"Bush and Blair better be purer than Caesar's wife on this one."

Or what?

the timing makes no sense.

there are also reports in British newspapers that Pakistan surprised both Britain and the U.S. by arresting Rauf and that is what caused the sudden roll-up in Britain (they didn't want everyone else to get spooked).

There already is a shred of evidence. The conflict between US and British authorites over when to pull the trigger on this. The US wanted it earlier, theoretically to protect Lieberman, while the Brits wanted to hold off.

Not a ton of evidence, but you only asked for a shred :)

And the fact that it's something that this administration would do, and in fact really has done in the past.

And if it turns out these dimwits were talked into talking about something by a mole in their midst which they would otherwise have never thought of for themselves?

The theory of the bombs sounds relatively clever, you'd need some science to work it out.

"As little as year or two ago...."

Better late than never, I guess.

As little a year or two ago I would have rolled my eyes at the idea that even the timing of the arrests was politically motivated, let alone the possibility that the plot itself was being exaggerated.

You really are a slow learner, aren't you?

Al nails Kevin again! Bush only wants to save us from The Evil Brown People! It had nothing to do with Joe, or sagging poll numbers, or the midterms. And it surely didn't affect the icky "law enforcement" efforts!

The consequences will be what exactly Kevin? Fox will never report the scam, the average voter will never hear about it, and the desired effect will have been achieved. Rove and whoever Norquist's billionaire backers are have built the perfect closed-loop system, and I don't see too much chance that reality can break it.

Cranky

All this may explain the exteme spinning of this by Cheney et al. They may realize that there is less there there than meets the eye. Hence, their plan is to create the "truth" before reality steps up to reveal what actually happened.

"Beyond that I'll just say this: there better not turn out to be even a shred of evidence that any part of this was exaggerated or timed or hyped for any reason that's not related with absolute certainty to the requirements of the police and counterterrorist community."

There've already been, what, half a dozen claims of terrorist plots and every one has turned out to be utter bullshit. Remember the Ricin plot that got foiled? Only it turns out there was no Ricin. Remember the Administration list of 35 terrorist plots foiled and it turned out only three had even the vaguest connection to terrorism? Most were mail fraud and BS like that.

Just last week we had two cases of muslims arrested becasue they had lots of phones. One of the cases has already been dropped and the other looks to similarly dissipate.

Remember Brandon Mayfield up here in Oregon? Lawyer connected to the Muslim community who just happened to end up as a (false) positive match for the spainish bombings?

Jesus, we've already had so many blatantly craven manipulations of the judicial system for political gain, what's one more?

I'm shrill! UK terror plot, NOT! Damn Bush and Blair! They can both go take a flying f#@& at a rolling donut!

Another consequence is that we ratchet up the pain of flying one more notch. It's only a matter of time until they ban passengers from the passenger cabin. Then we'll have 100% safety!

Jesus, we've already had so many blatantly craven manipulations of the judicial system for political gain, what's one more?

This reminds me of what someone posted a few days ago. You can't have terrorism without terror - ie, if people would calm the fuck down, then the attraction of terrorism would itself lessen.

But that would require having grownups in charge. It would require looking at terrorism as a criminal, not a military, problem. It would require dumping Fox and CNN into the Atlantic. None of which, sadly, will ever happen.

Ceaser's wife was not as pure as you think.

typical of liberals to worry about Macacas. MACACAS!

You can't have terrorism without terror - ie, if people would calm the fuck down, then the attraction of terrorism would itself lessen.

Absolutely. How dare people feel terrified at the prospect of being blown up on planes, buses and subway trains. How very unreasonable of them.

So does this mean that all those Connecticut primary voters AREN'T tarrist sympathizers and Lamont ISN'T the Al Qaeda candidate?

It would require looking at terrorism as a criminal, not a military, problem.

Hell, I'd be happy if the Republicans would stop looking at terrorism as a political mallet.

The timing is to dilute their losses in the Primaries, and bolster support while things are low.

It's not like a Republican congress will ever investigate something like this 'before an election' (when is it not?)

So basically, this is 'before November'.

How dare people feel terrified at the prospect of being blown up on planes, buses and subway trains.

shitting yourself in fear over the possibility of being killed in one of the least likely ways to die is just fucking stupid. even for someone who goes by the name "GOP".

I'd normally jump on the conspiracy bandwagon, but if they had the choice wouldn't the Bush administration spring this a few weeks before the November elections instead of now? I would think they'd get more political mileage out of that timing (think bin Laden tape, October 2004).

You assume that this is a single "conspiracy"

I believe that there will be one of these a month until November, each crappier than the last.

The reason [PBS] has not disclosed Czarnecki's day job [as an official in the US Department of Labor], Erbe said, was because the [Bush administration] asked her not to. "Those are the terms on which she could continue to appear," the host said, explaining that Czarnecki had appeared on her show for several years before she took the government position. "The only terms on which we could keep her was to not identify her as a Bush person."

The Bush administration tries to mislead the American public on issues by hiding the fact that commentators are Bush administration officials, pawning them off as independent voices when they are not.

Shameful.

Why would you expect anything different than similar mendacity and obsfucation with respect to alleged terrorist plots?

Every single one of these terrorist plots is simply a big lie.

Or what?

That's what I was thinking. There's a good place for a story about this, should Bush/Blair have exaggerated the claims: Something by a historian of the Bush presidency. Or perhaps some critic of the media.

Sadly, my gut reaction to this was much different than Josh Marshall's. I told my labmates that I don't mind not being able to check bags in, but I didn't think the threat was real. Nothing this administration has done has been completely honest. There is always something else they are not telling us.

Frankly, I resent the hell out of having to be so cynical about my own government. Five months...Five months.

"Absolutely. How dare people feel terrified at the prospect of being blown up on planes, buses and subway trains. How very unreasonable of them."

GoP, put the kool-aid cup down, step away from the cooler, and everything will be okay.

One of these days there will be a real attack in the works. The government will try warn us, and we'll laugh at them because they've pulled our chain so many times. (And of course when it happens it'll somehow be Bill Clinton's fault, if not Jimmy Carter.) It's really a damn shame what these bastards are doing to us. And what they're doing to the rest of world is even worse.

Who elected these clowns? Oh, now I remember. A substantial minority of Americans did.

be sure to catch the trackbacks at the bottom of that Sully piece. the wingnuts are not happy over the idea that this might turn out to be another big pile of nothing. and be sure to get a load of the gay-bashing over at ProteinWisdom!

As little a year or two ago I would have rolled my eyes at the idea that even the timing of the arrests was politically motivated,

Yeah, well, you were wrong then, but its good that you are slowly starting to get up to speed on how this administration works.

These assholes got everyone in a tizzy over another half baked plan and it ended up costing me about ten grand. I had a trade show for my business right after they announced this crap and all the buyers canceled their flights. I can hardly wait till we impeach these turds and get back down to commerce and making a living instead of trying to keep everyone scared to leave their house.

there are also reports in British newspapers that Pakistan surprised both Britain and the U.S. by arresting Rauf and that is what caused the sudden roll-up in Britain (they didn't want everyone else to get spooked).

I have counted at least three different explanations, all mutually exclusive, reported in the MSM as coming from anon WH officials that purport to explain the timing on this.

That is standard disinfo practice for an op like this.

In the next couple months expect a Downing St type memo to surface, at which point another red alert will be announced.

cleek,

shitting yourself in fear over the possibility of being killed in one of the least likely ways to die is just fucking stupid.

I guess it's a good thing that people are not "shitting themselves" over that possibility, then.

Beyond that I'll just say this: there better not turn out to be even a shred of evidence that any part of this was exaggerated or timed or hyped for any reason that's not related with absolute certainty to the requirements of the police and counterterrorist community. Bush and Blair better be purer than Caesar's wife on this one.

As others have asked: Or what? What are you going to do even if there is a shred of such evidence? Write a post about it?

Why now?

To blunt the media attention to Lieberman's loss and the possible of panic among incumbent Republicans to the aftereffect for one thing.

For another, to do a test run in preparation for the bigger hoax they have in mind for late October - it's been a while, time to work out the kinks

Just a couple of possibilities

Isn't keeping Iraq off of the front pages enough of a reason to go public?

I am sure the administration would rather talk about explosive gel-bras than the unsalvagable situation in Iraq.

OOOOOOO what's that SMELL !
Can you smell that SMELL ?

It's another Bush supporter be-shitting themselves...

Run away frightened man.....

Bush and Blair better be purer than Caesar's wife on this one.

Blair's still on holiday in Barbados, and not due back till next week. There's been no indication that he's going to miss any beach time. In the meantime, John Reid has been running the show, which I'm sure will make Gordon Brown even grumpier than usual.

Absolutely. How dare people feel terrified at the prospect of being blown up on planes, buses and subway trains. How very unreasonable of them.

God help me, but here goes:

1. It's ok to be worried about a violent death. But it's not ok to have the fear of that be wildly out of whack with the likelihood. See, eg, the fact that it seems to be people in the rural midwest, with essentially zero chance of ever being a terror victim, who are more freaked out than the people who live in target cities like NY and LA.

2. It's especially not ok for people in charge to milk this, whip up the paranoia of the population, in order to achieve their political goals. In a parallel universe, we would have grownups saying "yes, there are bad people who may want to kill you, but we're doing what we can to stop them, and you shouldn't let it change the way you lead your life, because if you do, they are already achieving their objective." Instead of what we actually get, which is (I'm paraphrasing) "Waa! Waa! Brown people! Run away! Be afraid! Look out behind you! Red Alert!" etc

3. Any American living anywhere in the US is much more likely to be murdered in some random crime then be the victim of a spectacular terrorist attack, yet we don't have checkpoints in our cities, searches of everyone going into WalMart, or any other equivalent to the total hysteria we now get about terrorism.

I guess it's a good thing that people are not "shitting themselves" over that possibility, then.

Explain the smell, GOP: is it just your natural odor?

The Bush administration tries to mislead the American public on issues by hiding the fact that commentators are Bush administration officials, pawning them off as independent voices when they are not.

I wonder if these kind of conditions are why Lanny Davis is always in OpEds and TV appearances labelled as "Bill Clinton's former special counsel", but his current political appointment in the Bush Administration is never referred to.

I have been a little suspicious about the liquid explosive threat from the start: That's just my paranoia-detector. It starts beeping the moment anyone starts talking about bombs with vast explosive power that are undetectable and that can be assembled easily from a small amount of cheap, readily available ingredients, such as acetone and concentrated hydrogen peroxide.

Surely, I reasoned, an explosive with such features--undetectable, cheap, easy to make, readily available--would be a popular parlor trick for physics or chemistry grad students? Like mixing baking soda and vinegar to make a "volcano".

I hope the MSM tries to get the truth, but I have no illusions.

Reasons why now:

1) Because Lieberman was defeated in the primary
2) Because Hezbollah was holding its own in Lebanon against the Israelis and the world was starting to ask difficult questions
3) Because Iraq is FUBAR
4) Because Bush is hovering around 40% in approval ratings, not that he cares a piffle about such things.

craigie: "Another consequence is that we ratchet up the pain of flying one more notch. It's only a matter of time until they ban passengers from the passenger cabin"

I was anticipating several months of nude flying and/or Muslim-only flights would occur BEFORE the total ban on passengers in the passenger cabin.

"As little a year or two ago I would have rolled my eyes at the idea that even the timing of the arrests was politically motivated"

And you would have been wrong then. It is long be conventional wisdom that the terror alerts as well as any arrests have been motivated by Bushie political considerations and not by any real concern for security. It's been a year since the depth of the Bush Administration's neglect of security was laid bare in the aftermath of Katrina. Were you that naive even then?

=

As little a year or two ago I would have rolled my eyes at the idea that even the timing of the arrests was politically motivated

So many are dead in Iraq because moderates could not believe an invasion or occupation could be politcally motivated.

Mousawi was given a capital trial out of political motivation. Moderates considered the death penalty prosecution appropriate.

Lebanon was destroyed out of political motivation. Many moderates thought Israel had a right to defend itself but not the people of Southern Lebanon, so the bombing laid waste in order to bolster the pro-Israeli faction.

So many more will die in Iran because moderates will entertain the idea of war to stop the self-determination of another nation.

Moderates kneel at the alter of authority and entertain thoughts of nuclear war because they cannot believe their beloved protectors are politically motivated.

Political motivation is the reason Democrats voted to give President Bush war powers to invade Iraq. Political motivation is the reason Democrats oppose the war now.

Iraq, Lebanon and Lieberman were front page news and the political motivation to arrest these alleged English 'terrorists' was to move the news from bad to fear. Fear is a great political motivator.

Hopefully, justice will prevail, especially since the alleged suicide bombers were not arrested in the US. My guess is there will not be enough evidence to convict.

I am not familiar with English law, but I wonder if testimony of a tortured man is admissable in Britain. There will be another debate amongst moderates, who will seriously consider the need for allowing torture obtained evidence to prosecute people whose accusers are motivated by politics.

PTate in MN: I was anticipating several months of nude flying and/or Muslim-only flights would occur BEFORE the total ban on passengers in the passenger cabin.

Ah yes. And then we have to pass through the "all passengers will be gassed to sleep for the duration of the flight" phase.

craigie: "Ah yes. And then we have to pass through the "all passengers will be gassed to sleep for the duration of the flight" phase."

Nude flying will be stopped after British police uncover a terrorist threat to hide explosives in, um, bodily cavities. And "gassing to sleep for the duration of the flight" will be stopped after the CIA is tipped off about a terrorist plot to add a bit of undetectable, readily available deadly poison to airport anesthesia supplies.

It's just a matter of time until we reach the "no passengers in the passenger compartment" stage of safety preparededness. It is the only way to stay safe, anymore!

The next step for airline security will be providing your first born as collateral (hostage), to be released upon your safe return flight's arrival.

wouldn't the Bush administration spring this a few weeks before the November elections instead of now?

You do not want to know what is in store for October. It ruins the surprise.

"there better not turn out to be even a shred of evidence that any part of this was exaggerated or timed or hyped for any reason that's not related with absolute certainty to the requirements of the police and counterterrorist community. Bush and Blair better be purer than Caesar's wife on this one."

They'd 'better' or what Kevin? You gonna get 'em? I'm sure GDubs is shaking in his boots ...

Nude flying will stop after the first trip back from the Dominican Republic by Rush Limbaugh while he still has some Viagra in his system.

The British Home Secretary warned today that Europe is in danger of more Islamic terror attacks. Leftists in the US have ascribed terror attacks to US policy in Iraq. (US policy upsets otherwise productive islamists.)Given the fact that most of Europe has not followed the US in it Iraq policy, how do liberals explain Europe's vulnerability to "angry" Muslims?

Yep. The Poodle sure kept the UK out of that Iraqi mess.

Better trolls, please.

The British Home Secretary warned today that Europe is in danger of more Islamic terror attacks.

So? Who says the poodle's underlings aren't any more trustworthy than the master's?

Leftists in the US have ascribed terror attacks to US policy in Iraq.

A more common criticism is that terrorism from the Islamic world is a product of conditions there that are in large part (though not solely) products of Western, including US, policies toward the region, and that these have been exacerbated by the Iraq war, and anger particularly focussed on the US and other participants in that war, by the war.

Of course, without your strawman, the idea that the only countries that should be threatened by Islamic terrorism are the ones that participated in the Iraq war and subsequent occupation becomes untenable and your whole argument falls apart, even if one accepts the British Home Secretary's statement as the gospel truth.

Anyone care to call Home Secretary Reid some nasty names? Insane, odious, liar, delusional?

No, but I'll call you all of those. Satisfied?

craigie: And then we have to pass through the "all passengers will be gassed to sleep for the duration of the flight" phase.

Have you ever taken a 6 hour flight with a 2 year old? Terrorists be damned, I like the idea of gassing all passengers to sleep.

You know, if you are emotionally resistant to conspiratorial reasoning and yet find that the facts force you there again and again, maybe it's time to re-evaluate your emotional biases. After all, most of the general objections to conspiracy theory rest on broad assertions about the nature of the world: human beings cannot coordinate that well, nor keep secrets, seeing covert intention behind apparently spontaneous events is fallacy of reasoning, if there were a conspiracy, it would have been exposed by now.

If these theses do not apply to the Bush administration, they do not apply in general. The Bush administration are human beings, not lizard men, and the world they inhabit is they same one we do and always have. If conspiracy theory can legitimately be applied to them, it can legitimately be applied elsewhere.

Of course, that does not mean all or even most conspiracy theories are valid. Most theories of any type are false. But if you can only achieve a proper understanding of this administration using conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory has a legitimate place in your intellectual toolbox.

craigie: You can't have terrorism without terror - ie, if people would calm the fuck down, then the attraction of terrorism would itself lessen.

....your chances are 1 in 7 of dying of cancer

1 in 100 of dying in a car crash

1 in 245 of dying from a fall

1 in 88,000 of dying in a terrorist attack.

and dying in a terrorist attack involving a plane is 1 in 245,000

Jim, I must respectfully disagree. I suspect that a nude Limpballs could take an entire bottle of Viagra and still not display that would bring the blush of shame to the public's cheek.

Government officials are usually quite (anonymously) chatty about this kind of thing.

Is this true for British counter-terrorism officials? I'm not sure it is.

While there's every reason to think that the timing of the arrest may have been influenced by the Bush administration, I'd say it's just a little early to be discounting the plot itself, especially on the basis on unleaked non-information. If you judged the Fitzgerald investigation by the standards of the Starr investigation, you'd conclude that they had nothing because nothing was leaking out.

craigie,

It's ok to be worried about a violent death. But it's not ok to have the fear of that be wildly out of whack with the likelihood.

It may not be "okay," but it's a fact of life. People tend to vastly underestimate the risks of death or injury from some causes and vastly overestimate them from others.

See, eg, the fact that it seems to be people in the rural midwest, with essentially zero chance of ever being a terror victim, who are more freaked out than the people who live in target cities like NY and LA.

It "seems" that way to you, does it? Based on what evidence? I don't see any indication that Americans in any part of the country are "freaked out" about the possibility of being the victim of terrorism.

2. It's especially not ok for people in charge to milk this, whip up the paranoia of the population, in order to achieve their political goals.

I agree, that's not okay. It's a good thing it hasn't happened then, isn't it?

In a parallel universe, we would have grownups saying "yes, there are bad people who may want to kill you, but we're doing what we can to stop them, and you shouldn't let it change the way you lead your life, because if you do, they are already achieving their objective."

It's not really the government's business to tell people how to "lead their lives."

Instead of what we actually get, which is (I'm paraphrasing) "Waa! Waa! Brown people! Run away! Be afraid! Look out behind you! Red Alert!" etc

Stop being so ridiculous.

mhr:

Funny, but all the terrorist attacks which have affected the Western world *were* directed at countries directly involved in the Coalition of the Billing.

And don't forget that the Bali bombing was targeted at a large number of Australian tourists ...

And consider that Jordan has a strong tie to the US and has made its peace with Israel. Saudi Arabia is also a staunch American ally.

The rest of Europe might have any number of issues with their Muslim immigrant communities, and it's always wise to be prudent.

But the historical correlation of where the post-Iraq terror attacks have taken place speaks for itself.

Bob

Don PHow dare people feel terrified at the prospect of being blown up on planes, buses and subway trains. How very unreasonable of them.

as Craigie pointed out, the odds of this happening are pretty dang small. So while some wariness is perfectly reasonable, the extent of fear on display in much of the US is well, yes, unreasonable.

Of course, people react to their perceptions of danger and here your media are complicit. Your media just pumps the fear out. I feel like I need to take a shower after watching US news outlets.

GOP:

" '2. It's especially not ok for people in charge to milk this, whip up the paranoia of the population, in order to achieve their political goals.'

I agree, that's not okay. It's a good thing it hasn't happened then, isn't it?"

Hoo boy! That's rich, GOP. You must have a particularly flavorful type of kool aid.

And isn't funny how the people who attempt to debunk any critical thinking about BushCo's motives by crying 'conspiracy theorist!' conveniently overlook the fact that they are constantly ascribing conspiracies to the terrorists? I thought we were supposed to believe that conspiracy theories are silly, impossible, delusional?

GOP said "It's not really the government's business to tell people how to "lead their lives."

And irony died.

Between GOP and Thomas, I don't know which one's the more psychotic -- though I'm leaning towards Thomas at the moment, at least for the schizoid category.

One day he's a Kerry voter, the next a Reagan Democrat -- yet every talking point is aimed reinforcing GOP memes. Then there's the "other Thomas" who appeared to be in a clonewar with him two days ago -- but Thomas the neocon seems to have now merged with Thomas the Democrat.

So, the only thing one is left to conclude is that Thomas either has severe mental issues with memory and/or split personalities -- or he's simply a brazenly lying manipulator.

What's unarguable is that his persona is completely unstable from day to day -- sometimes from post to post.

I don't remember Charley -- but the Charley thesis looks more and more credible every day I observe this guy post.

Bob

Then of course there are the *completely* trollish comments like how JonBenet Ramsey's death is more relevant than the deaths in Iraq ...

I mean -- is this guy playing us for fools, or what?

Bob

I don't remember Charley

imaging GOP with a different signature and a strong desire to make everything be about the "millions of aborted babies".

GOP said "It's not really the government's business to tell people how to "lead their lives."

And irony died.

Awwww, crap in a hat!

You guys are paranoid. This was a real terrorist threat. The Bush administration didn't conjure the arrests up to influence the outcomes of the November elections. That has already been taken care of by Diebold, Ken Blackwell, Jim Baker and Bush's nephew.
Really people get a grip.

…ban passengers from the passenger cabin. Then we'll have 100% safety! craigie 5:34 PM

I guess it's a good thing that people are not "shitting themselves" over that possibility, then. GOP at 6:21 PM |

anyone care to call Home Secretary Reid some nasty names? mhr at 7:28 PM

Considering TODAY August 16, 2006 was the supposed date for the attack… Thomas1 8:20 PM

Lots of hilarious, erection humor in that movie!Thomas1 9:33 PM

Survey: Churchgoing Women also Struggle with Porn Addiction By Lillian Kwon Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Aug. 10 2006 06:29 AM ET
Responses from a recent poll indicated that sexual addictive behaviors are not foreign inside churches and a large number of women in the pews struggle with the same temptations.
According to a poll by ChristiaNet.com and Second Glance Ministries, half of all Christian men are addicted to pornography. While the statistics for men are nothing new, the poll found 20 percent of all Christian women to be addicts to pornography. …

'Cept there was an interesting piece in the NYT today saying how pissed Scotland Yard is that they have virtually no evidence on these guys -- and one confession apparently made under torture in Pakistan.

No explosives, no airline tickets. Hell, some of these guys didn't even have *passports*.

I'm not saying that Britain would cook something like this up ex nihilo. What I am saying is that I think we've all got a ton of unanswered questions and plenty of grounds to remain highly suspicious of the timing of this, to say the least.

Bob

I'm telling you - there is no al-Qaeda! At least not more than a few scattered true believers, most of whom are now living in caves. This whole terrorism thing is a sham and Bush and the neocons are simply milking fear to gain power, pump money into the military machine and Big Oil. Someday it is going to be made clear what a fucking joke this all is and there is going to be hell to pay when the people find out how badly they have been deceived!

Remember the furor over the presumed terrorist cell they "found" in Lackawanna, New York a few years back? Read a little about how that turned out - it was a fucking farce, from start to finish. Some homemade videos shot at DisneyWorld, confabulated into a presumed "casing tape". I'll bet right now this "liquid bomb" crap in England is a similar case of much ado about nothing.

Wake the fuck up, people!!!!!!!

I can't believe this story about the 'terror plot.' But I do. Just incredible!!!

This might be upthread, probably is, but I saw on Countdown tonight that Bill Clinton warned Bush not to play politics with terror. They actually played the clip. Not quite as outraged as I would have hoped, but sufficient for the message.

OK, everybody's watching Daily News. Stewart is right on topic! And funny! TARGET USA!!!!

Has it occurred to anyone else that the latest terrorist threat from toiletries--which are being confiscated at airports--is reminiscent of the Joker's fatal rictus potion in the 1989 Batman movie?

I still remember the scenes with the newscasters looking more and more groady as time went on because no one knew what combination of deodorants, hairspray, toothpaste, cologne, mouthwash, etc., created the fatal rictus potion so they stopped using them all.

In listening to Anderson Cooper just a few minutes ago--my dad always has CNN on--I was struck by how much this latest terrorist threat seems like it came straight out of the Joker's playbook in Batman. Even Cooper's description sounded just like the newscasters in the movie.

I really gotta wonder if this isn't just a sick joke being played on people as the situation in the Middle East melts down and the Republican reptiles need something to bolster them up after Ned Lamont beat No-mentum Loserman.

Regarding that "shred of evidence" Kevin was looking for: we now have a lot more than a shred. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/16/AR2006081601186_pf.html :

"Home Secretary John Reid, Britain's chief law-and-order official, acknowledged that some of the suspects would likely not be charged with major criminal offenses, but said there was mounting evidence of a 'substantial nature' to back the allegations...

"Two top Pakistani intelligence agents said Wednesday that the would-be bombers wanted to carry out an al-Qaida-style attack to mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 strikes, but were too 'inexperienced' to carry out the plot.

"The two senior agents, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that if the terror cell members arrested in Pakistan and Britain had appropriate weapons and explosives training, they could have emulated massive attacks like those five years ago in New York and Washington as well as the July 7, 2005, London bombings.

"The detainees in Britain and Pakistan had not attended terror-training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan and had relied on information gleaned from text books on how to make bombs, the officials said.

"Their comments offer a different perspective from that given by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. 'Certainly in terms of the complexity, the sophistication, the international dimension and the number of people involved, this plot has the hallmarks of an al0Qaida-type plot,' Chertoff said Friday."

So, yes, there was a plot; and, yes, Bush and Blair did indeed deliberately hype it right up the wazoo for political gain. Charming.

Considering TODAY August 16, 2006 was the supposed date for the attack, with a dry-run planned for even earlier, I don't think they were arrested too early!

Charlie/Thomas1...n

Would that be the attack for which they didn't even have enough passports to support the plan?

"...But the historical correlation of where the post-Iraq terror attacks have taken place speaks for itself..."

That is a really great point. And although you can't assume a cause and effect relationship just because of a high correlation, it sure looks like you've got a winner.

So if you design an experiment to test the hypothesis, do we want to be in the control group? :)

I didn't see it mentioned in a scan of all the previous posts: (via (Eric the Red Menace)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/12/terror.plot/index.html

"The raids came as links to suspected terror operatives in Pakistan -- possibly connected to al Qaeda -- were emerging Saturday as key elements of the investigation.

"Suspects in the UK received a coded message from Pakistan to 'attack now' as authorities there closed in on them, security sources have told CNN."

If this order did in deed come through, it was time to roll up the plotters. I can imagine that the US had access to the information before the Brits or if the Brits were less familiar with the source than the Americans, there'd be some discussion of it.

Of course, only an idiot would think an operation this big and complex, involving national security assets from at least three countries, wouldn't generate disagreements on nearly ever topic. The real world doesn't work like that. People will argue every detail before strong willed leaders force a consensus (and definitely not a unanimous one) to be reached.

Bruce Moomaw:

Pakistani intelligence agents. You mean the ones who did the torturing themselves, or just the ones who read the torturer's reports?

Bob

Some good questions. I am not a chemist but am a thoughtful analytic type. This piece makes some good points. "You be the judge" as they say.
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200608/msg00087.html

Thomas:

>> Are you claiming not other Kerry
>> voter ever voted for Ronald Reagan?

What a vapid red herring *that* is. No, I'm talking about *your*
behavior, Thomas -- not "claiming" a damned thing about anyone
else's. This is a hugely trollish tactic that you use all the
time -- argue the implications of things rather than present
evidence for the things themselves. You do it constantly, and
it's incredibly disingenuous and pointless, and derails threads.

No Democrat "claims" to be a Democrat while arguing hard-right
talking points like dismantling Social Security and Medicare.

Sheesh.

Bob

Thomas:

Which part of "they didn't have passports" don't you understand?

Bob

Thomas...WTF?

Thomas:

You didn't argue for SS privitization (piratization) -- you talked about DISMANTLING the programs and using the money to increase the troops' pay by 30%.

That position is *insane*. In my view, only a troll come up with something that cockamamie -- and then attempt to backtrack by offering the "sensible" GOP talking point.

The Democrats were UNITED AGAINST Bush's Social Security plan. Nothing came to a vote.

So yes -- no Democrat that I could possibly imagine rides that hobbyhorse after such a colossal legislative fizzleout.

Bob

what the fuck are they going to do charlie ... lob liquids >100 yards AT the plane as it pulls away from the terminal?

Thomas:

You need a passport to board the plane in order to blow it up.

You're being deliberately (trollishly) obtuse.

Bob

I understand that just fine. What part of you don't need a passport to blow up a plane don't you understand?

Charlie's reply speaks for itself. But, it is speaking to his reasoning ability only.

Thomas:

A very few Democrats talked about the idea before any concrete proposals were made. Talk is cheap, BFHD.

The leadership slapped it down, and as a body, the Democrats (along with several Republicans including the chairman of the committee Chuck Grassley) rejected it at the molecular level.

Nobody except *you* is talking about it now -- least of all as part of an argument that you're actually a Democrat.

Bob

Thomas:

Citation, please.

Jesus, that's just *idiotic*. If it were true -- how many passengers as a matter of course would be left standing on the tarmac because they forgot their passport and have no cash for a return flight?

I've never been on an international flight, but I'm sure many readers right now have. Please confirm for this silly troll that they check your passport when you get your ticket. Shit, you can't even take a domestic flight without presenting ID at the ticket window.

Bob

Thomas:

Which is trollishly insane. I'd like free car insurance and registration, while you're at it. Oh, and negative income tax, too.

Sheesh.

Bob

Passports are indeed checked at point of departure. Thomas, even if I'm not telling the truth, do you really think that with the terror threat no one is checking passports at point of departure??? Wouldn't that be the very first thing that any intelligent person would want to check? I know, no liquids, check the shoes, etc, but no passport is required...aaargh...

Thomas:

No.

Your point?

Bob

Cleek - great link. In the cold light of reality terrorism just isn't that dangerous. It is our response that is hurting us. Bin Laden spent $500,000 or so (reputedly) to finance 9/11. In return we have spent billions and billions on useless countermeasures, we have curtailed our civil liberties, we have ignored productive activities. Terrorism is like an auto-immune disease. A relatively minor irritant sets off a disproportionate response by the immune system that causes huge damage to the body.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n3/v27n3-5.pdf

Passport procedures vary, but on transatlantic flights you are usually required to show your passport at check-in, and unless the airline screws up you will definitely have to present it at some point before you board the plane.

Still, the fact, if it is a fact, that some of the suspects in the London plot didn't have passports isn't terribly meaningful. They may not have been scheduled to actually carry out any of the "missions" or they may have been planning to acquire passports closer to the date of their "mission."

thomas ... you're a fucking idiot. I've been on over 20 international flights, and have needed a passport for departure at every single one.

however, in possible response to your rapid-Googling-for-posthoc-justification-of-unbelieveably-stupid-statement, I've never flown to Canada or mexico, which does not always require a passport.

In Britain, passports are requisite.

Thomas:

It would depend on what time signature it was in :)

Bob

in america and europe you generally need a passport at least 30-60 days prior to scheduled departure. wasn't this supposed attack scheduled for today? jackass.

Bin Laden spent $500,000 or so (reputedly) to finance 9/11. In return we have spent billions and billions on useless countermeasures, we have curtailed our civil liberties, we have ignored productive activities.

What "useless" countermeasures? How do you know they're useless?

Our civil liberties have always been limited in the interests of security. If you think a particular limitation is not justified, you need to make an argument to that effect.

GOP:

You're correct that not having passports at the time of arrest proves nothing in itself.

But it hardly bolsters the cases against these guys, either.

Bob

Anyone know anything more about case of the poor claustrophobic woman whose flight from Dubai was diverted from NY and escorted by military jets to Logan in Boston? First I read it was a terror alert, then, no, the woman was claustrophobic and had been acting strangely, and finally, that the woman was being held and would probably be charged. Charged with what??? Sheesh.

Dumb-ass Thomas...That story has been quashed. It is false.

Vaseline, matches and a screwdriver, oh my !

Bob

From CNN:

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Two fighter jets were scrambled Wednesday to escort a London-to-Washington flight to an emergency landing in Boston after a passenger became so agitated she needed to be restrained, authorities said.

The federal official for Boston's Logan International Airport said there was no indication of terrorism and denied reports that the passenger aboard United Flight 923 had a screw driver and a note referring to al-Qaeda.

Keith, then why are they holding her, with probably charges to come? Hysterical conduct on a plane? Disturbing the peacefulness of fellow passengers? Screaming fire in a packed plane?

Okey-dokey. I don't like to fly anyway, now I may never fly again:

"Responding to reports that the woman had been tied up during the flight, United Airlines spokesman Brandon Borrman said that she had been restrained.

"Safety and security are top priority. Crews are trained to restrain when they feel it is appropriate for the safety and security of the flight," he said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4800635.stm

Sorry Thomas, this one one of the few times in five years of hanging out here that I have used a expletive. I am just so tired of posters typing out incorrect data in order to prop up their ill considered points of view.

nepeta...I do not know (see how easy that was) except to note that interfering with a flight is a federal offense regardless of the reason.

It seems hard to believe that after he spent years becoming increasingly partisan and shrill, even George Will is openly critical of the administration's approach to the fight against terrorism --

Middle East stability problem: Solved?

Too bad he's just as incoherent as ever.

Holbrooke is a guy w　“南门至文昌门内正在维修的一段城墙突然出现土层滑坡，该处路段已经封闭。” ">ith a ton of credibility. When he says that diplomacy has to be backed up by a credible threat of force, he obviously means it: he recommended military action twic　　新华网安曼7月27日电（记者蒋少清　胡浩）约旦国王阿卜杜拉27日晚在南部港口城市亚喀巴与来访的伊拉克总理马利基举行会谈，主要就当前中东局势的最新发展，恢复伊拉克的安全与稳定以及进一步加强和发展两国在各个领域的合作交换意见。 ">e in the Balkans during the 90s. At the same time, when he says it should be a last resort, he obviously means that too: he devoted uncounted thousands of hours to serious, toughminded diplomacy during the same period. Some of it worked and some of it didn't, but his dedication to the cause is hardly questionable.And despite his continued unwillingness to flatly face the reality that we can't afford to stay in Iraq any longer, he had by far the better of the argument when the subject turned to Iran. Diplomacy is not, he reminded Kristol, in and of itself a sign of

Keith, then why are they holding her, with probably charges to come? Hysterical conduct on a plane? Disturbing the peacefulness of fellow passengers? Screaming fire in a packed plane?
Posted by: nepeta

She had a panic attack. No word yet as whether she was wearing a gel bra.

"There've already been, what, half a dozen claims of terrorist plots and every one has turned out to be utter bullshit. "

Olberman (my hero) did a top 10 terror alerts after embarrassments of the administration. (Monday?)

Seeing them all strung together like that made an impressive case.

These have ALL been politically motivated. Every single last one.

Concert tickets Concert tickets
tickets tickets
baseball tickets BASEBALL tickets

MLB tickets MLB tickets

NBA tickets NBA tickets

basketball tickets BASKEBALL tickets

NFL tickets NFL tickets

football tickets NFL tickets

NHL tickets NHL tickets

hockey tickets NHL tickets

concert tickets concerts

sports tickets sports

theater tickets theatre

nascar tickets NASCAR

rodeo tickets RODEO

ncaa tickets NCAA

tennis tickets tennis

wwe tickets WWE

ticketwood tickets

ticketwood.com ticketwood.com tickets

ticketwood tickets ticketwood tickets

Hi, Kevin. Good post. Lots of good comments too.

I've been sitting in for Brad Friedman at The BRAD BLOG, while he's on the road. I'm playing the role of Managing Editor and blogging a bit too; I've done a fairly extensive four-part series on this topic; thought some of you might want to have a look.

This post has links to all four articles, as well as MP3s of a chat I had with Peter B. Collins yesterday. Enjoy at your discretion! ;-)