When does the story become the GOP’s unprecedented politicization of a terror attack? Three days before the first fund-raising letters go out? The obviousness of the point would seem even more obvious since the main complainers are demonstrably hypocritical on their basic arguments. Someone lemme know when this becomes the story.
At TPM HQ today, we’re digging into the question of what the thinking was in the 2001-2002 decision to try “shoe bomber” Richard Reid in a regular American court.
In some ways, though, I think the whole question is backwards. The truth is, until President Obama got into office and Republicans needed a new political attack angle, the idea barely occurred to anyone that you wouldn’t do a regular trial with someone you had plenty of evidence against. Read More
I see Dick Cheney is wading back into the pond again. I guess it’s worth remembering what’s always been the Cheney signature on terrorism: clinical level of paranoia leading to delusions and lying to the public (already causing the the deaths of thousands of Americans) and seeing terrorism primarily as a tool for use in American domestic politics.
Here’s my prize for the day. Who can be the first to get an answer out of Hoekstra, King, Ridge et al. about why they’re saying the Xmas bomber needs a military trial when they supported a regular trial for the “shoe bomber”. We don’t get many examples in politics where a perfect apples to apples comparison demonstrably shows a series of politicians as complete hypocrites and fibbers. Not that we don’t see that a lot, but seldom is it quite this straightforward. I’m going to put some reporters on it up here. But others must be asking too, right? When you see someone’s got an answer, please let us know.