« Enough | Main | More Terrorism Updates »

Those Terrorist Plot Foilers Sure Can Be A Buzz Kill

I know there is a lot of news out there to report, and much of it is linked in posts below, but there is also some ridiculous nutty stuff going around and when it reaches a certain level, it is hard to ignore it, so here goes.

In my original post on the UK terror plot story I wondered how long it would take until those on the loony left branded the entire story a Rovian conspiracy. Little did I know when I wrote it that it had already begun. Some predictions are just too easy.

Ace waded through the DU swamp to collect some examples.

Sister Toldjah posted a link to this gem:

As Dick Cheney, Ken Mehlman, and the Republican noise machine start to lash out at the al Qaeda sympathizers who voted for Ned Lamont, all the people standing in horrendous airport lines today and tossing their shampoo bottles away should remember that they owe their frustration--and their fear--to Cheney and his gang.

K-Lo has more from DU.

Mary Katharine Ham noted that the reporting of the foiled terrorist attacks is working as a buzz kill to quite a few Nedrenaline rushes. She found the following at AmericaBlog:

And isn't it queer that the emergency is declared within a day of Republican party leader Ken Mehlman launching an all-out offensive against Democrats following Joe Lieberman's loss in Connecticut, an offensive in which Mehlman, the White House and Republican operatives are claiming that Democrats no longer care about national security or the war on terror.

And just at that moment we get our FIRST ever red alert. Beam me up, Scotty.

Do I sound as if I don't believe this alert? Why, yes, that would be correct. I just don't believe it.

Noticeably absent from the discussions on the liberal blogs today is talk about the need to impeach Bush over his use of the NSA Surveillance Program or for his assault on civil liberties via the Patriot Act (they are now reduced to relying on the illegal war in Iraq and his inability to calm those vicious Jews in Israel instead). Clear Commentary has a post discussing revelations today that will make it difficult for Democrats (at least anytime soon) to criticize President Bush for supporting access to tools that could uncover terrorist plots before they can be executed.

Lost in the intense and breathtaking reporting concerning the averted terrorist airline attacks in Great Britain was a side bar report that the key intelligence that MI5 and Scotland Yard gleaned was from so-called 'sneak and peak' warrants.

These warrants allow agents to clandestinely break into the target's premises and search for certain prescribed items and information. Although in the U.S. the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts have historically upheld these warrants, the first express statutory authorization of them came with the Patriot Act in 2001.

...Now we learn that Great Britain, our closest ally, aggressively pursued terrorists, most likely from Pakistan, but who were "homegrown" in terms of their melding in to the civic landscape, and averted a major attack. Their use of sneak and peak warrants allowed them to gather critical evidence that led to the discovery of a plot to use liquid explosives aboard at least ten planes bound for the United States and to detonate them mid-air.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Those Terrorist Plot Foilers Sure Can Be A Buzz Kill:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Meet Joe Lieberman's Worst Nightmare

» It's All Semantics linked with nutroot-roast

Comments (37)

Lorie,Can you imag... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lorie,

Can you imagine one of these scramble-brained people getting in control of the country?

I would very seriously move out of New York City if that happened, because the place would be leveled over the course of few years.

Their use of sneak and p... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Their use of sneak and peak warrants

Uggghhh. Why can't you people not get this through your thick skulls?

No one opposes surveillance. We oppose surveillance without oversight, ie the getting of warrants. You post this up there like it proves us wrong, but it's really the exact opposite. This is proof that terrorism can still be combatted even though warrants are required.

Stop arguing with a strawman.

No one opposes the PATRIOT ... (Below threshold)

No one opposes the PATRIOT ACT, sean? Tell that to the Democrats in Congress. "first express statutory authorization of them came with the Patriot Act in 2001" I thought it was a pretty logical chain of thought to conclude that those that rail against the actions authorized by the PATRIOT ACT would be against the actions authorized by the PATRIOT ACT. Guess I'm the nut. thanks for clearing that up.

And I'm sure the SWIFT prog... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

And I'm sure the SWIFT program had no role in stopping this plot, either.

/sarcasm tag off

Hmmm.What I find s... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

What I find strange is that the Left thinks Bush is both too stupid to walk and chew gum *and* a diabolical genius capable of setting up the most complex conspiracies.

Falze,are you saying... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Falze,
are you saying that everything in the Patriot Act was unquestionably okee dokee? It was passed in haste in 2001 and Dems wanted to thoroughly discuss it before its reauthorization. Isn't that what democracy is about, a knowledgable and informed public being aware what its elected leaders are doing? Do you have a problem with democracy?

Secondly, as I'm sure you realized, I was referring more to the NSA surveillance program where there is law that says warrants are required, yet that law is not being followed. Yeah, I know all about the Constitutional authority and unitary executive theory arguments, but those are for wingnuts.

And you still didn't address the main point of my post that warrants can be issued while still effectively combatting terrorism, as this case shows.

sean, one problem. You're ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

sean, one problem. You're wrong on the law.

If by wingnuts, you mean a number of Federal Appellate judges, law professors, lawyers, as well as the Administration have found ample authority for not needing a FISA warrant for the NSA program, then you would be right.

But as usual, you're not.

"Dems wanted to thoroughly ... (Below threshold)

"Dems wanted to thoroughly discuss it before its reauthorization."

HORSEHOCKEY.

They wanted to kill it, not discuss it.

"We just killed the Patriot Act," said Harry Reid to wild cheers of Democratic supporters in December 2005.

The events of the last 24 h... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The events of the last 24 hours are further proof that the republicans' "war on terror" is nothing more than an ineffective, worthless sham. This will no doubt hurt the republican efforts come election time.

Telling all of the right wing readers of this right wing blog that far left nutcakes are in fact "far left nutcakes" won't change things in the least - but if it brings you comfort in your times of distress by all means have fun. Whistling through the graveyard is what the conservatives do best these days...

ed-It is both, or ... (Below threshold)
Big D:

ed-

It is both, or either, depending on what the situation requires. I really love it when the Moonbats try and get both in the same paragraph - Bush the evil genius/Bush the bumbling doofus.

And sean nyc/aa - You sound pretty uninformed regarding the basic facts. Oversight takes many forms, not just warrents. Also, have you noticed something lately, the strange sound of crickets chirping on the whole wiretapping tempest in a teapot? Ever wonder why?

Lee,Do the world a b... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

Lee,
Do the world a big favor.
Please don't try that breeding thingy or make deposits at the sperm bank.

Too late, Eneils - I have f... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Too late, Eneils - I have four children, three of whom have currently reached voting age. All four will be voting in the 2008 presidential elections.

Be afraid... be very afraid.

mitchell,there are p... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

mitchell,
there are plenty of judges, lawyers, profs, etc on both sides. true, I exaggerated a bit, only the unitary executive theory is for wingnuts.

the adm had 2 main arguments 1) the AUMF which has essentially been retracted as a valid reason by AG Gonzalez and 2) inherent authority which is certainly a much weaker argument after Hamdan.

Mo,
Touche. Just did a google search and saw that. I will amend my statement:
Few people totally oppose all surveillance.
Again, I exaggerated, but it should be noted that the Patriot Act was not killed, so Harry Reid exaggerates too.

Also, have you noticed something lately, the strange sound of crickets chirping on the whole wiretapping tempest in a teapot? Ever wonder why?
Big D

Actually, there are many ways the NSA story is still alive. There are several court cases being brought up, one of which might actually be heard. In all the others (that I know of, I don't want to exaggerate again) the gov't has claimed state secrets and they have been dismissed. Also Specter is trying to pass a bill that would make the NSA program legal, so maybe crickets may be chirping for the media which has an attention span of about a week (that's why I don't wonder why), but the issue is far from being forgotten.

So there is a lunatic fring... (Below threshold)
greenstater:

So there is a lunatic fringe amongst people more disposed towards the Democrats than the Republicans. Who cares? They're more innocuous than the Freepi and Malkin's flying monkey brigades. Why do you troll through electronic garbage looking for the stupidest shit with which to implicitly condemn "the other side", Lorie? C'mon, there's gotta be something on TV.

The events of the last 2... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

The events of the last 24 hours are further proof that the republicans' "war on terror" is nothing more than an ineffective, worthless sham. This will no doubt hurt the republican efforts come election time.

Tell me if I have this straight: A major terror plot is foiled under the current administration's watch—who just happen to be Republicans—yet it is "ineffective" and hurts Republicans at large how exactly?

To no one's surprise, there's zero logic to those first two
sentences.

Lee, you said:The ev... (Below threshold)
Doug L.:

Lee, you said:
The events of the last 24 hours are further proof that the republicans' "war on terror" is nothing more than an ineffective, worthless sham. This will no doubt hurt the republican efforts come election time.

I know this may be an impossible request, but could you *please* be more specific? Are you implying that the terrorists wouldn't be plotting these kinds of attacks if Kerry had been elected President? Or are you implying that the Brits stopped this plot without any help/intel from the U.S.? Or are you saying something else entirely?

Again, please be more specific if you could. I'm really tired of reading your little rants against Bush.

Really Lee, go away stupid... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

Really Lee, go away stupid. Too late, "Eneils - I have four children", Poor basturds.


Flea , The War on Terror is recognized by the entire human race including the terrorists with the exception of the Dimcrats. The same is true about the Democrat Perppetual Fraud. It too is recognized by the entire human race with the exception of the democrats. WHich means one of two things , your stupid or not human. Maybe your both.

Lee:The e... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee:

The events of the last 24 hours are further proof that the republicans' "war on terror" is nothing more than an ineffective, worthless sham.

I just don't get it Lee, how could stopping Islamic terrorists from killing a few thousand people be considered "ineffective", and a "worthless sham"?

Are you referring to the fact that they wanted to kill people at all, and that makes the War on Terror ineffective?

Tell me, how can you, without lying to yourself, blame a whole bunch of people trying to murder civilians, on Bush? Scrap the whole "failed mid-east policy" rigamaroll for a moment and give credit where credit is due...when someone decides to commit mass murder of innocents because they believe they'll be rewarded in the afterlife, it's THEIR FAULT.
Let's not blame Bush for people's obviously psychotic, religiously driven behavior.

Now you've surprised alot of people here at Wizbang by providing a rather balanced approach on Israel, and how they should deal with Hezbollah. But when it comes to us stopping our citizens from being slaughtered wholesale, you careen wildly off the tracks to reiterate your slack-jawed rantings against the Bush administration and failed policies.

This is a pretty clear indication to me that you have a personal problem with this administration and cannot reconcile even the smallest of victories if they are to be attributed to them.

Heralder,I blame r... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Heralder,

I blame republicans for spending five years and billions of dollars fighting terrorism, and we are in more danger now than we were before. I'm not alone, the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that a growing majority of Americans feel the same way, that republicans are not effectively waging a war on terror.

You said: "...when someone decides to commit mass murder of innocents because they believe they'll be rewarded in the afterlife, it's THEIR FAULT. "

Yes, and when the party in power in the United States declares a war on terrorism, and vows to root out terrorists and protect American citizens and fails to do so, it's THEIR FAULT. AQ is, by all recent accounts, alive and well. OBL runs free.

Do you think with today's arrests it is over Heralder -- do you think we won't hear from AQ for another 5 years? Do you plan on flying on September 11? Would you want your relatives to fly on that day? Be honest, if your moral compass allows for such...

Okay Lee, let's take your a... (Below threshold)

Okay Lee, let's take your argument to its logical extreme. We fight the GWOT like we fought WWII: with carpet- and fire-bombing of enemy cities (like Tokyo - 1 million homeless)and bloody Stalingrad-style seiges. This ought to wipe out not only the terrorists, but their 'civilian' sources of recruits. In fact if we were to nuke Mecca, it might just make them forget about their silly religion!

Please, I prefer the more 'surgical' style, with so much less damage to infrastructure and a virtually insignificant number of civilian casualties. So what if we haven't officially found OBL? He's in a friggin' cave and can NEVER show his face. He isn't a head of state like Saddam was, so he can be splattered anytime someone gets a shot at him.

The big question is whether or not the West has the fortitude to outlast the Islamo-fascists who are fanatical in their devotion to their religion, and love death more than we love life.

/End of sermon.

"I blame republicans for sp... (Below threshold)

"I blame republicans for spending five years and billions of dollars fighting terrorism, and we are in more danger now than we were before."

5 years of active opposition by the left, democratic politicians and the MSM is not a factor?

"the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that a growing majority of Americans feel the same way, that republicans are not effectively waging a war on terror."

No further attacks and we are in more danger? Letting our fears run away with us, are we?

Tell a lie long enough and eventually people will start to believe it does seem to be working.

Regardless of how ineffective the republicans are the majority of Americans percieve the democrats to be even more incompetent.

Assigning full responsibility to the administration for failure and completely denying any credit for success is a fair assessment? But then quaint notions like fairness amuse you...

"do you think we won't hear from AQ for another 5 years?"

It will be a long conflict with republicans in charge. If you and yours get in office, capitulation will be immediate.

Incidentally, you are in no position to speak of 'moral compasses', collaborators never are...

d-Brit, I giv... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

d-Brit,

I give you a standing ovation. That was beautiful.

Lee Writes:

"Heralder,

I blame republicans for spending five years and billions of dollars fighting terrorism, and we are in more danger now than we were before"


Lee also blames Republicans for BJ Clintons pecker pollishing addiction. It was caused by one of Bush's failed policies if ya know what I mean.

Blame , blame , blame. Put the blame for your misery where it belongs , with your own corrupt , incompetant lying democrat party. That is why they continue to fail and find themselves in the MINORITY. Deal with it.

Must tear the libs up that ... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Must tear the libs up that the same Terrorist Surveillance Program that they're so determined to gut played such an important part in stopping this attack...

I listened to Sean Hannity'... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

I listened to Sean Hannity's interview with Mike Wallace today on Wallace's "interview" with Achmdinahad (badly spelled version of the Iranian NUTJOB).

Wallace is INSANE!!

and that is the MOST charitable thing I could type.

Just reading a transcript doesn't do it...try to find a recording of this and listen. I repeat: WALLACE IS INSANE!!

I drove home listening with my mouth wide open as Wallace repeatedly said that the Iranian NUTJOB doesn't REALLY want to wipe out Israel...despite Hannity reading Wallace QUOTES where the the Iranian NUTJOB says EXACTLY THAT!!

Did I mention that WALLACE IS INSANE???

sean, in fact, there are ve... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

sean, in fact, there are very few on the other side of the NSA surveil. issue from the Bush side.

And virtually all federal judges ruling, or commenting on the FISA law and the Executive's Constitutional authority, have come down on the Bush Admin. side. You might also note that the only judicial opinion speaking in part or in dicta has been supportive of the Bush position.

So, you really aren't on firm ground here. Just citing a few lefty lawyers as authority for your misguided position is not enough. There is legal authority and Federal FISA Judges which take the Bush conclusion.

Get real.

Lee and Sean: Why do you ke... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Lee and Sean: Why do you keep coming back here> Wouldn't you be happier swapping spit over at DailyKos?

Lee:I bla... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee:

I blame republicans for spending five years and billions of dollars fighting terrorism, and we are in more danger now than we were before. I'm not alone, the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that a growing majority of Americans feel the same way, that republicans are not effectively waging a war on terror.

This poll is even better than the last poll, this one only called 500 people on the phone to find out how 297 million Americans think.

Did anyone, specifically bush tell you that we'd be done right quick with this? I think I can recall him saying this would be a long war.

Since the catalyst for this was September 11th, and we haven't anything like that since, I'd beg to differ on the "not being any safer" comment.

Yes, and when the party in power in the United States declares a war on terrorism, and vows to root out terrorists and protect American citizens and fails to do so, it's THEIR FAULT. AQ is, by all recent accounts, alive and well. OBL runs free.

Again, I have to say, where have they failed to protect American citizens since? And Osama, if we dropped a daisy cutter on his forehead tomorrow, you wouldn't be any happier or feel any safer.

Many on the left completely disregarded Zarqawi's death as non-important, and degraded the achievement by both the amount of time to do so and the fact that he'd be replaced. The same applies for Osama, so that's a tired argument.

I know you wouldn't feel any safer if that impotent cave-man weren't around tomorrow...But since you're viewing this as a law enforcement issue, I can see where you think brining one man to justice will eradicate all the terrorism across the globe.

Do you think with today's arrests it is over Heralder -- do you think we won't hear from AQ for another 5 years? Do you plan on flying on September 11? Would you want your relatives to fly on that day? Be honest, if your moral compass allows for such...

Today's arrests were a minor victory, alot of lives were saved, and the perpetrators that were caught I'm sure will have some interesting information for us.

Lee, we'll be hearing from Al-Queda for the rest of our (hopefully long) lives...whether we quit and left Iraq now, or stayed.

I don't need to fly anywhere on September 11 as it happens, but if I needed to I would. I honestly can't say I would be unafraid to do so, but I would.
That doesn't prove that "the republicans" aren't doing their job, it means I'm a human being who may be naturally reticent after all that's happened.


(I accidentally posted this response in the thread below this)

It appears to Me that Lee i... (Below threshold)
914:

It appears to Me that Lee is pulling for the underdog terrorists and is upset when any of their plots get foiled?

Maybe its not on purpose.. maybe?

By the way LEE, nice hi-jacking job.

Must tear the libs up th... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Must tear the libs up that the same Terrorist Surveillance Program that they're so determined to gut played such an important part in stopping this attack...
Listkeeper

Seems to me that this was a foreign-based operation with foreign citizens on foreign soil. I don't think this has anything at all to do with the arguments being raised about with regards to the NSA surveillance program targetting US citizens on US soil.

Mitchell,
we could argue all day about how many people are arguing on either side. However, I do remember the head FISA judge resigning immediately after the story broke (like the wingers say the Generals should have done), so clearly he didn't believe it was legit - that says a lot more than what some pundits might be saying. And again, I raise Hamdan which unequivocally stated that Congress does have a role to play in determining war-time powers. Never mind the fact that Congress has not officially declared a state of war (a whole new argument), which only supports the reasoning that the President cannot disregard Federal law by claiming war powers.

(By the way, if we want to declare war officially, I'm very willing to entertain the idea. My question is: how much is the general public willing to sacrifice if we do? A main reason this war was so strongly supported was that Bush said most people would not have to sacrifice much, if anything. Entering an official state of war with fuel and metal rationing, higher taxes, war bonds, a draft, corporate conversions to support the war effort I think would even more quickly drain the already fading support for the war.)

And so, if one of these fol... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

And so, if one of these folks was here and making phone calls....?

And don't be so sure that the Atlantic insulates us eternally:

U.S. law enforcement sources tell ABC News the FBI is investigating new leads that involve a possible connection between people in the United States, in major east coast cities, and the London bomb plotters.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/fbi_investigate.html

I'll try to not be a jerk,... (Below threshold)
Matt Connell:

I'll try to not be a jerk, but we on the loony left could see this coming a mile away. In fact, the night Leiberman lost a friend said to me, "Just watch these idiots try to scare the masses back into the palm of their hands if Leiberman loses." I didn't respond, but I knew he was likely right. Sure enough, Whoopity-doo! A brand new terror plot foiled by the heroic Bush administration with PERFECT timing. Gimme a friggin' break. I didn't just fall of the turnip truck. It is soooooo predictable. It's right out of the Karl Rove playbook. I mean, Bush couldn't organize a pissing contest in a brewery let alone foil an international terror plot. I honestly know dogs smarter than Bush. Will the kool-aid drinkers apologize when, while dying slowly in a Dutch prison, these......people turn on each other like starved rats and spill the beans?
I WILL NOT allow myself to fall victim to the Bush regime and will not rest until every one of them IS dying in a Dutch prison. Every Bush supporter knows, deep down, the error of their ways. I don't have to support the Democrats either. Many of them have also consumed the kool-aid. I will always assume that every polititian is evil unless his name is Feingold. ALWAYS ASK QUESTIONS AND NEVER EVER BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU HEAR ON THE MAJOR NEWS NETWORKS EVER. PBS is the only news with actual debate that is actually balanced, but that's a whole new can of worms.
I can't stop ranting. It's all so ridiculously evil in a sickeningly childish way. It's fake. The terror plot is fake. It is so incredibly obvious and I won't allow them to insult my intelligence any longer. Thanks! Sorry if I was a jerk.

sean, yes a liberal dem. ap... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

sean, yes a liberal dem. appointee judge resigned after the disclosure by NYT (not before, interestingly), and he burnished his image with his beloved left.

It is quite a spectacle to see a federal judge resign when he doesn't get his way. No other judges have done so, and I doubt they will. You don't take an oath to only get the cases you want, you take an oath to judge the law. So, this judge is really quite unusual, and one can infer, quite insincere. If he had problems with the program, rule that way from the bench, and quit acting like a politician.

The judiciary, again, has been supportive--note the recent hearing with 4 Federal Judges before Congress who all agreed essentially with the Bush position. And, review the reported cases in this respect.

There have been NO cases against the Admin's position. None.

he burnished his image w... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

he burnished his image with his beloved left

I never even heard of him before his resignation, nor do I know who appointed him, nor do I know his political leanings. You made an awful lot of accusations against him, can you provide any proof?

If he had problems with the program, rule that way from the bench,

Ummmm, the program circumvents the court. He could start declining the applications that the Adm was submitting, but they might have gone around the court had he started do that. I think he felt his job no longer served a purpose since Bush had usurped the courts duties, so he resigned; makes sense to me.

and quit acting like a politician

Gee, it seems like Joe Lieberman should learn to act like this judge then.

note the recent hearing with 4 Federal Judges before Congress who all agreed essentially with the Bush position

yes, I know the WaTimes article that says this, but there are other interpretations of what they said. Not to mention, active judges testifying on the legality/constitutionality of something seems pretty rare. There is something unusual with this, but what is undeniably clear is that Bush is disregarding Federal law (as Specter trying to change the law proves). Now, he may have the constitutional authority to do so, but again I reference Hamdan.

review the reported cases in this respect.

OK, what are they?

If the London incident is a... (Below threshold)
ClearwaterConservative:

If the London incident is a real plot to blow up planes then it should be taken very seriously.

However, discovering a plot to blow up 20 airplanes using unspecified "liquid explosives" in an act that is “suggestive of al Qaeda” and happening a day after the defeat of a pro-war politician is a little too convenient.

If in November voters blame... (Below threshold)
ClearwaterConservative:

If in November voters blame republicans for spending five years and billions of dollars fighting terrorism, and determine that we are in more danger now than we were before, then republicans will be in for a butt kicking. Perhaps the recent ABC News/Washington Post poll included only a small number of people. I live in a very republican neighborhood and a majority of the people here feel the same way: that we republicans are not effectively waging a war on terror.

sean, I'm not going to do y... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

sean, I'm not going to do your work for you. You're lazy, and a lazy thinker.

I have actually reviewed the transcript of the congressional hearing, and relevant portions of the case law.

If you can't be bothered to do the same, but continue to make wild, unsupported assertions, like so many on the Left do today, then it really isn't worth it to have a discussion with you.

I'll save it for someone who genuinely cares about the facts.

Well if the Republicans wan... (Below threshold)
imjustsaying:

Well if the Republicans want to take credit because they were in power when British law enforcement foils a terrorist plot, then the Republicans must take credit for 9/11, an event which happened on their watch, too, and on American, not British soil.

-i'mjustsaying




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy