Jeff Goldstein has nine reasons that killing Cheney would be justified. (Hint for the clueless–it’s satire).

Here’s a point that I didn’t make in my earlier post.

Just as Mookie agrees with many(/most?) Dems on “the surge,” many of the denizens of Huffpo and Metafilter agree with the Taliban that Dick Cheney should die. Can someone remind me again, whose side they’re on?

[Update on the evening of February 27th]

Apparently the powers that be decided to put all the anti-Cheney comments down the memory hole.

Jeff Goldstein has nine reasons that killing Cheney would be justified. (Hint for the clueless–it’s satire).

Here’s a point that I didn’t make in my earlier post.

Just as Mookie agrees with many(/most?) Dems on “the surge,” many of the denizens of Huffpo and Metafilter agree with the Taliban that Dick Cheney should die. Can someone remind me again, whose side they’re on?

[Update on the evening of February 27th]

Apparently the powers that be decided to put all the anti-Cheney comments down the memory hole.

Jeff Goldstein has nine reasons that killing Cheney would be justified. (Hint for the clueless–it’s satire).

Here’s a point that I didn’t make in my earlier post.

Just as Mookie agrees with many(/most?) Dems on “the surge,” many of the denizens of Huffpo and Metafilter agree with the Taliban that Dick Cheney should die. Can someone remind me again, whose side they’re on?

[Update on the evening of February 27th]

Apparently the powers that be decided to put all the anti-Cheney comments down the memory hole.

VDH offers some on the “revolt of the generals.” And he didn’t even mention MacArthur.

[Update a couple minutes later]

I was tempted to write a “Routers” piece about the Truman-MacArthur embroglio (I’ve never done one about Korea), but I was afraid that I’d just be actually channeling the media of the time. I don’t have quick access to a library to see how it was reported.

Does anyone know how the media did handle it? Was it pro-MacArthur or pro-Truman? Or a healthy mix?

What would we do without Democrats?

The bill would devote $1 billion to upgrade security along Amtrak and freight rail systems, require screening of all cargo carried aboard passenger airliners and allow airport screeners to form a union.

Because everyone knows that 911 never would have happened if screeners had been unionized. Whenever I think that the administration is incompetent, all I have to do is look at the new majority in Congress to realize that it could be much worse.

And of course, if Bush resists, and threatens a veto, the media will accuse him of being indifferent to security.

[Update at 6 PM Eastern]

A little good news. The administration is actually threatening a veto, and the Senate will sustain it. But I stand by my prediction of the media response.