More Iraq and Terror
Yesterday's New York Times carried details of a leaked intelligence report, prepared by JTAC (Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre). The NYT focussed on its conclusion that "at present there is not a group with both the current intent and the capability to attack the U.K." which 'prompted the British government to lower its formal threat assessment one level, from "severe defined" to "substantial."'
Intelligence failures have not really been discussed (yet) in relation to the London bombings, though, and a more significant element of the leaked report is this sentence: "Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist related activity in the U.K." Again, a stark contradiction to what the government insists, but basically what the world's intelligence community has been saying for about 2 years (and in truth, the only sensible assessment.)
As the FT reports this morning, the government is now "on the defensive," and Blair might come under pressure on this matter at PMQs today.
In other news, John G. Roberts will replace Sanra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. The NYT has this to say:
'The conservative Progress for America called Judge Roberts a "terrific nominee," while Naral Pro-Choice America denounced him as an "unsuitable choice," and a "divisive nominee with a record of seeking to impose a political agenda on the courts."But significantly, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader of the body that will determine Judge Roberts's fate, was much more subdued, hewing to the Democrats' stated strategy of demanding a thorough vetting of any nominee by describing Judge Roberts as "someone with suitable legal credentials," whose record must now be examined "to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."'
It appears then, as though the Democrats won't be too outraged by the choice - Bush appears (rather predictably) to have gone for a politically safe bet, rather than attempting to appease the more extreme elements of his support-base.
Roberts' assertion that "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land" might give comfort to those who feared a more extreme nominee.
Intelligence failures have not really been discussed (yet) in relation to the London bombings, though, and a more significant element of the leaked report is this sentence: "Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist related activity in the U.K." Again, a stark contradiction to what the government insists, but basically what the world's intelligence community has been saying for about 2 years (and in truth, the only sensible assessment.)
As the FT reports this morning, the government is now "on the defensive," and Blair might come under pressure on this matter at PMQs today.
In other news, John G. Roberts will replace Sanra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. The NYT has this to say:
'The conservative Progress for America called Judge Roberts a "terrific nominee," while Naral Pro-Choice America denounced him as an "unsuitable choice," and a "divisive nominee with a record of seeking to impose a political agenda on the courts."But significantly, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader of the body that will determine Judge Roberts's fate, was much more subdued, hewing to the Democrats' stated strategy of demanding a thorough vetting of any nominee by describing Judge Roberts as "someone with suitable legal credentials," whose record must now be examined "to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."'
It appears then, as though the Democrats won't be too outraged by the choice - Bush appears (rather predictably) to have gone for a politically safe bet, rather than attempting to appease the more extreme elements of his support-base.
Roberts' assertion that "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land" might give comfort to those who feared a more extreme nominee.
posted by UK plc at 7:51 AM
2 Comments:
On the other hand, Bush is surely right that he is likely to succeed in creating a Republican controlled Supreme Court by having extreme candidate he can reject for less extreme candidates. The danger is that the Democrats will choose these less bad options, but that the nature of decision making will be no better with the less bad candidates in the majority than the more bad ones.
That didn't come out very well, but you get the point?
I disagree that Roberts is as moderate as we'd all like to believe. He's a Bushie clone - same family background, same predictable politics - and the lack of paper trail with his decisions are just a smokescreen.
Post a Comment
<< Home