Bloggers on the bombing in Afghanistan.

Bloggers on the bombing in Afghanistan.

Bloggers on the bombing in Afghanistan.

The latest chatter in cyberspace.
Feb. 27 2007 6:37 PM

Cheney Hunted?

Bloggers react to the Afghanistan bombing that the Taliban claims was aimed at Dick Cheney. They also crucify James Cameron for his new Jesus documentary and weigh the gravity of Hillary's unrecorded charitable contributions.

Cheney hunted? A suicide bomber attacked a U.S. military base in Afghanistan during Vice President Dick Cheney's visit Tuesday. Cheney was unharmed, but the Taliban took credit for the bombing and said he was the target. Bloggers wonder whether the attack and Cheney's visit were just a coincidence.

Advertisement

Ed Morrissey at conservative Captain's Quarters notes that Cheney had just come from Pakistan, where he had tried to persuade President Pervez Musharraf to help fight Taliban forces: "The Taliban could not have done more to prove the US case to Pervez Musharraf. Cheney's presence during the attack will put even more pressure on the beleaguered Pakistani leader." Cernig at liberal NewsHog takes the Taliban's claim of responsibility on its face and says the attacks might be a warning from—not to—Pakistan: "So the big question is—in the middle of a 'secrecy-shrouded' trip to the region, who told the Taliban where Cheney would be? The most likely informants would be inside the Musharaff regime or Karzai's office, surely. Could this be a warning from the [Pakistani] ISI after Cheney tried to get tough and threaten Musharaff?"

At The Left Coaster, Steve Soto calls the attack "a perfect illustration of the administration's failed foreign policy and war on terror." In other words, it wouldn't have happened were it not for specific failures: "[T]he Taliban would not be here to attack him if Cheney and Rumsfeld had finished Bin Laden off five years ago at Tora Bora. Nor would the Taliban be in this position had Bush and Cheney not encouraged Musharraf to give Bin Laden and the Taliban a free pass out of North Waziristan back in September."

Read more about the apparent assassination attempt.

King of kings of the world: At a news conference Monday to promote his new documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus, Titanic director James Cameron unveiled two ossuaries discovered in 1980 that he says contain the remains of Jesus and his wife, Mary Magdalene. Cameron says statistical and DNA evidence support his claim but insists it doesn't contradict Christian beliefs that Jesus was resurrected. Bloggers aren't so sure.

Advertisement

Beth Gaston Moon at AOL's Blogging Stocks smells a ploy for attention: "[W]hat's the best way to move back into the limelight? Find Jesus. And not in the same way that Stephen Baldwin has." Entertainment news blog Bumpshack doesn't believe the hype, either: "James Cameron is looking for the limelight again. ... We have to remember that this tomb was found nearly thirty years ago and very few people thought much about it. Cameron didn't appear to have much actual evidence that these coffins belong to Jesus outside of the 'very common names' being on the coffins."

At Huffington Post, author and travel writer Bruce Feiler takes issue with Cameron's claim that the names on the tomb prove the connection: "21 percent of names of women are Mary; Joseph and Jesus (Joshua) are among the top four male names. The presence of these names in a tomb would not have been rare. The name Jesus has been found in dozens of tombs over the years."

Conservative Christian blogger The Anchoress laughs at Cameron's argument, but worries that it damages Christianity in many people's eyes: "These little things do chip away, it's true—they do cause people who might be considering a toe-dip into the lake of faith to draw back. They might turn one whose faith is shallow back toward the world—for approval and acceptance—but one must not fret over DaVinci Codes, and 'new gospels' and 'found tombs,' for they will never defeat. Easter Sunday will still dawn."

Read more about James Cameron finding Jesus.

Advertisement

That's being charitable: Sen. Hillary Clinton failed to mention her position with the Clinton Family Foundation on her Senate financial disclosure reports. The charity has allowed the Clintons to write off about $5 million in income since 2001. Bloggers are split over how innocent the mistake is.

Mother Jones' MoJoBlog expresses surprise: "After Sen. Bill Frist and Rep. Nancy Pelosi attracted attention (though no penalties) for the same oversight, it seems bizarre at best that Hillary's professional army of advisers would have neglected to report the senator's role in the foundation."

Blogging at the Washington Monthly's Political Animal, Kevin Drum flogs the Post's John Solomon for what he calls a pretty "meager" scoop. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait, writing at The Plank, is equally unimpressed: "So that's it? What exactly is the angle here? 'Clinton Office Behind on Paperwork'? 'Clinton More Generous Than She Admits'? What?"

Jeanette at Hang Right Politics suspects the worst: "It brings back the nightmares of Whitewater, cattle futures trading, lost legal paperwork miraculously discovered in the White House, FBI files of opponents being investigated and on and on ad infinitum. … One Clinton was one too many. Two would be a disaster. Let's see if this story has any legs." 186 K Per Second gets right to the point: "It Depends On What The Meaning Of Disclosure Is."

Read more about the Hillary kerfuffle.