Andrew notes that Randall Terry of “Operation Rescue” fame says that “we must deny him the White House at all costs – even if it means Hillary becomes President.” His analysis tracks mine:

As President Giuliani would be the de-facto head of the GOP; he would systematically destroy the political power of the pro-life movement within the GOP; he would pressure the party to take the pro-life plank out of the party platform; he would declare the “abortion issue” is divisive, and should not be part of federal races; he would make the GOP the mirror image of the DNC regarding child-killing, thus insuring that there is no pro-life party.

This seems about right to me. Giuliani’s fine if you’re just someone who deems abortion vaguely icky and wants it a bit more restricted, since judges he appoints will probably be fairly unfriendly to reproductive rights, but if you want a serious nationwide abortion ban you can’t let the pro-life movement’s control over the GOP slip away.

A frequent Bush administration talking point in defense of the “war on terror” is claiming that United States has not been attacked since 9/11.

Yesterday, Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Cheney, reiterated this point on The Daily Show, claiming that terrorists regularly struck between 1993 and 2001 but not since 9/11. “It’s been more than six years. And that is not an accident. … There were many attacks between 1993 and the World Trade Centers coming down in 2001,” Cheney said.

Stewart rebutted Cheney’s claim by listing off the many terrorist attacks around the world since 9/11:

I mean, there was the anthrax thing. … [Terrorists] have been doing that all these past six years. The Spanish bombings, the English bombings, and then all the bombs in Iraq.

Cheney replied that attacks on other countries were not relevant to the discussion: “Yes, yes. But we’re talking about American interests.” The audience booed Cheney’s remarks. An incredulous Stewart responded, “Aren’t we interested in [attacks on those countries]? I’d assumed they were our allies.” Watch it:

Worldwide terror attacks are rising as a result of the policies Cheney supports. A State Department terrorism report released this year showed a nearly 30 percent increase in worldwide terror attacks in 2006. Prior to an attempted terrorist attack in London in June, British experts warned that the war in Iraq had increased the threat of terror attacks on their country.

A White House report released this week also stated that al Qaeda remains the “most serious and dangerous” terrorist threat and “is expected to intensify attempts to place agents inside the United States.”

Evidently, according to Cheney’s logic, even though almost 170,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, bombings and terrorist attacks there don’t have anything to do with our nation’s “interests.”

Last week, Chris Matthews revealed that officials in Vice President Cheney’s office have repeatedly called MSNBC in an effort to influence his editorial content. In a new interview with TV Guide, Matthews gives more details on the suppression campaign:

I thought on the 10th anniversary it would be good to celebrate the First Amendment, which gives us all our living. We reviewed in brief the remarkable experience of covering the Clinton [scandal] and the defense of the war with Iraq. And the difference in these two cases was that although I was extremely tough on Clinton, there was never any attempt to silence me — whereas there was a concerted effort by [Vice President Cheney's office] to silence me. It came in the form of three different people calling trying to quiet me.

The New York Sun editorializes that Gen. David Petraeus be nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his attempts to “save the nation of Iraq”:

We advance the name of General Petraeus this year because he has come to personify the GI Joes and GI Janes of whom he is in command. He has breasted an extraordinary amount of obloquy on behalf of their, and our country’s, cause and courage. This was put into sharp relief during his appearance last month before the Congress, where his honor and patriotism were questioned. [...]

General Petraeus is just trying to save the nation of Iraq from the competing death cults of fanatical Shiism and fanatical Sunnism. He has already achieved something that had eluded his predecessors in command — he’s winning a war against Al Qaeda, working with local tribes toward preventing a confessional civil war from escalating and protecting whole neighborhoods in Baghdad from ethnic cleansers.

In September, the Sun wrote an editorial pushing Petraeus for President.

Over the years, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has garnered a reputation as “the House’s No. 1 earmark-hater” due to his willingness “to kill projects” favored by his colleagues. Though he’s gained increased support for his anti-earmark mission since the 2006 elections, Flake says it will probably take “another” earmark-centered “indictment or two” before his fellow lawmakers seriously tackle earmark reform.

Flake believes that day is right around the corner, telling the Politico that he thinks more indictments “are coming“:

One common take on the problem comes from Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). The 44-year-old conservative sees many of his colleagues publicly applauding his attempts to kill pork-barrel spending while privately working to keep alive the budget “earmark” system that has already been the wellspring of several recent corruption cases. “It will probably take another indictment or two” to force change, Flake said in a Wednesday interview. “I think those [indictments] are coming.”

Though he did not name names to the Politico, a number of Flake’s colleagues are currently under scrutiny for their handling of earmarks:

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA): Currently the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, Lewis is under investigation for earmarks he’s dished out to clients of a lobbying firm that employs his longtime friend, former Congressman Bill Lowery.

Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA): Miller, who is currently under investigation due to shady land deals, has also used earmarks to steer millions of dollars to his business partner, Lewis Operating.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA): Though not currently under federal investigation, Calvert has made huge personal profits off of his own earmarks and a grand jury recently found that a land deal of his violated the law.

Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV): In the past 10 years, Mollohan has directed $250 million in earmarks to five non-profits he created, after which employees and associates of those organizations subsequently donated $397,122 to Mollohan’s political coffers. The FBI has subpoenaed financial records from the organizations.

Flake could also be referring to the “fresh wave of campaign-related theft and corruption investigations” reported yesterday by Roll Call. According to the Capitol Hill paper, “indictments may be on the horizon.”

Documents released in an insider trading trial yesterday reveal that “the National Security Agency and other government agencies retaliated against Qwest because the Denver telco refused to go along with a phone spying program.” In the documents, former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio is quoted as saying “the request was both inappropriate and illegal, and repeatedly refusing to go along with it.” Nacchio’s lawyer said the CEO “refused to turn over customer telephone records because he didn’t think the NSA program had legal standing.”

(HT: Atrios)