SAN FRANCISCO -- As many as 14 people were injured this afternoon by a motorist who drove around San Francisco deliberately running them down before being arrested by police, who believe the same driver struck and killed a man earlier today in Fremont.
He drove ONTO THE SIDEWALK in his black SUV. He hit kids and old people. Wanker.
This columnist over at TPM Cafe says:
Editorial from today's NY Times: "The most frightening thing about the foiled plot to use liquid explosives to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic is that both the government and the aviation industry have been aware of the liquid bomb threat for years but have done little to prepare for it. What saved everyone was apparently superb intelligence work by the British, who apprehended the terrorists before they could carry out their scheme. It is unlikely that any of the scanning machines or screening personnel deployed at airports would have detected the potentially destructive materials before they could be carried aboard."In other words, the Bush administration is not even meeting the bare requirements of fighting a war on terrorism: arming us to fight technologies they know are out there and which terrorists will use to kill us. It's just like it's ignoring the container ship issue. I wonder how many other of these technologies are out there which DHS knows about and does nothing to thwart.
This is a natural issue for the Dems to use in the fall. But I see no evidence they will. As other posters have written, the Dems have allowed the GOP to own the terrorism issue. Most of them (not all) shrink from criticizing the administration on this because they are scared. In their hearts, they think the Repubs are more credible on terrorism so they keep quiet.
That is why Bush never had to answer for being asleep at the switch on 9/11. And it's why the GOP, and not the Dems, are likely to benefit in November from exposure of the UK plot.
To put it simply. If Dems allow the GOP to use the terrorist issue against them, they do not deserve to control Congress or the White House.
And this is the NY Times editorial... which starts criticizing the Bush administration for falling asleep at the wheel on this one, but then inexplicably seems to applaud airlines for not letting people bring anything on the planes at all... ever again?
That makes us wonder if aviation authorities may have inadvertently hit on the wisest approach in their stopgap response to this latest plot. The Transportation Security Administration banned virtually all liquids and gels from carry-on luggage. That includes beverages, shampoos, toothpaste and other common items — everything but baby formula and medicines, and those have to be inspected.Some passengers have complained about the inconvenience, and many more might complain if they were not allowed to keep their iPods, cellphones or laptops with them. But forcing passengers to check most of their items and bring very little aboard with them might be the surest and cheapest route to greater security.
Attention people: you do not want me on a plane without any water to drink or anything to read. You really, really, don't.
Guess I won't be flying for a while... but I knew that already, for other reasons!
