« The Bill Bradley Plus Coalition | Main | Dollars and Sense »
August 10, 2006
Terror Plot
Shakes here...
I'll go ahead and let the Wall Street Journal sum it up for us:
U.K. Plot Puts Terrorism Back in U.S. Political Campaigns
Terrorism returns front and center to the American political agenda.
Republicans have long planned to make counterterrorism a central theme of this year’s congressional campaign, painting Democrats as weak on the issue. Today’s London arrests force the issue back to the front of voters’ minds, two days after Ned Lamont’s victory in Connecticut over incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman sparked a spate of Republican assertions, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, that the results showed Democrats are shirking from confronting terrorists. The RNC released a Web video titled “Weak and Wrong: Meet the Defeat-o-crats.”
Shortly after this morning’s announcement, Lieberman–now running as an independent–released a statement saying “this should serve as the latest, most serious evidence that we are in a war against a brutal enemy that intends to attack us over and over again in the most indiscriminate way.”
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee says a Democratic Congress would better fight terror by enacting more of the 9/11 Commission’s reforms. The plank is the eighth item on a nine-point platform, after gas prices, the minimum wage, health care, and other economic pledges.
Meantime, President Bush plans to make a statement at noon (EDT) about the U.K. plot. Bush will make his remarks during a previously scheduled trip to Green Bay, Wis. White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush talked at length to British Prime Minister Tony Blair about the plot on Sunday and again on Wednesday.
Hmm. Bush was speaking for days about this plot to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" but never mentioned anything to American travelers about it? What say you, Bob Orr?
Bob Orr just said on The Early Show on CBS that the U.S. government has known about this for a few days. He wonders why, if knowledge of this plot is a few days old, additional safety measures to protect travelers have not been put in place until today.
Why indeed. Why, if you know that travelers are at risk because of a plot to blow up airliners in midair, do you not advise travelers the minute you know?
Good question.
August 10, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Because THEY DON'T CARE. All they care about it keeping you cowering in fear with your plastic sheets and your duct tape. They couldn't care less if you have a job or health insurance or anything else. All they want you to do is go out and vote for them and then go back to your bunker.
Posted by: Andrew | Aug 10, 2006 12:24:02 PM
"He wonders why, if knowledge of this plot is a few days old, additional safety measures to protect travelers have not been put in place until today."
"Why, if you know that travelers are at risk because of a plot to blow up airliners in midair, do you not advise travelers the minute you know?"
Maybe because the bombers will disappear and come back later to bomb another day.
And you guys wonder why America doesn't trust Democrats with national security.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 10, 2006 12:30:02 PM
Wonder if the CT primary might have tipped to Loserman if this had been announced monday or tuesday? Yikes.
Posted by: John I | Aug 10, 2006 12:52:36 PM
WaPo have conducted three polls this year that say that Americans do not give the edge to the Republicans on national security, and each time the poll tilts more to the Democrats favor.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_080606.htm
Certain folks like to repeat the cw that the Republicans have the national security bag all tied up but they never have the evidence.
Posted by: sprocket | Aug 10, 2006 1:24:44 PM
Maybe because the bombers will disappear and come back later to bomb another day.
Nice literalism. The point is that you can issue warnings without revealing the entire plot. (Of course, the terrorism alert system has been so abused, no one pays attention anymore, but that's a whole other issue.)
Meanwhile, "Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security, said the airline-bombing plan broken up in London today was 'well-advanced' and 'suggestive' of a plot by the al Qaeda terrorist network. Chertoff said the investigation wasn’t completed, however, and warned there could be other parts of the plot not yet discovered."
And you think that's wise? If this is a truly dangerous plot that could cause "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," then perhaps it shouldn't be made headline news until all the parts of the plot have been discovered, no?
Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Aug 10, 2006 1:25:54 PM
"The point is that you can issue warnings without revealing the entire plot."
When they turned the plane back on Monday (refer to link provided above), they didn't reveal the scope of the investigation.
"If this is a truly dangerous plot that could cause "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," then perhaps it shouldn't be made headline news until all the parts of the plot have been discovered, no?"
Maybe the terrorists were getting ready to strike and they had to be taken down.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 10, 2006 1:38:17 PM
They are just pissed because the NYT was not informed so they could warn all of the terrorists that their operation was discovered and allow them to slip into the night.
Actually catching the bad guys, taking them out of circulation and making examples of them doesn't really seem important to moonbats. No one trusts the lefties with national security....and for good reason.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 10, 2006 1:46:57 PM
Wannas see the "New Face" of the Democratic party?
http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/nav/tap1/
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 10, 2006 1:48:38 PM
Nice troll infestation you have here.
Posted by: zoe kentucky | Aug 10, 2006 1:53:09 PM
(Sorry, but this post ended up under the wrong thread. It belongs here. My bad.)
I think I have an answer for the "good question." But you need to read some of the overseas newspapers to put 2 and 2 together about it. I read in the London Independent that airport screening measures could not have identified the liquid explosives, and a detonator was easily gotten past screeners as well. The Independent also identified some explosives that require no detonator -- just two compounds that when you mix them go "Boom!"
So if there's no way airport screeners would have caught this stuff on their own, how did they foil the plot?
Simple. They knew they were coming, and where, and when. That's probably what Bush and Blair were talking about Sunday and Wednesday: how to catch the bad guys in the act.
I'm fine with that, except for just one thing: what if the good guys screwed up and let them through. All I can say is it's a good thing this was a British operation. If this had been an American operation, I fear the incompetent boobs in the Administration would likely be explaining some downed airliners.
Posted by: Rick | Aug 10, 2006 2:28:33 PM
Until the extremely porous border with Mexico(and Canada) is sealed up to deter terrorists from entering the US that way I have to believe that the fearmongering outways the actual problem.
Posted by: Steve Mudge | Aug 10, 2006 3:09:33 PM
uh, outweighs...
Posted by: Steve Mudge | Aug 10, 2006 3:12:55 PM
Had things gone a different way, about right now we'd be seeing muslims dancing in the streets, burning US and UK flags and handing out candy to the little muslim children(future terrorists).
Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 10, 2006 3:34:28 PM
Your speculation is kooky. Your implication a post or two above that anyone who supports the Iraq war is a racist is offensive.
Posted by: slickdpdx | Aug 10, 2006 3:49:59 PM
No one trusts the lefSLAP
Keep up with those talking points, boy. One day you might actually believe them.
Under Clinton - Millenium plot foiled, WTC bombers arrested.
Under W - 9/11, thousands of dead soldiers in Iraq, no terrorist attacks foiled by using intel collected by Bush Admin. Terrorists still not stuck in Iraq like Bush said they'd be. Arrested what might have been the worst flight student in the country.
Canada dn the UK have foiled attacks. What do they have in common? Conservatives aren't in control.
You can spew your talking points all you want, but the fact is that if conservatives are our friends, we don't need enemies.
Posted by: Dr. Squid | Aug 10, 2006 4:25:46 PM
Under Clinton:
"the ex-president himself admitted he played a key role the blunder in a February 2002 speech, which was recorded exclusively by NewsMax.com.
"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again," he told a New York business group. "They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
Listen to the speech. Just follow the link.
And yet another reason America doesn't trust Democrats with national security.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 10, 2006 4:47:35 PM
"Why, if you know that travelers are at risk because of a plot to blow up airliners in midair, do you not advise travelers the minute you know?"
I'm sorry, but that is an asinine question. For months we've been tracking these guys, and a few days before we arrest them we're supposed to announce new security measures (no liquids and no gels) to prevent exactly the type of explosives these guys plan to use?
Posted by: ostap | Aug 10, 2006 5:34:49 PM
My goodness, people are picky about how they like plans to commit mass murder foiled.
Since Shakespeares Sister seems to know so much about National Security, maybe she fly across the Atlantic and give those Poms a lesson or two. She clearly knows the ins and outs better than them. Even if she doesen't, can we really risk the possibility that a foiled terrorist plot might convey some indirect favor to our political enemies.
20+ Men were orchestrating a plot of mass murder on one of our allies, and instead of praying that our friends are safe & blood hasn't been needlessly shed, we bitch because the whole affair might confer political advantage to politicians we don't like. We certainly live in interesting times.
Posted by: Dustin | Aug 10, 2006 8:39:11 PM
Agreed, Dustin....
With Shakes (and others here) it's all about power and all that other "stuff" like national security is secondary.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 10, 2006 11:05:02 PM
Why, if you know that travelers are at risk because of a plot to blow up airliners in midair, do you not advise travelers the minute you know?
Why, if binary or liquid explosives are so tricky to detect, didn't anyone anticipate such a plot and put tougher security measures in place years ago? Because nobody would stand for having their carry-ons taken away without actual suspects in the clink?? Yeah, that's a good reason.
Posted by: Grumpy | Aug 11, 2006 1:40:37 AM
Fred,
Your implication that Clinton could have captured bin Laden would have changed exactly what about 9-11?
9-11 happened because the US policy-makers ignored warnings from the previous administration as well as warnings from the CIA.
Other than providing a head to be placed on a spike at the castle gate, capturing bin Laden will not change the course of or make Al Queda more or less effective.
Also, only two have made a connection between the recent arrestees and Al Queda, both 'mericans. The Pakistani and British representatives, working on this since June 2005 have made no such connection. Leave it to the johnny come latelies, those who have known about it for just under two weeks, to make such a connection.
A hurrah to the excellent police work that resulted in arrests. It has been noted that a reason for the timing was the Brits were afraid the 'mericans, in their zeal to politicize this, would blow everything. After all, it has happened twice before, outings of secrets for political purposes, why would the Brits think it would not happen again.
Posted by: Sky-Ho | Aug 11, 2006 2:39:25 AM
Answer: Churchill + Coventry.
Posted by: Some Dude | Aug 11, 2006 7:08:56 AM
Actually, the authorities were forced to make arrests at this time because those in Pakistan were about to travel to rural tribal regions where they could no longer be watched. As soon as they made these arrests, the ring-leaders in London were tipped and fled.
The notion that we should not have ongoing secret investigations of people but instead attempt to anticipate every method of terrorism possible is ludicrous. One of the problems in our security in the US is we look for bad things while we should concentrate more on bad people. That is why the plot in Britian and Pakistan was successfully halted.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 11, 2006 8:41:07 AM
Squid,
Under Clinton:
1993 WTC bombing
1996 Khobar Towers
1998 Tanzania and Kenya embassy bombings
2000 USS Cole attack
Clinton respnse:
Nothing
Under Bush:
2001 9/11 happens
Bush's response:
A terror regime and a murderous dictatorship toppled.
"Your implication that Clinton could have captured bin Laden would have changed exactly what about 9-11?"
Well, he is the head of the organization that perpetrated 9/11, so you figure it out. Imagine if we'd killed or captured Hitler in 1935.
And you wonder why America doesn't trust liberals with US national security.
"Other than providing a head to be placed on a spike at the castle gate, capturing bin Laden will not change the course of or make Al Queda more or less effective."
Maybe you should tell all them left-wing wackos who said we need to capture Bin Laden instead of fighting in Iraq.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Aug 11, 2006 9:09:08 AM
Under Clinton:
1993 WTC bombing
Clinton respnse:
Nothing
Are you sure about that?
Posted by: Ramzi Yousef, federal penitentiary, Florence, Colorado | Aug 11, 2006 9:58:37 AM
