome meltdown. They think that the Bush Administration is a political windfall. Actually, they characterize the mood in the White House as gleeful. Never mind the fact that the White House could breathe a sigh of relief that a mass casualty attack was avoided, there are political ramifications that do have to be addressed.

Well, if those terrorists succeeded, wouldn't the Democrats use that as political windfall to show how Bush failed again? Of course they would. The fact that this plot was thwarted does have a political dimension, and it does show how Democrats continue to be weak on national security. One of the methods used in thwarting this plot involved sneak and peak searches, which were authorized by the Patriot Act, and that Act was largely reviled by the Left and many Democrats.

Joe Lieberman was quick to seize on the issue as well. He lost the Connecticut Democrat primary by a 52-48 margin against Lamont, and used the arrests to hammer Lamont on his national security credentials - which are nonexistent. Ned Lamont wonders why he has to say something about the situation and recycles the usual anti-war talking points.

UPDATE:
Ace wonders about the specific intel gathering tools utilized to thwart the plot. Time Magazine has some details on the kinds of methods used in tracking terrorists. There are reports that one of the suspects met with UK Member of Parliment curious George Galloway, whose anti-Semitism, anti-US, Islamist sympathies, and anti-West positions are well known.

The Daily Mail reports that the attacks were scheduled to occur August 16. The youngest of the terror suspects taken into custody was a pregnant woman. ABC News notes that one person is missing from that list, a man has been identified as Don Stewart-Whyte, a 21 year old from High Wycombe who converted to Islam only a short time ago. Kim at Wizbang has the details.

UPDATE:
Allah's roundup at Hot Air notes some interesting connections and highly suggestive stuff. SWIFT gets a mention, as does more direct relationship between the folks captured in Britain and al Qaeda. One of the plotters was said to work at Heathrow. Well, if you want to infiltrate and avoid detection, getting someone on the inside is the way to do it. The go code appears to have come from an intercept in communications between Britain and Karachi, Pakistan.

Now, is there a connection to the US? There appear to be some communications between the UK and the US that appear suspicious.

ABC News is reporting that 10 planes would be attacked. Three terrorists on each plane would each carry liquid components that would be assembled on board the plane and then detonated with a jury rigged cellphone or other kind of electronic device. The explosive of choice? TATP.

Brendan Loy wonders if the August 22 date bandied about by the mad mullahs in Iran was the attack date. In light of the above, it seems unlikely. Still, it's worth pursuing whether Iran had any involvment in the current plot.

PJ Media has more.

UPDATE:
The arrest of a key terror figure in Pakistan appears to have been a big step in disrupting this terror plot. There are links to al Qaeda.

Pakistan said today that its security forces had arrested a "key person" in the alleged transatlantic terror plot, who is the brother of one of the 24 men held by police in a dramatic dawn swoop in the UK yesterday.



Rashid Rauf was arrested in the Punjab on Wednesday, hours before the simultaneous raids in Birmingham, Buckinghamshire and London that brought Britain’s airports to a standstill yesterday.

Among the two men arrested in Birmingham was Tayib Rauf, Mr Rauf’s brother.

In total, Pakistani security forces arrested seven people, including at least two British nationals, thought to be connected with the alleged plot to blow up US passenger jets heading from Britain to the United States.

John Reid, the Home Secretary, has said that the alleged plot could have been more destructive than 9/11 had it gone ahead.

A Pakistani Foreign Ministry statement named Mr Rauf as a "key person" in the plot and said that the arrests underscored "the very important role that has been played by Pakistan in breaking this international terrorist network".

Without elaborating, the Foreign Ministry said there were "indications of Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda connection".

We're again witnessing how a small cadre of individuals are pushing this jihad against the West. Several members of Rauf's family were arrested in the process. Substantial sums of money were wired from Pakistan to the alleged ringleaders in Britain.

And the media's reaction to this? Well, Brian Williams has no problem comparing US Armed Forces elite units like Special Forces, Army Rangers, or Navy SEALS to jihadis because they're willing to risk their lives for the cause. Democrats are claiming that the GOP is playing politics with national security. Of course, that's exactly what Democrats are trying to do - scoring points on the politics of national security, but let's let that slide.

I'd be more concerned that these terror plots go undiscovered or are busted after the fact. That means providing the kinds of tools law enforcement needs to disrupt these threats. It also means recognizing that while law enforcement is a part of the overall war against the jihadis, it is not the only part. Military action must be considered and used as necessary.

UPDATE:
Do Islamists have serious issues with women? It's been mentioned in the past, and it may simply be a coincidence that one of the people arrested in connection with the terror plot, David Stewart-Whyte, aka Abdul Waheed, happens to be the brother to a Victoria's Secret Model.

This plot was close to fruition, as the British authorities have uncovered a martyrdom video in one of the locations searched. That's a pretty good indication that they were indeed close to committing to the attacks.

Ace points out that Ray Robison, who's been busy translating the Iraqi intel files, has come across a potential link between one of the people implicated in the terror plot and Saddam Hussein. As Ace would say, it's all about the layers and nuance.

There are still at least 20 other suspects at large.

Technorati: airline bomb, terror, terrorism, heathrow, liquid explosive, al qaeda, scotland yard, tsa.

Blackjack: Brits Hold 21 on Massive Air Terror Plot

I awoke this morning to news that the British government broke up a massive terror plot to blow up airliners headed from the UK to the US midair. The Brits took 21 people into custody, although they think there are still more suspects at large.

The plan was to blow up American, United, and Continental airline flights heading to various US destinations, including New York City and Washington, DC.

The plot had all the hallmarks of an al Qaeda operation. Who were the individuals taken into custody? The NYT offers this about the disruption of the plot:

The police said they had arrested 21 people in connection with the plot, which apparently involved plans to smuggle explosives onto aircraft in hand luggage. In response, flights into London Heathrow Airport were canceled and airlines banned hand luggage on departing planes, causing chaos and long delays.

The police did not identify the suspects or their origin, though Paul Stephenson, the deputy metropolitan police commissioner for London, said "community leaders" had been alerted about the police action, using a code word for the British Muslim community.

The authorities did not say how many aircraft had been identified for attack. Sky News put the number at six, while other reports said between three and 10.

"We think this was an extraordinarily serious plot and we are confident that we have stopped an attempt to create mass murder on an unimaginable scale," Stephenson told reporters at Scotland Yard.

Even at this late date, countries have to use code words to call out the groups and communities from which the terrorists who engage in these plots originate. These are Muslim terrorists, and law enforcement has to dance around the issue for fear of upsetting the local Muslim communities? These same communities are quick to rush to microphones to worry about reprisal attacks, never rushing to expose the jihadis in their midst, regularly and vigorously denouncing the extremist imams that exhort congregants to take up jihad against the West, and otherwise seek to deflect blame elsewhere.

The US responded to the threat by raising US airline security to its highest levels.

Text of DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff is here.

The investigations are ongoing, and for those flying in the coming days, expect delays and long lines at baggage check areas.

The NYT reports on the security checks thusly:

Officials were requiring passengers to check everything except personal items like keys, wallets, and passports, which they had to carry in plastic bags. Drinks and other liquid items were banned.

Travelers were required to remove spectacles or sunglasses from their cases, and those travelling with infants were required to taste any baby milk in front of security officials.

Britain's Department for Transport said it was requiring secondary searches of travelers headed for the United States, with a particular eye to removing any liquids they might have with them.

"We hope that these measures, which are being kept under review by the government, will need to be in place for a limited period only," the department said in a statement.

Despite the arrests, the police said other people connected with the plot might still be at large.

"We believe that these arrests have significantly disrupted the threat, but we cannot be sure that the threat has been entirely eliminated or the plot completely thwarted," Michael Chertoff, the U.S. homeland security secretary, told reporters.

UPDATE:
Michelle Malkin has a huge update. Heathrow Airport was closed to all flights that weren't already in the air. That means huge delays around the world as flights are cancelled or redirected to other airports. She also notes that the words Islamic terrorism were missing from the British news reports to describe those taken into custody.

We're not talking about militant Quakers after all.

Ed Morrissey notes that the British figure of 21 captured doesn't quite jibe with other reports that indicate that at least 50 people are involved in this terror plot. Scary stuff indeed. It reminds Ed of Operation Bojinka, which would have included downing a dozen planes from the Phillipines.

This whole situation puts the alerts issued for the whereabouts of those 11 Egyptian students two days ago into a new light now, doesn't it. Eight of those Egyptian men are still at large, one is in custody in Minnisota, and two are in custody in New Jersey. Are they connected? The FBI still says no.

UPDATE:
Here's the TSA Website information for those who are taking any flights in the US at present:

NO LIQUIDS OR GELS OF ANY KIND WILL BE PERMITTED IN CARRY-ON BAGGAGE. ITEMS MUST BE IN CHECKED BAGGAGE. This includes all beverages, shampoo, suntan lotion, creams, tooth paste, hair gel, and other items of similar consistency.
Exception: Baby formula, breast milk, or juice if a baby or small child is traveling; prescription medicine with a name that matches the passenger’s ticket; and insulin and essential other non-prescription medicines

Beverages purchased in the sterile area must be consumed before boarding because they will not be permitted onboard the aircraft.

Passengers traveling from the U.K. to the U.S. will be subject to a more extensive screening process.

Anyone else wonder just how good the checked luggage screening is? It has to be spot on or the terrorists could still manage to get items on board planes.

Meanwhile, Gov. Mitt Romney is calling out the National Guard to supplement TSA screeners at Logan Int'l Airport in Boston. That includes random checks of automobiles and luggage by National Guard and other law enforcement. Long lines are reported at Newark Liberty In'tl Airport. NJ Transit stepped up its security levels as well, though no specific threats were indicated.

One of the repeating quotes that continues to be repeated is that this was a plot to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale." Sorry, but it has been imagined before. As noted above, al Qaeda has tried this plot before. Operation Bojinka, which would have included downing a dozen planes from the Phillipines would have involved much of the same kind of planning and execution as the terror plot unraveled today.

UPDATE:
President Bush gave a statement a short time ago.

The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to -- to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.

I would have gone further. The Islamists don't only want to destroy the US, but all of the Western world. They attack anywhere Islamists are not in charge, from Bali to London to Madrid to Israel.

There are only two wars going on right now, each a facet of the other. One is the shooting war, and the other is the propaganda war. Over the past few days have we seen the lengths to which enemies of the West will go to push their propaganda into a compliant and willing media. That's on the back of the shooting war going on between Israel and Hizbullah and the West versus the insurgents/jihadis in Iraq and the West versus the Taliban/al Qaeda in Afghanistan. EU referendum has more.

As of now, there's no way to know the timing of the terror plot. Yet, with the fifth anniversary of 9/11 right around the corner, do you have any doubt that any such attack would be in close proximity to that date?

Meanwhile, the insane clown leftists, who fancy themselves a reality based community, think that this is just another piece of propaganda to keep the peans poor, stupid, and cowed. Yeah, just like on 9/11 when you bray that Bush failed to protect the country against the Islamists or otherwise knew about the attacks and did nothing. Charles at LGF, Ace, and Confederate Yankee (among others) busted out the hip waders to mine the depths of depravity of the Left. I hope you guys took showers after that - along with a full decontamination because the mindbending conspiracies and nonsense boggles reality.

This is the same bunch that ran Joe Lieberman out of the Democrat party in Connecticut, and will not tolerate the slightest bit of dissent. Ideological purity in pursuit of their goal of obtaining power without regard to the national security consequences. Or reality.

UPDATE:
So how were these 21 individuals taken into custody? Good question. Lots of investigating and communications between the Brits and other international groups.

CAIR has already issued its usual statement on Islamic terror plots that have been busted. They're more concerned about the potential backlash than about driving out the jihadists from their midst.

HotAir reports that the total number in custody is now 24. British authorities are looking for as many as 10 more people in connection with the plot. The ABC News blog (Brian Ross) has a bunch of info, including that the explosives were to be contained in sports drink beverage containers, and should be checked regularly. The three alleged ringleaders are apparently in custody:

Sources identify the three, who are now in custody, as:

--Rashid Rauf
--Mohammed al-Ghandra
--Ahmed al Khan

Others blogging: Jeff Goldstein, and pretty much the entire blogosphere.

UPDATE:
Arrests had been made in Pakistan as well, as that's where the plot began to unravel. The intel flowed from the arrest of a Pakistani militant and was made available to the Brits who conducted sneak and peak searches to gather intel and information needed to break the group's activities. It appears that they were on the verge of conducting dry runs within two days.

Many of those arrested had dual citizenship - Pakistani and British passports.

In addition to Gov. Romney calling out the National Guard to assist securing Logan Airport, the National Guard was called out in New York, California and Washington as well to bolster security. The tighter restrictions may remain in place for up to 72 hours or longer.

UPDATE:
The NYT has more, including that law enforcement had been tracking this group for some time, and that the group had begun "...investigating nonstop flights from the United Kingdom to the United States. The hijackers of Sept. 11, 2001, also did meticulous research on airline schedules and took numerous rehearsal trips in the United States."

UPDATE:
This may be something, or nothing at all. Just keep your eye out for the names Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohammed. The Jawa Report has the details.

Technorati: airline bomb, terror, terrorism, heathrow, liquid explosive, al qaeda, scotland yard, tsa.

The Lieberman Fall Out

As everyone knows by now, Joseph Lieberman lost the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut to Ned Lamont. But what does that mean for the future of Joe Lieberman, the future of the Connecticut Democratic Party or even the Republican Party? Today, Lieberman filed to run as an independent, under a new party , "Connecticut for Lieberman". In my opinion, this opens the door for the Republicans to capture this Senate seat.

It is obvious that Lieberman still garners strong support among Connecticut Democrats. Of the 282,103 votes cast (with 99% of the precincts reporting), Lieberman won 48% or just over 136,000 votes. Also, Lieberman brings a certain amount of name recognition to the table, which will do him well when the remaining more than 400,000 Connecticut Democrats come out to vote in the General Election. As of October 25, 2005, Connecticut had almost 700,000 registered Democrats, more than 450,000 Republicans, and, most importantly, more than 900,000 “unaffiliated”. (Source.)

Now, lets look at the last Connecticut Senate Election. November 2, 2004, Democrat Chris Dodd defeated Republican, Jack Orchulli, by a margin of almost 2:1 (945,347 to 457,749) with the remaining two candidates, Concerned Citizens, Timothy A. Knibbs, and Libertarian, Leonard H. Rasch winning 12,442 and 9,188 respectively. Accordingly, of the 1,424,726 votes cast, Dodd won 66% of the vote and Orchulli won 32%. So what does that mean for the 2006 race?

Lets assume that the 2006 election has about the same voter turn out as the 2004 election (yes its an off year election, which traditionally has lower turn out, but there is a lot of attention on this election and the primary turn out was higher than in years past.) Lets also assume, that the Republicans stick by their candidate in the same tune, i.e., about 450,000 votes. And lets say that the democrats turn out in the same number, i.e., 950,000 votes. However, who are the Democrats voting for? If you take the primary numbers as any indication, you may think that the democrats will roughly split their vote, so that would mean about 450,000 votes apiece for Lieberman and Lamont. That would leave us with close to a three way tie.

So what then? Remember those 900,000 “unaffiliated” voters? Many of them most likely vote either Republican or Democrat. However, many of them probably vote fore the alternative candidate (Connecticut for Lieberman party?). The real fight, in this race, will be between Lieberman and the Republicans for the unaffiliated votes. However, Lieberman has the name recognition factor to contend with. People in Connecticut know his name, and are used to voting for him in November. This is a powerful weapon, and one that cannot be ignored by either the Reublicans or Lamont.

Right now, in my opinion the race is too close to call. However, the Republicans must realize that they have the best chance of stealing this seat than any time in recent history. The Republicans need a grass root, get out the vote, effort, to energize their party to show up in droves at this election and to turn those 900,000 “unaffiliated” voters to Republican voters.

This race could be fun to watch till November.

Remember, no matter who you vote for – VOTE!!!

Hanging in the Balance

The polls have closed in Connecticut, but the results will be coming in shortly. Will Joe Lieberman pull out the win over uber leftie Ned Lamont, or will Lamont show the rest of the Democratic party that this is what happens to anyone who doesn't toe the far left's ideological line.

Earlier today, Joe's website crashed, and Lieberman's camp said that his blog was hacked, as was his email service. By Lamont backers. Later reporting says that there's no direct evidence Lamont backers had anything to do with it. Lamont backers counter by saying that Lieberman's site crashed because they paid for lousy service.

Well, who exactly would try to kill Lieberman's site on the day of the election? Hmmmm.

Todays craziness is only the latest in the most vile campaign I've seen in a long time. Lamont backers have portrayed Lieberman in blackface, had him engaging in sexual acts, and engaged in all kinds of nastiness, including anti-Semitic rantings. That's who backs Lamont, and if you're worried about the future of Democrats in Connecticut, you've got real reason to be.

UPDATE:
Early returns are in: 52-47.87 Lamont over Lieberman with 50.27% reporting.

UPDATE:
Drudge has the flashing siren, and calls the election for Lamont. With 84% reporting, it's 51.9 to 48.1, Lamont leading. The Hartford Courant hasn't called the election yet, all while noting Lamont's lead.

Bumping Uglies and Political Mudslinging: CT Style

You want to bump into the ugly side of politics? Want to see political mudslinging of the worst kind? Just take a gander at the Ned Lamont campaign, its close advisors, and the folks who are supporting him in his primary run against Democrat party incumbent Joe Lieberman in Connecticut.

Want to show Lieberman in blackface? We've got that.

Want to show Lieberman in highly suggestive poses and thinly veiled homosexual acts? This race has that too.

In both of these instances, it's the lefty bloggers who are busy throwing racist and outrageous imagery all in the name of defeating Joe. They don't like Lieberman very much because he's been unwavering in his support of the war in Iraq and the global war on terror in general. It doesn't matter that he's voted Democrat 90% of the time, was the former Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrats in 2000, or that he's a three-term incumbent. The far left of the Democrat party want to purge the party of anyone who doesn't hew to their line. Thus, the assault on Lieberman.

Another question would be why they've decided to use such vile imagery? Who knows. Maybe the nutbars who published them to the Internet thought they were funny, or that it would further their agenda.

So, who exactly were posting these images? In the case of the blackface photo, it was posted by close adviser to Lamont, Jane Hamsher, who posted the image on Huffington Post. Michelle Malkin has the details, though this article in Slate suggests that Hamsher is just trying to be an insider and that if she were truly a staffer, she would have known just how stupid such a move would be. Lamont can try to deny that he knows of Hamsher, but the photo evidence shows quite a different picture. The spin coming from Hamsher and Lamont are laughable and inexcusable.

There's a time to stop digging and accept that you not only went over the line, but obliterated it in a big way.

The Kos images, are symptomatic of the bigger problem for not only Lamont or Lieberman, but for the Democrats at large. Will the party police itself and rid itself of the racists. Where are the adults in the party to serve notice that this behavior will not be tolerated? Or, have they held their nose because they want to achieve power, and will do anything to get it no matter how distasteful.

With this race coming down to the last hours, this could have a big effect on the race. Polls are showing that Lamont is building a big lead in the primary. Far from helping Lamont, Hamsher looks like she could make the race far closer than she had envisioned for all the wrong reasons.

Others blogging the Lamont-Lieberman race, and all the ensuing madness from the Lamont camp/backers: Sister Toldjah, Pajamas Media, Dan Riehl, Cold Fury, Liberty and Justice, LGF, Outside the Beltway, memeorandum, Hot Air, and Flopping Aces.