Let’s not forget China currently gets an increasing amount of oil from a little nation called Iran. If something were to happen that significantly disrupted the supply coming from Iran (say massive air strikes or Allah forbid an actual invasion) the price of oil will shoot over the $100 a barrel mark in a second and stay there (certainly some of the volatility in oil prices is the markets concern over an attack on Iran). And China’s economy would be directly threatened by such a disruption to a key resource.

So threatened China might feel the need to retaliate in some manner.

How much US Treasury debt do the Chinese own again?

Basic simple truth. If a terrorist plot has reached the point where they are already in the airport then it’s a sure bet they’ve already figured out how to bypass whatever security measures have been set up (or exploit them as they did in 9/11 when crews were trained to obey hijackers). Which means the plots already succeeded and a lot of people are probably going to die.

Patrick is dead on, terrorists are stopped OUTSIDE the airport by good intelligence and police work.

Can anyone site ONE example of a terrorist plot being stopped at an airport security checkpoint?

Anyone

Anyone

I didn’t think so.

That’s the real question. She’s already squashed any talk of impeachment. Will she let this clear attack on Bush’s supposed the “Executive Privilege” make it to the house floor or will she squash this one as well?

While she’s been willing to hit Bush at the periphery (the Armenian genocide vote and even there she backed down) she’s been loath to actually take Bush head on in foreign policy or Presidential authority in any meaningful way.

I’m worried that she’ll smack Conyers down yet again because she’s worried about being labeled as ‘soft on terror’ or some other meaningless attack by the 30% of the country that will never vote Democratic anyway. She hasn’t seemed to figure out that playing it safe is what’s driving down Congress’s approval ratings. All the poles show the public wants Congress to challenge Bush and is frustrated that always seem to back down before the fight even gets started.

Robertson has clearly decided that the ‘end times’ are here and has decided that a Giuliani Presidency is the fastest way to get to Armageddon. Of course he’ll be whisked away in the Rapture before all the really bad things start happening. Unless, of course, all those pre-Tribulation Rapture folks are wrong and the Rapture is supposed to take place AFTER the Tribulation period as some ‘end times’ scholars argue.

The Giuliani looks moderate is because there is no national voice for the progressive movement in the US.

Quick name a candidate for President in the last 30 years, other than Kucinich or Dean, who regularly speaks out on Progressive issues. And consider that, like Ron Paul on the right, both are labeled as ‘crazy’, ‘out there’ and ‘unelectable’ by the MSM.

There hasn’t been a major national figure articulating a Progressive agenda since the early 70s. Carter won largely on backlash from Watergate and he campaigned to the right on most foreign policy and defense issues (don’t’ forget the military build up of the Reagan years actually began under Carter).

Clinton ran as ‘Republican Lite’ and governed as such. His three biggest legislative successes were; NAFTA, Welfare Reform and the Family Medical and Leave Act. The first two of those were passed over the strenuous objections of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party and the last was one of his famed ‘incremental’ reforms.

The Democratic leadership in Congress has blanked checked Bush’s foreign policy.

The Left needs people at a national level to speak up and find a way to be heard. Until then the mainstream political discourse in this country is going to lean solidly to Right and people like Giuliani will look ‘moderate’.

I remember reading an article when Feinstein was first running for the Senate. It was from a Democratic activist who initially supported Feinstein because she was a woman and Pro-choice. Then she actually began to listen to Feinstein talk and realized the she was very pro-business and pro-military and that in fact outside of abortion and couple of other social issues Feinstein was basically a Republican.

When she switched her support to Feinstein’s opponent in the primary (who was a white man) she was vilified by many of her fellow Democrats for not supporting a pro-choice woman for office. Her argument that the man was not only pro-choice but also for strengthening regulation and cutting the defense budget was met with ‘but Feinstein’s a woman.’ It didn’t matter that 90 percent of her positions were basically Republican. All that mattered was that she was a woman and that she was pro-choice.

To many in the California Democratic party that’s all that has mattered. Feinstein’s a woman and she’s pro-choice. There was never any need to look beyond that. It’s about time the party began to look past her sex and at her actual voting record. Maybe now a true progressive can challenge her in the primary.