Today's Columns: Al-Qaeda in France

LAT: Bruce Riedel explains why the chance of a terrorist attack in France organized by al-Qaeda has increased since Nicolas Sarkozy's election. "French intelligence officials anticipate attacks on French targets in North Africa and probably in France itself sooner or later" ... Jonathan Chait defends liberal hawks who supported the war but now oppose staying in Iraq against charges of hypocrisy. He argues that "maybe there's something to be said for letting your opinions be driven by changing facts."

Plus ... Patt Morrison on why she doesn't care about Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's marital problems.

NYT: Timothy Egan explains how the political world of Alaska, which has been "controlled and corrupted by age and oil," is falling apart. "The farce in the far north involves two national politicians who are used to getting their way, and a lobby that treats legislators like houseboys," he writes ... Thane Rosenbaum argues that society has forgotten about Holocaust survivors and offers four suggestions of what we can do "to honor those who survived but who seem to have been forgotten."

Plus ... Nicholas Kristof on his tour of Africa's Great Lakes region with the winners of his "Win-a-Trip" contest.

WaPo: Reacting to the assassination of Walid Eido and his son Khaled in Beirut yesterday, Hussain Abdul-Hussain, who knew the victims, writes that he wants "to press charges against [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad] and his Syrian and Lebanese associates. Enough is enough with the Syrian regime and its Lebanese puppets."

Plus ... David Ignatius on the threats to Iraq's fledgling intelligence service caused by a rival Iranian-backed spy agency ... Scott Gant on the broad definition of "journalism" that has been written into the proposed "shield law" bill protecting journalists from disclosing certain types of information.

WSJ: Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) argues that when it comes to earmarks, congressional Democrats are proving themselves to be no better than Republicans. He notes that the "fate of earmark reform ultimately is a question of leadership, particularly in the House" ... Anna Husarska appeals to the U.S. government to allow more Iraqis who have been displaced by the war to enter into the United States, especially those who are being persecuted for aiding the United States.

USA Today: Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel introduce their "Common Ground index," a way of predicting which presidential candidates would be most likely to work with members of the other political party. Topping the Democratic lists are Bill Richardson and Barack Obama.

By Rob Anderson |  June 14, 2007; 9:22 AM ET
Previous: Today's Editorials: Failing Our Troops in Iraq | Next: Today's Hot Topic: Attacking Bush Nominees

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Bob Beckel is incapable of writing anything objectively. He is clearly a Democratic Party hack who would not recognize reality if it hit him straight between the eyes. I find him to be repugnant in his partisAN attacks which typically have so much spin that even Beckel gets dizzy.

Posted by: Dave Bump | June 14, 2007 10:03 AM

Bob Beckel is incapable of writing anything objectively. He is clearly a Democratic Party hack who would not recognize reality if it hit him straight between the eyes. I find him to be repugnant in his partisAN attacks which typically have so much spin that even Beckel gets dizzy. Why am I not surprised to see his choices are both Democrats? I do think that Bill Richardson has the capabilit but I am doubtfult that Obama does only because he has not had the opportunity to demonstrate this level of leadership. My concern would be that he even though he talks a good game abut uniting, his positions on the war and national health care are not in synch with the real world. I was one who had great hope that our currrent president could have the same success he had with reaching across the aisle in Texas but unfortunately it did not come to pass because of the likes of Kennedy, Shumer and Boxer.

Posted by: Dave Bump | June 14, 2007 10:10 AM

Bob Beckel is incapable of writing anything objectively. He is clearly a Democratic Party hack who would not recognize reality if it hit him straight between the eyes. I find him to be repugnant in his partisAN attacks which typically have so much spin that even Beckel gets dizzy. Why am I not surprised to see his choices are both Democrats? I do think that Bill Richardson has the capabilit but I am doubtfult that Obama does only because he has not had the opportunity to demonstrate this level of leadership. My concern would be that he even though he talks a good game abut uniting, his positions on the war and national health care are not in synch with the real world. I was one who had great hope that our currrent president could have the same success he had with reaching across the aisle in Texas but unfortunately it did not come to pass because of the likes of Kennedy, Shumer and Boxer.

Posted by: Dave Bump | June 14, 2007 10:10 AM

Bob Beckel is incapable of writing anything objectively. He is clearly a Democratic Party hack who would not recognize reality if it hit him straight between the eyes. I find him to be repugnant in his partisAN attacks which typically have so much spin that even Beckel gets dizzy. Why am I not surprised to see his choices are both Democrats? I do think that Bill Richardson has the capabilit but I am doubtfult that Obama does only because he has not had the opportunity to demonstrate this level of leadership. My concern would be that he even though he talks a good game abut uniting, his positions on the war and national health care are not in synch with the real world. I was one who had great hope that our currrent president could have the same success he had with reaching across the aisle in Texas but unfortunately it did not come to pass because of the likes of Kennedy, Shumer and Boxer.

Posted by: Dave Bump | June 14, 2007 10:10 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company