I posted a letter further back pointing out that it should actually in the airlines' interest to have a mandatory maximum waiting period on the runway before having to return to the terminal and allow the passengers to disembark.

But maybe they realize that already.

A little history. Back in the mid-19th Century the railroads were in a position similar to the airlines today, facing runaway competition and dwindling bottom lines. They needed some form of government control over the mess, and to restrict competition from new upstarts. But the public then hated the railroads even more than the airlines today, and would never approve anything they wanted.

Their solution? The old Br'er Rabbit ploy. They got their friendly members of Congress to write the Interstate Commerce Commission act, all the while publicly denouncing the proposal. The public figured that anything the railroads hated couldn't be all bad and heartily approved. The Members of Congress profited both ways, by the votes of a grateful public for standing up to the hated railroads, and payoffs from the railroads.

Is something like that happening today, with the airlines?

Just wondering.

I think Gary and almost everyone else is missing the point. AIPAC's power does not arrive from its influence on the relatively negligible American Jewish vote, but from its very deep pockets that it uses liberally and effectively to influence American political elections. It uses this money not only to finance the campaigns of those who vote in its interests, but more importantly to defeat those who don't.

How important is the Jewish vote? According to The American Jewish Library, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop.html

there are 6.2 Jews in the United States, 2.2 percent of the population. The highest concentration is in New York, with 1.7 million or 8.7 percent. In 31 states the number is less than 1 percent. SD has all of 300, three others have less than 1,000. Even a cursory look at the table reveals that the lower Jewish populations are primarily in the Red states. That is where latent Antisemitism is most likely, but where AIPAC has proven to be most effective.

Relying on American Jews to overcome AIPAC is nonsense; even if they turned against it 100 percent it would remain a potent political force.

The only way it can be overcome, or at least neutralized, is for some smart candidates to run against it, to use its disapproval as a mark of courage. I suspect that would be very effective, including among the Jewish vote, and encourage some of the profiles in cowardice in our Congress to reexamine their positions.

George W. Bush really is a bold, decisive leader. So is the first lemming over the cliff.

"Wolfowitz's girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, is a Libyan, raised in Saudi Arabia, educated at Oxford, who now has British citizenship."

-----

"Riza, who is not a U.S. citizen, had to receive a security clearance in order to work at the State Department. Who intervened? It is not unusual to have British or French midlevel officers at the department on exchange programs, but they receive security clearances based on the clearances they already have with their host governments. Granting a foreign national who is detailed from an international organization a security clearance, however, is extraordinary, even unprecedented. So how could this clearance have been granted?

-----

"Wolfowitz's willful behavior, as though no rules bound him or facts constrained his ideas, should not have surprised anyone. At the Pentagon, Wolfowitz was an insistent force behind an invasion of Iraq, bringing it up at the first National Security Council meeting of the Bush administration, months before Sept. 11."

-----

After reading the above, the idea of a conspiracy by our leaders over 9-11 suddenly seems a lot more credible. Here's a woman raised in Saudi Arabia, home of fifteen of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers, in bed, literally, with the architect of the Iraq war, well before 9-11. And let's not forget that Wolfowitz was not only advocating that our troops go on into Baghdad and take over the country in 1991, he was a charter member of Project for a New American Century (PNAC),, which had been advocating war with Iraq since its founding in 1997. Its signature document, the infamous Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For A New Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) states: "Further, the process of transformation [to a far stronger military system], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (page 63).

Wolfowitz was also one of those urging that the US forces proceed into Baghdad and take over the country before the Gulf War ended in 1991.

Was Wolfowitz a traitor who helped implement his own Pearl Harbor event, albeit for what he perceived as best for the country? Were others in the administration involved? I don't know. But after reading this piece the possibility now seems far less remote to me.

Those who believe that Bush is holding onto Gonzales out of loyalty to a friend are naive; he would throw his own mother under the bus, even Rove, if he thought it would save his political skin.

But he's in a real bind now. Once Gonzo is gone he has to find a replacement that would pass the Senate confirmation process, and even the Republicans there would be in no mood to approve another Bush ultra loyalist. The new guy might even consider it his function to run the justice system, not abet and cover up all the Bush misdeeds.

Nixon had a similar although more competent loyalist as AG, John Mitchell. But the beginning of his downfall was when Mitchell resigned to run his 1974 reelection campaign; the Democrat controlled Senate wasn't about to let another ultra loyalist slip by, and Nixon's prior misdeeds began to be uncovered one after the other.

That's one bit of history you can bet Bush is aware of.