Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« McGavick on the War | See Her Soul »

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

The London Terror Plot… That Wasn’t?

Posted by on August 16 at 13:08 PM

Uh… were we fooled again? The latest terror threat—which lead to chaos in airports all over the world, and 24-hour “holy shit!” reports on cable news—may not hold up to scrutiny.

Luckily for George W. Bush, scrutiny fell out of fashion in D.C. after Bill Clinton left office. Blowing a load on an intern’s dress? That’s serious shit. Botching a war and endlessly manipulating the public with terror threats? Not so much.


CommentsRSS icon

Perhaps the GOP was hoping to ride this pony to success in November, again. It's undeniable that calling the dems soft on terrorism has worked for them in the past.

Ooh, orange! I haven't seen that pretty danger color in 2 years!

"Perhaps"? The politicos were already trolling out the tired old "this is why we need to fight in Iraq and defeat the terrorists over there" argument within minutes of the arrests! God bless East Germany!
EDIT: I mean, God bless the USA!

Doesn't matter. The repugs have never let anything like reality or facts get in there way.

Just try brining something like this up to a right winger. I can hear it now, "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA AND WISH DEATH ON OUR TROOPS?!?!?!"

Dan you were pro war, and I never thought you'd join the whiners. The latest airport thing was a good diversion, it bumped Israel's war with Iran off the front pages for a day or so - allowed some breathing room.

Whiners and complainers will gripe if they catch terrorists, and will gripe if the terrorists get away with their plots.


What matters is long term stratigic goals of American air bases next to Iran, and getting an oil pipline to Israel. It make take ten years, but once Israel is drinking up Iraq's oil, all the nay-sayers will be eating crow.

GASP! Odious grammatical error! "there" s/b "their."

It won't happen again...

If it turns out that the US rushed UK authorities into springing before they were ready to gather enough evidence, and that the premature bust works against securing convictions, this could be a huge falling out between the countries' intelligence and enforcement agencies. Blair is already basically defending the special relationship by himself.

Look! Look! Shiny Terror Alerts!

Ignore my massive debt and continuing five year failure to actually do anything about Osama bin Laden, who we all know is alive and well in Pakistan, or the continuing funding of them from Saudia Arabia.

perhaps part of the problem is with using torture to create "evidence" from which a preemptive arrest is rationalized, before someone has even made weapons or committed a crime? the british may not have the free speech laws we have, but their courts have a bit more respect for international human rights law.

And what would Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Savage be saying if the threat was real and had occurred? That because we were bogged down in Iraq we failed to act on intelligence and stop this attack. Blair and Bush can't win for losing.

Where these gentlemen editorialists go wrong is that they extrapolate and sharpen their political axes simply because all the facts of the case are not yet known. Sullivan's last paragraph is astounding in its cynical political spin.

It's really incredibly disheartening that they have absolutely no relief that this threat, even if it was not fully baked, was averted.

Told y'all. The lack of displayed evidence from all sides tipped me that this was a political ploy.

This crap is really getting to me because my buddy was flying back from London that Thursday - but fortunately took an earlier flight.
Another way I can tell Sullivan's and Savage's insincerity is because their spin is so totally predictable.

oh, give it a rest PGR, it's because of you Reds and your comrades in the Red House in DC that we're now at Ground Zero here in Seattle and live on CNN.

thanks for siphoning off the port defense, you America-hating Osama-loving greedheads!

There's nothing more annoying than a Gay Republican. They just do it to get attention, you know.

What matters is long term stratigic goals of American air bases next to Iran, and getting an oil pipline to Israel.

Josh is onto something here. One of the key agreements of the Camp David accords is that Israel would be able to purchase oil from the Sinai oil fields it had conquered from Egypt. It was a good deal for them: they didn't have to pay for any infrastructure & their oil supply was secured. Except, like America, their oil consumption skyrocketed, and they have to have more. So what's a country to do when the only people that can sell you oil are your targets for long-term, low-level genocide, and they don't want to sell you their oil? What worked in the 60's will work today: conquer them! Of course, the UN might get a little pissy, so you get your good ol' buddy Bush&Co to do your dirty work, get all the blame, while you get your oil. And if anyone complains, they're anti-semitic bigots! Indeed, Israel is to be admired at their very astute foreign policy.

Toward what group is Israel directing this "low-level genocide?" The Palestinians? They don't have any oil.

Isn't it interesting that Will in Seattle and Jeff Gannon did not directly respond to my comments? Comon gentlemen, please take out your red pens and give me some real feedback!

Sorry Darling, I've go no time to enable you. I have to shave Coulter's back, get Karl out of the sling, and hose down Melhman. But maybe I'll see you at the Log Cabin Orgy this weekend?

Amazing. No discourse just blind rage. This is fascinating.

I always wonder what they are trying to get away with when this shit happens. It looks to me as though they needed to have something to scare us with again so they could take away more civil liberties.

Oh God Clay, how I wish that were the case.

PGR - Your buddy would have been fine no matter when he was scheduled to fly.

None of the accused had a plane ticket. Many of them apparently don't have passports, which would have made it difficult for them to get on a plane. In other words - and as many of the televised reports stated - nothing was about to happen.

Surely it is not an exhaustive exercise in cynicism to wonder if the investigation might have been more certain to be successful if there had been less pressure to act from the US and UK govts.

It may work out for the best, certainly, but when coincidences occur - like the CT primary election, Cheney's politicized (and rare) press conference while on vacation and the alleged "plot" is announced (within three days of each other) - it should give pause to anyone with a mind not in a Terri Shaivo like state.

Besides, cynicism is the least offensive by product of the past 5 years of chicanery. Why wouldn't there be cynicism after the WMD lie? What would it take for you believe that BushCo is corrupt?

Thank you Patrick for your thoughtful answer.

I am a Republican because the current Democratic Party has gone too far to the left for my taste. I am however in full agreement that George W. Bush is one of the most infuriatingly obnoxious presidents we've had. I've read Kitty Kelly's book, 'The Family', and I roll my eyes like everyone else at his verbal tangles. His pathetic pandering to the far religious right with the (likely dead) Gay Marriage Amendment is one that I obviously do not support. But my political disposition is with the party, not the president. Still, I'm relieved that he is in the oval office instead of Al Gore, Howard Dean, or John Kerry. None of these guys would have cut taxes after 9/1/2001 which has resulted in what the democrats call "unexpected revenue" that is alleviating the deficit. They also would have taken this country down the path of increased socialism, a far more "nanny" state. But most importantly they would not have pursued terrorists in foreign lands and quashed the states that support them: The Bush doctrine.

President George W Bush made a tactical error, not a lie, in invading Iraq. I admit that the White House extrapolated intelligence and did not dig deep enough. But with WMD inspectors going in and out of Iraq since 1991 I would fault any president who would not consider removing Saddam by force. In fact, John Kerry expressed those sentiments in 1998.

Back to London. What amazes me is the Machiavellian hoops Bush and Blair would have to go through to stage this "fire drill" as Sullivan/Savage postulate. For all the criticisms of how inept Bush is it astounds me that they think he's smart enough to weave such a web. I'll give you that pressure from the White House may have pressured Scotland Yard to go public prematurely - but they said they terrorists were within days of executing their plan. It would be incredibly risky to wait till the terrorists were on their way to the airports.

Does anyone REALLY think that Scotland Yard would orchestrate this whole thing as a ruse in concert with the White House? I'm sure some do, the same folks that believe that 9/11 was staged. Think of the logistics involved to keep, now two, mega conspiracies going: all the people that would have to be kept silent, all the media buy offs, acting to look "dumb", and I could go on and on.

Still you guys can counter my argument every time - because you're arguing possibilities. I argue probabilities, which I believe to be more realistic.

"Blind Rage"? Give me a break. There nothing more hilarious when a conservative tries to play the adult, tut-tutting the "anger" on the left, after the ridiculously juvenile temper tantrum that they throw anytime Clinton's name is invoked.

I'm not "enraged" by Bush. I have contempt for what he has done to the Presidency. I have pity for someone so obviously over his head, who has never accomplished anything, being thrust into a position of power. I fear for the future of the nation under the control of the GOP, but no - I have no "blind fury" towards anyone. I leave that to my friends on the right, who seem to thrive on hatred.

And you, Proud Gay Republican (If indeed you are one) have evidentially let greed overwhelm your sense of self if you can condone the actions of a party who methodically USE you as a scapegoat. Either that, or you are the most naive of people. Probably a combination of both, from reading your assessment of the "War on Terror".

You certainly have a complete understanding of the contents of your cell, PGR.

Some of us have lives, PGR, unlike you. Heck, I just got into a fight with my girlfriend cause I don't love Repubs. Hey, it's my choice not to feel empathy towards people who lie, cheat, and steal and stand in direct contradiction to my mainstream American values of Truth, Justice, and the American Middle Class way of life ...

WIS: You have just listed broad generalizations that responding to it is like trying to pick up Jell-O off the kitchen floor. Please take at last one, take a deep breath, turn down the volume, and politely tell me what you are trying to say.

You're a good writer. I know you can do it. Respond to my argument as if you were talking about city politics. That's your venue where your blogs/comments are most interesting.

Is it true that many of the individuals did not even have passports? PGR didn't answer that part of patrick C's post. I would think that the threat is significantly reduced if they did not. If it is significantly reduced, then the administration and media are exaggerating the threat.

"In contrast to previous reports, one senior British official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports."

From here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/

If anyone is still reading this post anymore....

Other than potential political gain, it is very hard to see what other reasoning there might be for breaking the story when they did, since it appears that nothing was about to happen.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).