Threats: Real or Imagined?
11 August 2006If you’ve seen a TV at all today you are aware of the foiled airliner attacks coming from the UK. MI5 has arrested 21 apparent suicide bombers planning to blow up commercial aircraft between the UK and the US.
Predictably lefty moonbats have jumped at the chance to blame Bush. Dean’s World and the Queen of all Evil reference Americablog’s attempt to link the elevated terror alert to Joe Lieberman’s primary lose in Vermont on Tuesday! John in DC headlines his Americablog piece “Lieberman loses, CODE RED, CODE RED, CODE RED.” He goes on to say:
And isn’t it queer that the emergency is declared within a day of Republican party leader Ken Mehlman launching an all-out offensive against Democrats following Joe Lieberman’s loss in Connecticut, an offensive in which Mehlman, the White House and Republican operatives are claiming that Democrats no longer care about national security or the war on terror.
And just at that moment we get our FIRST ever red alert. Beam me up, Scotty.
Wow. At times like this I wonder if we’ve all popped up in wonderland. How do these people reach such conclusions? Every time ANYTHING happens, the moonbats claim Bush is somehow responsible for it. What they fail to realize is that Bush would be a world class genius to pull off everything the left attributes to him. But they think he’s an idiot. They haven’t seemed to notice that these two positions are incompatible. But then an incoherent world view is fairly common on the left.
So the left believes that the events in the UK today have been cooked up by the Bush administration to make Democrats look bad. Is there any possibility that could be true? They also bristle at the claim that this “has the fingerprints of Al Qaeda.” So what evidence is there that Al Qaeda was behind this?
I find it very difficult to swallow the notion that Tony Blair and MI5 would do all this to make Bush look good or Democrats look bad. To begin with, apart from the current war on terror, Blair is quite liberal. He is, after all, the leader of the labor party. What possible motive could they have for fabricating this?
I’ve been reading the StratFor special report this afternoon and it contains some very interesting information. For those who are unfamiliar with StratFor, they are a private intelligence company. They provide intelligence information to individuals and companies around the world and they have a very good reputation. They are not a partisan organization in any way.
In a piece entitled “Special Report: The Tactical Side of the U.K. Airliner Plot” StratFor says that this does indeed look just like an Al Qaeda plan. They don’t just make the assertion either, they give specific evidence to support it. Says StratFor, “After his participation in the first World Trade Center bombing, Abdel Basit (also know by the name on his fraudulent Iraqi passport, Ramzi Yousef) settled down in Manila, Philippines. He assembled a cell of operatives who began to plan a long list of terrorist attacks.” They go on to detail Basit’s plans to construct bombs using a doll stuffed with nitrocellulose, a detonator and a timer made from a modified Casio wristwatch. On Dec. 11, 1994, they tested this device on Philippine Airlines flight 434. While it worked, it did not down the aircraft and only killed one person and injured 10. To improve the explosive capability of the device they worked on adding a “liquid form of an acetone peroxide explosive, which they were going to place in contact lens solution bottles.” They managed to burn down their apartment while making the bomb and never got a chance to test it. But this Al Qaeda plan is remarkably similar to the descriptions we are hearing in the news today. StratFor seems to believe that the plan was sound and could bring down a commercial aircraft.
I find little reason to suspect that this whole episode is in any way fabricated. While the timing may indeed benefit Republicans and harm Democrats, virtually anything like this at any time will have the same effect. Democrats have positioned themselves such that, bad news for this country is good news for them and vise versa. Having taken such a position, it is difficult to imagine any set of circumstances involving the capture of terrorists that would not harm Democrats, regardless of the timing.
One can argue whether there was a need for the increased terror alert for airline travel but the fact is, from the perspective of Democrats good news for the US is bad news for them. I’d hate to be in such a position but that’s the call they’ve made and that’s what leads them to attempt undermine any good news that comes along.
Print This Post
Tags: Blogging, Islamofacism, Middle East, Politics, WarRelated Posts
- A Proportional Response?
- MIA
- Blog Comments
- The Clinton-Kim 1994 Agreement, Midwifed by Jimmy Carter, Bears its Fruit
- Is the War in Iraq Worth Supporting?
No comments yet
