9-11 Deja Vu
Let's at least give George W. Bush credit for being consistent. Prior to 9-11 he was warned on multiple occasions that Al Qaeda was ready to strike inside the United States. His response--do nothing. Now we are informed that Bush knew about the terrorist threat of liquid explosives since at least last Friday, 4 August 2006. According to Yahoo News:
Snow said Bush first learned in detail about the plot on Friday, and received two detailed briefings on it on Saturday and Sunday, as well as had two conversations about it with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
What did George do? NOTHING. No effort, whatsoever, to raise the terrorist threat level. No effort to boost aviation security procedures. I traveled on British Air from Tanzania to London on Tuesday, August 8th. I traveled from London to Brussels on British Air on Tuesday, August 8th. I carried bottles of liquid on both flights. Blair and Bush knew about this since last Friday and did nothing? That's right.
Bush, like a 12 year old boy on summer vacation, waited and rode his bike around his Texas ranch. No effort to task TSA to come up with tools to detect liquid explosives. No new inspection procedures. Just enjoy his vacation. That, boys and girls, is how the first 9-11 happened. And Gorgeous George wants credit for keeping us safe at home? Not this time. Never again!
I'm with you. What's terrifying is that the Bush team immediately went to work on figuring out how to politically exploit this information, as we saw on Wednesday with all the talk about how Democrats are weak on terrorism.
I just wish somebody in the media would put this together. It's not like the Republicans haven't done this before.
August 11, 2006 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's terrifying is how easily you guys stereotype yourselves as utterly obsessed with partisan posturing.
August 11, 2006 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anybody in MSM noted the difference between the British operation in short circuiting this REAL terror threat and the pathetic "terrorist" plot uncovered in Miami (poor people looking to buy uniforms etc to attack the Sears tower despite lacking funds to even get out of town)?
Should I really feel safer with Chertoff still in charge?
August 11, 2006 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, this is the sort of thing that will cause you to lose credibility. I think you are enough of a professional to know that if any changes to security of this sort before the suspects [who were pretty well known at this time] were rounded up would alert them and perhaps allow some to escape. In my view, this is one thing Bush did right; indeed, it was probably hammered into him with threats from the British [with memories of his blabbing about the captured AlQuaida guy in Pakistan]. And if he did, I suspect you would be writing about how nobody will ever know if and how many plotters got away because Bush changed security and had searches for the various liquids before the Brits were ready.
Please, there is a lot of good work you could be doing.
dc
August 11, 2006 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, at your peril.
August 11, 2006 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bit of a cheap shot, don't you think, Arthur?
I don't place a lot of emphasis on it myself, but it seems very obvious that the Republican administration used advance knowledge of the arrests to prepare a partisan political attack campaign. Hell, they even used it for fundraising, and had the fundraising campaign going within eight to twelve hours.
Now, there's fast reaction and fast reaction. But the only way anyone is that quick off the ball is if they already did the strategizing and put the people and campaigns in place and ready to go off the start.
So, if Bush & Company use these incidents as partisan political tools... what, you think its rude to notice? Paranoid to point out their obvious tactics? Impolite to render a moral judgement on the ethics of such tactics?
Sorry, I'll beg to differ. It's not a big deal for me, since the Bush administration does far worse. Cheney shoots people in the face, for gods sakes, how does that compare? When was the last time they balanced the budget? And what was that 'screw waitresses but give Paris Hilton a tax cut' policy proposal?
So, show some respect. Or at least if you're going to slam people, use a little humour.
August 11, 2006 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. The White House did not sit back and do nothing they prepared a political response to paint the Dems as weak. And began unrolling it immediately after the Lieberman defeat. The political offensive is now in the MSM. I crossposted the following from another thread and I apologize in advance for anyone reading double.
So it is now clear that the White House was informed of the impending bust a week before it occurred and knew the actual timing even more precisely. So its natural response was to figure out how to get maximum political gain...after all this is national security an important card in their game. So they go to a full-court press on lieberman's defeat to try to use that as one approach to painting the Dems as weak on terror (Cheney and Lieberman going so far as saying it sends an encouraging sign to al Qaeda that the US no longer is fighting terrorists. What would an actual REPUBLICAN defeat tell al Qaeda? Presumably they can just walk in and take the keys of the government from the traitors and kill Americans at their leisure). Now the point I am trying to make here is that there is no line so low that the Republicans won't cross it to win an election. They take it seriously. It is after all their money at stake here. While Reid and Schumer are working on the best response to a Lamont victory and a Lieberman challenge, the Republicans are already in battle fatigues (no, I don't mean they are willing to risk body and limb..are you nuts?), with long knives out, going for the jugular. Maybe, just maybe, our Democratic Party leaders might begin expecting the worst from our opponents, because even then they will be underestimating the depths they are willing to go.
August 11, 2006 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are probably right, but the American people need some hard widely publicized reporting to flesh out the details. There is a lone news report, but the right immediately say "consider the source."
Where is Ed Murrow when you need him?
Ron Byers
August 11, 2006 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd just point out this latest plot was foiled by decent British policing, not brutal American military intervention.
Kind of makes them look like darn fools. No wonder the president is being "low key."
Such arrogance, taking credit for a competent approach they regularly reject.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
August 11, 2006 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that what you call terrifying?
You must be very easily frightened indeed.
August 11, 2006 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
We now have a security SOP at the airports to search for and remove the liquids from carry on luggage.
NEWS FLASH
1. Check for and remove all LIQUIDS from CARRY-ON Luggage from all passengers!
The political gains for scaring the shit out of the American public is greater by doing. There is no reason, and jno polictical gains, to do the responsible thing. Issue a "Security Alert" to discribe to actions to be watchful for around airports and on aircraft like:
Watch people sharing containers of liquids.
Aircraft passengers removing liquid containers out carry-on luggage and putting it back into it. Especially if they conseal it on their person.
Aircraft passengers taking liquid containers into the restrooms. Especially multiple passengers doing so.
But no, Bush wants political gains by scaring the shit out the American Public.
This is not protection of the American Public it is doing everything possible to endanger the American Public just so the GOP can claim they are strong on Terrorism. Which they are! They like to Terrorize American Public for political gains.
No More
Enough is Enough
Demand the Truth for America
August 11, 2006 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here, "lose credibility" = "disagree with me".
Your explanation as to why it would have been a bad idea to ramp up security before the arrests were made is really quite pathetic. If you cannot distinguish between the need to increase security when a threat has been identified and the lack of advisability of publicly outing a terrorist informant solely to increase one's political prestige, then I suspect that you really are not bringing much to the table in terms of serious discussions of counter-terrorism. Or, to put it in simpler terms: outing moles = bad, increasing security when threat identified = good.
August 11, 2006 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, at the risk of piling on, I think the Bush administration's response to the news of this plot highlights exactly what their motivations are. They are not in the business of solving problems, but rather in the business of achieving and holding power. And in their cynical calculations, the key for GOP control is to ramp up the terror threat as often as possible. Actually taking the steps to solve the problems involved is uninteresting, since it would conflict with the goal of holding power.
August 11, 2006 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok its not terrifying.
What could be more natural than yet another discussion about how the Republicans are out to get the Democrats and don't play fair.
This isn't an onsession here.
Its just the way EVERYBODY responds to that particular news story and EVERY other news story.
Describing this stuff as partisan political posturing shows a lack of respect for what was actually a superbly insightful analysis of the latest item of news about whatever it was about...
August 11, 2006 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of interest -- Tony Snow is lying yet again when he said the President learned of the Pakistani group last Sunday. Check the Guardian Unlimited here.
According to Stirling Newberry's new post:
It is hard to believe that, with an off-year election imminent, the Republican machine wouldn't be in full media manipulation mode.
August 11, 2006 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
outing moles = bad, increasing security when threat identified = good.
I think you meant to say, "outing covert agents = bad."
Because outing moles (our own agents who spy against us, like aldrich Ames) = definitely good!
Jan Knaus
August 11, 2006 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
um. Also they should've known about this type of threat from the foiled Ramzi Yousef plot 12 years ago.
August 11, 2006 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you that clueless? My point is that this has been a threat for years. In the wake of 9-11, the Bush Administration chose, I repeat, chose not to make detecting liquid explosives a priority. And just so we're clear, there is also no effective system in place to detect explosives in cargo. Got it? Big gaps, no solution.
August 11, 2006 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
YES!!!
Why have we not had 'liquid security' at our airports for the past TEN years given that it is well known that in 94 AL-Q tried to blow up a Japanese jet with nitroglycerin in contact lens soulution placed under a seat as a trial run for another 'liquid bomb' attack in Manila in 1994 with nitroglycering microbombs.
This is absurd! Yet. eight years later, we had to listen to Condi Rice as head of the NSA tell the 911 commission that 'no one thought AL-QA would use a plane as a bomb?"
and NSA head also did not think AL-Q would attack us, despite a PDB in August titled ...OBL determined to attack
they are liars!!!
How much of this is the America public going to continue to accept.
August 11, 2006 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
As sitting president Bush gets credit for foiling the attack. Love it or hate it, that's politics.
August 11, 2006 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush had zero to do with this.
Why are you giving credit to Bush for a plot foiled by the Brits?
It's nonsensical.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
August 11, 2006 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the media? Other than fox most of the media is just excited to have some boom-boom to talk about.
As sitting President George should get credit for all he is not doing too. I think that was Larry's point.
August 12, 2006 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Bush deserves all the credit for this too. He is the President. He is sitting. Well sometimes he's riding but even then he's sitting.
August 12, 2006 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is worrisome–if not terrifying–that we always get the heightened security alerts "after" somebody is arrested.
I would hope that even Republicans would want effective measures put in place. When the first World Trade Center Bombing happened I don't remember Democrats run around slapping Clinton on the back and saying, "your doing a great job."
9/11 happens and some rush to thank god we have Bush as President.
August 12, 2006 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
But what if I am making every effort to not see the failure. Can I then describe it as success?
There are still afew people who want/need to believe that the bunker mentality is working. Its kind of a mental green zone where the sky, when I look strait up, is blue.
August 12, 2006 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its all about PR. Remember when Bush's PR Lady was sent to the Middle East as special "listener" for the great decider. That worked out so well the MSM totally forgot to mention when ever it was that she came home.
Hell. Maybe she's still there...listening...crickets
August 12, 2006 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
How partisan of you to notice.
August 12, 2006 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Americans are very aware of what Bush is not doing. He has some of the lowest approval ratings of any president ever.
Along with all the negatives, however, Bush does get to take credit for the foiled terrorist plot.
August 12, 2006 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink