Why do the more skeptical among us question if the administration plays politics with terrorism? Take a look at this story in which the acting FDA commissioner cites terrorism as a justification for its opposition to imported prescription drugs:

“Cues from chatter” gathered around the world are raising concerns that terrorists might try to attack the domestic food and drug supply, particularly illegally imported prescription drugs, acting Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Lester Crawford says.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Crawford said Wednesday that he had been briefed about al-Qaeda plans uncovered during recent arrests and raids, but declined further comment about any possible threats.
“While we must assume that such a threat exists generally, we have no specific information now about any al-Qaeda threats to our food or drug supply,” said Brian Roehrkasse, spokesman for the Homeland Security Department.
Crawford said the possibility of such an attack was the most serious of his concerns about the increase in states and municipalities trying to import drugs from Canada to save money.
. . .
Crawford noted the 1982 Tylenol case, in which packages of the extra-strength variety of the leading painkiller were removed from store shelves on Chicago’s west side, filled with cyanide and returned to stores for purchase. Seven unsuspecting consumers were killed, and the incident prompted widespread adoption of tamperproof packaging.

Notice what’s said here, and what isn’t. First, the sources of the alleged threat: vague, nonspecific “chatter.” That seems to have become a handy standby these days. After all, “terrorists” do “chatter” about many things, don’t they? Planes, trains, trucks, helicopters, boats, scuba diving, buildings, almanacs, chemical plants, and so forth. But as far as I can tell, the government hasn’t attempted to ban any other chatter topics. But this one must be different, because pharmaceutical company profits consumer’s safety is at stake.
Second, the probability of the alleged threat. Could al Qaeda operatives tamper with Canadian drug shipments and insert deadly poisons? Sure. That doesn’t seem like the easiest plot to pull off, but it’s possible. Then again, couldn’t al Qaeda do the same with Canadian fruit shipments? Or domestic food protuction? Or even American prescription drug distribution? Yes, they could.
So why are imported drugs a “particular” threat? Could Crawford be mentioning this because pharmaceutical companies the FDA is against drug importation, while Senator Kerry is out campaigning to allow it? Certainly the administration wouldn’t be using terrorism to scare people into agreement with its policies, would it?

I think these comments by former CIA intelligence analyst Larry Johnson on last night’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann pretty well sum up the news that the Bush administration blew a high level al Qaeda sting operation in order to pat themselves on the back:

I mean, look, at least we can say the White House is consistent. I mean you know–last year, White House officials leaked the name of a clandestine operative at the CIA, Valerie Plame. This year, they take out an al Qaeda mole who’s helping us and leak his name so other al Qaeda guys escape. I mean, you know, how many boneheads do we need over at the White House before they figure this out? Shut up. Stop talking about this stuff.
. . .
[H]ere we have the guy who is sort of communication central that we’re into, he’s able to both send them messages which allows us to locate these individuals. That’s one of the reason we’ve had this flurry of arrests over the last several weeks, and to take that opportunity and squander it, is�it’s�frankly it’s criminal in my view.
. . .
Look, I say this as someone who voted for Bush. I do not understand how Republicans sit back and say nothing when a Republican White House is divulging the names of clandestine assets. That is unbelievable to me and there’s no excuse for it.

Actually, this would have been unbelievable three years ago. But, unfortunately, by now we have grown accustomed to this kind of incompetence.

I see MSNBC is already off and running with the Athens Olympics. It’s a bit odd to see the games because:

(1) We haven’t even had the opening ceremonies yet; and
(2) I hadn’t seen as much Olympic build up/hype as I expected (though I have only been watching MSNBC and CNBC, not NBC).

Anyway, it’s early, but I sense we’re going to see a shift in the coverage this year. In the past couple games, the broadcast have been (all figures rough estimates):

70% Human interest stories
20% Action
10% Other

This time it looks like we will see:

60% Human interest stories
20% Action
10% Terror/security/scare updates
10% Other

It sure would be nice to simply enjoy the competition.

Last week Forbes.com announced that it was experimenting with a sponsored link technology which allowed it to embed links to advertisers within news stories on the website. So, for example, if an article mentions “Ford,” the page might have a link on the word that would take the reader to the Ford Motor Company.
Now I’m not an expert in journalistic ethics, but it seems to me that even with a firewall between the writers/editors and the advertising, this kind of an arrangement is bound to have an influence over news content sooner or later.
At any rate, it looks like the Washington Times has come up with the next best thing. Today Bill Gertz has an article outlining the newest terror threat warnings. In the middle of the piece is this blurb, anonymously sourced, of course:

“The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election,” the official said. “The view of al Qaeda is ‘anybody but Bush.'”

Catchy phrase, that, “Anyone but Bush”? So catchy that near the top of the article (when I viewed it) there’s a banner ad linking to this site which reads “10 out of 10 Terrorists Agree: Anybody But Bush.
Interesting coincidence, eh? What are the odds that a Washington Times piece just happens to work in concert with a GOP-leaning ad? But I guess a newspaper has got to do what a newspaper must do to get its “information” out.
After all, “who would Osama vote for?”

Earlier tonight I listened to a few minutes of the Michael Savage Show (there’s not much choice if you want talk radio in this market).
As you might expect, he was railing against those who are complaining against an HHS rule requiring hospitals to ask patients their immigration status. Then he made a abrupt segue in his rant to foreign parents who come to this country to have conjoined twins separated:

“What is this with all these foreign conjoined twins coming into American hospitals to be separated at $2 million a procedure? We’ve got them coming from the Philippines, from Egypt, from Syria. Next thing you know we’ll have some coming from Iran . . . then we’ll have two terrorists growing up instead of one. In 30 years we’ll have two suicide bombers in our face.”

There’s nothing like right-wing radio. Listening is like watching a car wreck in slow motion.