More on the latest New York terror case, from the WP:
There were conflicting assessments among U.S. counterterrorism officials about the significance of the plot.
Two U.S. counterterrorism officials, speaking on the condition that their names and agencies not be identified because the FBI is the government’s lead agency, discounted the ability of the conspirators to carry out an attack.
One said the plot was “not as far along” as described and was “more aspirational in nature.” The other described the threat as “jihadi bravado,” adding “somebody talks about tunnels, it lights people up,” but that there was little activity to back up the talk.
. . .
Like the plot announced yesterday, the Miami group’s plans were described by investigators as “aspirational.”
The Miami group had a leg up on this newest bunch; its members were actually in the country.
The evidence mounts.
As you know by now, New 
Jersey senate candidate Tom Kean, Jr. refuses to say whether he’s for the Bush plan to phase out Social Security and replace it with private accounts. We’re now on Day 8 trying to get a straight answer out of him.
And now we’ve found a second reporter whom Kean told back in 2000 that he supported the Bush plan. That was when Kean was running for a House seat in 2000. (The first was a reporter for the Westfield Leader, noted here.)
According to a May 15th 2000 Associated Press article by Laurence Arnold, Kean said that he, like the other four candidates for the GOP nomination supported “the idea of letting people invest part of their Social Security payroll taxes into a private investment account they would manage.”
In other words, in 2000 Kean supported President Bush’s partial phase-out plan.
One of our spies on the ground in New Jersey tells us that Kean’s got his own Garden state version of the Bush bubble and isn’t making appearances before non-stacked audiences (if folks in state have more details on this, let us know.) So it may be hard for TPM Readers to get a chance to ask Kean whether he still supports the Bush plan. But he’s got to come out of hiding at some point.
Style note to editors/producers:
Describing those held at Guantanamo as “detainees” or “enemy combatants” is not accurate.
The Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision declared them to be prisoners of war, entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, until such time as a properly constituted tribunal concludes otherwise. The thrust of the Court’s decision was that the military commissions set up by the Administration did not include the basic procedural safeguards necessary to qualify as a properly constituted tribunal.
As a matter of law now, the United States is holding prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay. That’s a fact, which is obscured when journalists continue to use language first put forth by the Administration specifically to avoid the strictures of the Geneva Conventions.
Update: Nothing like giving style instructions, and being incorrect. A number of readers have correctly pointed out that the Supreme Court in Hamdan did not reach the issue of whether Hamdan was a prisoner of war. So I overstated the case when I wrote that the Supreme Court had declared his POW status. Rather, the District Court had made that determination, and the judgment of the District Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court, but on different grounds. It simply did not decide the POW issue one way or the other. I think it’s fair to say that the District Court’s opinion that Hamdan is a prisoner of war remains good law, but that decision does not have the imprimatur of the Supreme Court, as my post stated. My apologies for the error and thanks to the readers who caught it.
Speaking of the Geneva Conventions, the Red Cross has consistently held to its position that it should have access to those captured by the United States and held at undisclosed locations around the world.
In light of the Hamdan decision, has the Red Cross again approached U.S. officials about gaining such access? What has been the U.S. response? I haven’t seen any reporting on this issue. If any TPM readers have, send me the link and I’ll post a follow up.
Over at TPMmuckraker, Paul Kiel has a rundown on the latest documents from the Secret Service showing Jack Abramoff’s White House visits.
The Secret Service has been less than forthcoming about Abramoff’s White House contacts, despite a lawsuit seeking to enforce FOIA.
The first batch of records released showed just two Abramoff visits. The latest batch identifies six other times when Abramoff was scheduled to be at the White House.
Jack, we hardly knew ya.
You could devote an entire blog to Katherine Harris (someone already has) so we try to ration the Katherine Harris posts. But each day brings a new Harris temptation and, as much as you try to stay off the sauce, sometimes you fall off the wagon.
The latest installment in the soap opera that is the Harris campaign finds Harris, burned by her connection to defense contractor MZM, trying to shift the focus by claiming that her opponent, Sen. Bill Nelson, accepted illegal campaign contributions several years ago.
The problem is Harris’ former campaign manager was named as a co-conspirator in that case. Oops.
The Orlando Sentinel‘s Jim Stratton has the details.
How many rounds will John McCain and Grover Norquist go before one scores a knockout?
“The idea that our friend John McCain yelling at me would hurt me misses McCain’s position” among conservatives, Norquist said. “John McCain thinks he can’t be president if I’m standing here saying he’s got a problem with taxes.”
Mark Salter, McCain’s longtime aide, replied: “Obviously, Grover is not well. It would be cruel of us to respond in kind.”
The Washington Post has a roundup of Norquist’s Abramoff problem.
What else don’t we know about?
In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters.
The letter from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not specify the intelligence activities that he believed had been hidden from Congress.
But Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department’s tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.
The emphasis is mine. Question: does Hoekstra really want to oversee what the Administration is doing or is he distancing himself from the nastiness that will eventually come out?
I hear the Dems have brought out heavy-hitter Lanny Davis this morning on CSPAN to lay some wood on Ned Lamont. Word is he played the anti-Semitic card. Anyone see it? Have a transcript? Let me know.