i was starting to think that advance indiana's gary welsh was taking his meds again and had regained his sanity. after his inane shenanigans earlier this month, when he said a win for ned lamont would be a win for the terrorists and chastised connecticut voters for being "extremist", even going so far as to accuse steph mineart of being an extremist (and then asking her not to "take it personally"), i lost a bit of respect for gary, who i'd never imagined would engage in that sort of "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" mumbo-jumbo.

but it soon became apparent that the "extremist liberals" were right. gary had criticized liberal bloggers for suspecting political motives behind the timing of the recent UK arrests, and it turned out that the US had pressured the UK to act, even though the terrorists didn't even have passports. gary never had anything to say about this or other revelations that showed that the thwarted attacks were nowhere close to imminent, but i somewhat hoped that he had realized his error and was simply shutting up about the subject rather than have to admit his mistake or apologize to those he'd tried to defame. anyway, he had moved on to other subjects, and while still being clearly partisan (he seems a bit too concerned about scandals involving the name "julie carson" but completely indifferent to scandals surrounding her opponent, eric dickerson), his posts had regained some sense of sanity, so i had my fingers crossed that he'd put the whole "extremist" thing behind him.

gary let me down again today. today he has a new post titled london terror threat for real, where he beats the holy hell out of a strawman:

While many bloggers opposed to President Bush's policies for fighting the war on terror scoffed at initial reports that Islamic terrorists were planning to bring down U.S. airplanes headed from London to the U.S. this month, the ongoing investigation in Great Britain demonstrates just how real the threat really was.

take that, strawman! gary links to a washington post article full of juicy details like how much hydrogen peroxide the alleged terrorists had collected. (did they plan to bleach their hair? or maybe the peroxide was to disinfect any wounds they incurred during the upcoming holy war?)

but the problem with gary's post is that liberals never doubted that this was a real threat. steph sure didn't, and neither did any of the other "extremists" gary linked to. these bloggers all assumed that the alleged terrorists did in fact hope to attack someday. what these bloggers didn't do was buy into the hysteria. they pointed out facts, like that the arrestees had been under surveillance for many months, or that actually assembling liquid explosives on a plane would be damn near impossible, which suggested that the threat, while real, was not imminent.

liberal bloggers were concerned that the threat was being over-hyped, that the restrictions against bringing liquids onto planes were absurd and unhelpful, and that the fear-mongering would cause more incidents like this story from last week, when british airline passengers "staged an unprecedented mutiny - refusing to allow their flight to take off" until two men "were forcibly removed" from the flight. the men's crime? looking "asian" and daring to speak a language other than english (which the crazed passengers thought sounded like "arabic", but could have been any eastern language).

but liberal bloggers never doubted that the threat was real. and so gary's post is nothing but flailing against the wind, fighting back against liberal extremists who don't actually exist. it's kind of sad, really. let's hope that gary abandons all this malarkey and sticks to what he's good at: digging up insider info about local politics. there are plenty other republican bloggers who can toss around ad hominem attacks and fight the good fight against strawmen without gary's help.¶

I never saw his original comment to "not take it personally" which is just as well, since he doesn't hesitate to do that in a comment on my blog post.

I just love it when people put words in my mouth and presume to speak for me. Or a slightly less complex version of me, anyway. ¶

I appreciate that someone is reading what I had to say and cared enough to respond. As long as you don't call me an ASSHOLE and threaten to punch me in the mouth as Steph chose to take the conversation, I'm okay with it. I appreciate your professional discourse.

Your free to disagree with me all you one. I still believe people are being disingenuous about this whole matter. There is not one thing Bush can do that will satisfy you people on this front, and you all know it. Period. If you look at where the people on the left have been throughout this entire ordeal, it has always been to blame it on Bush no matter what. I was Bush's fought that 9/11 happened, even though there was mountains of evidence of missed opportunities under Clinton's administration. When they established the levels of terror theats, that's all a big joke. When they issue a terror threat, that's all a big joke. When they foil a potential terrorist plot, that's all a big joke. Bottom line--no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. I think someone must be doing something right, regardless of whether I agree with many of their policies. If you read my blog, you understand that I criticize Rs about as frequently as I criticize Ds. I don't think many of my critics can say the same. And I'm sorry you are so dismissive of the unfolding scandal at the Carson Government Center. There is a there to it. ¶

actually, gary, you were the one who started the name-calling when you singled out steph as an extremist liberal. some folks don't take kindly to that kind of talk. ¶