The Brits disrupt the plot and make the arrests, but jump a day or two early before they were able to get a line on the five that are still at large, instead of waiting another day or so until the weekend trial run to see if they can get all five of the remaining plotters.
I think second guessing the timing of the bust by the British authorities is a bit petty. If they did indeed recieve intercepted communications that were giving the bombers a go signal the fact that they didn't know the whereabouts of five of the suspects would give them more reason to act immediately rather than reason to wait as you suggest. For all they knew the five missing could have been on their way to Heathrow. The chance that any of the five will be able to successfully board a plane at this point is basically nil.
Posted by snark at August 11, 2006 07:48 AMsnark, the dry run was scheduled for the weekend, with the actual plot to take place sometime after that. They still had a day or two to get a line on the remaining five before the dry run, and before closing it down.
Posted by Steve Soto at August 11, 2006 07:51 AMCould they afford to assume that the 'dry run' would remain a 'dry run'? If they even susspected that their mission was compromised why would they continue with a 'dry run'?
I just think you're being a bit presumptuous.
Posted by snark at August 11, 2006 07:56 AMWhether the plot was real or not (and many highly publicized raids have in the past turned out to be false), the Republicans are using it for political advantage to paint the Democrats who oppose the occupaion of Iraq as terrorist sympathizers. The red alert is more for Republicans who fear that Democrats may win back the legislative branch and actiually hold someone accountable for their crimes. They have put party loyalty above the security of the nation and that is one crime among many. The Rove strategy of accusing your enemies of what you are guilty is a reliable indicator of what the Republicans are all about. Bush warns of the treat of fascism when his gang are the real fascist threat. They warn of the dangers of terrorism when the real terrorists have taken over our government. The war on terror to protect the American is a war of terror on the American people.
Posted by coal_train at August 11, 2006 08:27 AMWell, the "excellent 'Venture" was so successful, that next months little thrilla will be a doozie.
Brit-born Islamic jihadists will infiltrate Faslane naval base, and steal a Trident nuclear submarine, equipped with nuclear missiles. Three weeks of hair-raising terra will ensue, as every sub hunter-killer in both the US and UK fleet try to find the rogue. But no luck. Bush$Co raise the terra alert to ultra-maroon, and scream "Terra, Terra, Terra" in an endless tape loop.
Dems are portrayed as being unable to stop the looming end of civilization, and possibly even FOX news. Both coasts are under control of the National Guard, and millions stream to the mid-west to escape Armageddon. Some stay for the Rapture and looting. Schools in Kansas overflow with eager young 'Murican kids, desparately wanting to know more about intelligent design. Three blue whales are mistakenly blown up in the mid-Atlantic. Japan and Norway are furious.
However, one week after the election, Bush$Co and Blair$Co announce it was simply a silly little mistake. The NORAD nuclear task force and the Royal Navy had simply forgot that one sub was in the shop getting a new pain job following a vicious 'terrist airbrush attack by Greenpeace. All's well in the democercy an' freedum-luvin' GOP world. The end.
Posted by tempus at August 11, 2006 08:31 AMJust like in August 2001 (Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States) Bush knew!
The Brits told Bush about the plot and investigation last Friday.
Bush and the Poodle talked twice over the weekend about the investigation.
So what did Bush do....NOTHING, except go on vacation....just like he did in 2001! There was no meaningful actions to protect us, you know like raising the threat level, or changing the security measures in airports regarding liquids, carry on bags etc...nada...nothing! For 6 days he sat down hiding on his ranch doing his manly bike riding and brush clearing in 100 degree weather knowing this information yet it wasn't enough to keep him from his vacation.
He knew before hand yet again did nothing to keep us safe.
Had enough! You betchya!
Posted by emal at August 11, 2006 08:36 AMsnark, we'll agree to disagree on this.
Posted by Steve Soto at August 11, 2006 08:46 AMThere was no meaningful actions to protect us, you know like raising the threat level, or changing the security measures in airports regarding liquids, carry on bags etc...nada...nothing!
To be fair, there was no indication that there was any imminent threat here. The threat was originating in the UK. If Bush had ordered a ban on all liquids from planes in the US before the Brits did their raids don't ya' think the bombers might have been....um....tipped off.
Bush had nothing to do with this. The republicans had nothing to do with this. Until they decided to use it for political gain.
Posted by snark at August 11, 2006 08:49 AMThere is no doubt that Nero and team used this "insider" information to plan political attacks on the Dems and spring them immediately upon announcement of the plot.
That's what "governing" means to them.
Posted by euzoius at August 11, 2006 08:58 AMAnd the more I think about the fact that Bush knew...as did Yo Blair, yet did nothing about changing security measures in airports for 6 days! Six days airport security remained the same as it had been for years.
It leads me to believe it could be for a couple of reasons. One is that the plot wasn't as sophisticated, far enough along, dangerous, and/ or imminent as it is being told/hyped to us and they are misleading/lying to us. Or they don't know what the hell to do to keep us safe. Or a combination of the both.
All I know is that Bush and Yo Blair knew for a while yet went of vacation and did nothing to change the threat level or aviation security measures at airports for 6 days prior to the arrests...Why?
snark...your response, To be fair, there was no indication that there was any imminent threat here. To me you just contradicted yourself and the point that you were making to Steve argument. You're pretty confident those measures would have tipped off the terrorist....so does that mean with all the suveillance techniques and such they were using they couldn't have coordinated and trailed these guys as soon as the threat level changed and captured them? I'm only talking 6 days here.
All I know for certain is the more I know about this whole thing including the history of failure and disinformation that comes from these two idiots I certainly don't trust them to keep me safe!
Posted by emal at August 11, 2006 09:13 AMYa lost me there emal.
Are you arguing that the Brits should have waited as Steve is arguing or are you arguing that they didn't do enough quickly enough.
What would George Bush ordering the banning of all liquids on American flights have done to assist the Brits in ending this plot?
Posted by snark at August 11, 2006 09:24 AMI think emal's interpreting your statement "To be fair, there was no indication that there was any imminent threat here" to mean "no imminent threat" at all, rather than your meaning that there was no imminent threat to the US, snark.
Seems to me, if there was an imminent threat to planes originating in the UK, and 5 plotters vanished, one wouldn't want to rest on the hope that their first try would be a dry run. You'd have to go after the plotters and shut down the airports.
Bush could have quietly issued a warning to the FAA of the threat and take measures to ban liquids and not cause mass fear, but that would assume that public safety is the bushies' motive here, not political grandstanding. Instead, they planned how they would take advantage of the knowledge of a big terror bust coming up. Standard MO on our side of the pond.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 11, 2006 09:38 AMSeems to me, if there was an imminent threat to planes originating in the UK, and 5 plotters vanished, one wouldn't want to rest on the hope that their first try would be a dry run. You'd have to go after the plotters and shut down the airports.
Which is what the Brits did.
Bush could have quietly issued a warning to the FAA of the threat and take measures to ban liquids and not cause mass fear...
How do you quitely take measures to ban liquids from all flights? All of a sudden one fine Wednesday morning everyone at every airport has to toss out all their lotion, water and toothpaste but no one is going to say wtf?
I agree that the entire Bush approach to fighting terrorism has been a colossal failure but George Bush had nothing to do with this bust. Yes, the republicans are again trying to use it as a political tool and that is what people should be emphasizing here. Not trying to make it look like George Bush could have actually done something that would have made any positive difference.
Posted by snark at August 11, 2006 09:48 AMsnark, I am arguing the Brits and US didn't do enough to alert the general public and or to make it look like they were taking this threat seriously, if it was indeed as serious as it is being told to us.
As for the liquids thing I don't know if the current airport security policy is the answer as I am not an expert. However, others have pointed out this type of threat was known long ago, yet only now they are reacting to it.
"It was only a matter of time," said Billie Vincent, a former security chief for the Federal Aviation Administration.
Security officials got a glimpse of the future in 1994, when al-Qaida operative Ramzi Yousef smuggled explosive nitroglycerin onto a Philippine Airlines flight from Manila to Tokyo in a contact lens solution bottle. He hid the bomb under his seat, rigged it to go off about four hours later and got off the plane at an intermediate stop......snip
and
"This threat has been consistently ignored," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., an outspoken advocate of tighter airport screening. "We're way, way ahead of where we were prior to 9-11. But we have not specifically targeted the threat of carry-on explosives until very recently." "It's probably the biggest threat we see from a terrorist at this point," said Billy Poe, an explosives expert and a former counterterrorism specialist at the State Department.
Why hasn't the Bushco administration and Congress addressed this issue...I mean we've spent 400 billion dollars in Iraq yet can't fund R&D for detecting this if it is as serious a threat as they are making it out to be? Why???
As to why I mentioned what you said to Steve,it's because in your response to him you thought he was being unfair as you felt that authorities had to move quickly (you may be correct... I don't know). Then in your response to me you said the threat wasn't imminent (contradicting what you inferred in your response to Steve). If that is the case and threat wasn't imminent, then I reasoned to myself (erroneously?), then why would they have to move quickly on the arrest? Especially in lieu of the link Steve provided here where the FBI is investigating possible links to people here within the US. So the US would need to do something here on this end.
Posted by emal at August 11, 2006 10:03 AM
The problem with Wagging The Dog is that cynical and deliberate attempts to push the War Patriotism button really fucking backfire when these incidents of major news do happen to coincide with political events. As a result, the legitimate actions of governments defending their citizens become suspect. The wall of suspicion to overcome gets so incredibily high that the legitimate actions immediately become obvious political manipulation. Clinton's bombing of Serbia during the impeachment was just the beginning since the GOP clearly decided to do what they accused the Democrats of doing when they came to power.
I don't think the GOP could project their own issues any more clearly if you stuck a 10,000 W halogen bulb up their ass.
I'm clearly biased against the claims of the administration and the British gov't that action was timely now instead of later. The statments of London Metro law enforcement help alot, but I'm still suspicious. Both of these governments have shown themselves to be craven manipulators for their own political benefits at the expense of lives and public funds. But where's the threshold of suspicion and acceptance?
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 11, 2006 10:05 AMI frankly don't know yet, whether Bush and Yo Blair turned this into a charade or not. But as to Musharraf giving us the finger--it might be worth noting both their active involvement in breaking this up, and their recent award of 18 F-16s. As I suggest here, that's almost 1 F-16 for every terrorist nabbed.
Lockheed is going to learn to love this war on terror.
Posted by emptywheel at August 11, 2006 10:17 AM1.What threats are the current security procedures intended to address?
2.Where the threats requiring the new security procedures present when Bush find out about the threats? If not, why not?
3.If Bush knew about these threats last week, why did Bush wait until yesterday to order the new procedures?
Emal
I think these are the type questions populations that are not victims of mind control would ask. The Spaniards demanded answers to similar questions after their attack and prior to their last General elections. When you get most of your information from sources like fox news, you won't ask questions like this.
Posted by smooth at August 11, 2006 10:30 AM2.Were the threats requiring the new security procedures present when Bush find out about the threats? If not, why not?
Posted by smooth at August 11, 2006 10:34 AMJuan Cole:
http://www.juancole.com/
says that there are signs the Brits and Pakistani intelligence services kept this whole thing a secret from American Intelligence services until about two weeks ago precisely because they were worried about American political leaks. He reminds us of the case in the 2004 Election:
>I argued then that from what we could tell from open sources, it seemed likely that the Bush administration played politics with information about a double agent in Pakistan who was helping monitor a London al-Qaeda cell. It seems likely that the election-year leak allowed budding terrorists like Mohammad Sadique Khan to escape closer scrutiny, and so permitted the 7/7/05 London subway bombings to go forward.
>This time, the MI5 and MI6 and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) may not have told Washington everything.
That said, here in England the Blair government having been using the plot to shamelessly hide their own embarassments - a large number of MPs demanding the recall of parliament to debate the Lebanon and Blair's handling of it, the huge numbers of fuck ups revealed in many areas under the control of the Home Office and the Home Secretary, John Reid, who is now preening himself before the cameras.
snark, I am arguing the Brits and US didn't do enough to alert the general public and or to make it look like they were taking this threat seriously, if it was indeed as serious as it is being told to us.
You don't think the events of the past two days have done enough to alert the general public. I don't understand what you wanted them to do? They stopped the plot. What should they have said to the general public? We're following a bunch of guys who we think are planning on blowing up some planes so we're gonna stop everyone from bringing liquids onto a plane? They knew who was involved. They let the investigation go on as long as they could to get as many actors as possible ientified and they took it down. What more does the public need to know?
Why hasn't the Bushco administration and Congress addressed this issue...I mean we've spent 400 billion dollars in Iraq yet can't fund R&D for detecting this if it is as serious a threat as they are making it out to be? Why???
That's a far cry from complaining about George Bush not doing anything for 6 days while he was down at his ranch. I completely agree. Funding of R&D into technology to detect such threats is woefully lacking.
As to why I mentioned what you said to Steve,it's because in your response to him you thought he was being unfair as you felt that authorities had to move quickly (you may be correct... I don't know). Then in your response to me you said the threat wasn't imminent (contradicting what you inferred in your response to Steve).
Steve was talking about the Brits. You were talking about Bush. I said there was no reason to believe there was an imminent threat HERE. Meaning the US. If that caused confusion I'm sorry. But I made no contradiction.
Especially in lieu of the link Steve provided here where the FBI is investigating possible links to people here within the US. So the US would need to do something here on this end.
Yes, the FBI is following leads but there is no indication of plotting here in the US (from the same article). And the US did act. After the British began their raids.
I've read more than once here complaints about Bushco. blowing British operations. It seems like if Bush did what you seem to be suggesting, which is act before the Brits did once they told him what was going on, we'd be hearing the same complaints right now.
I agree that Bush has dropped the ball on airport secutirty and port security. But arguing that Bush should have been ringing alarm bells when the Brits told hi they were about to take down a serious plot in its final stages is ridiculous.
Posted by snark at August 11, 2006 10:46 AM3.If Bush knew about these threats last week, why did Bush wait until yesterday to order the new procedures?
Because the Brits would have been really pissed if Bush blew another one of their operations.
Just a hunch.
Posted by snark at August 11, 2006 10:51 AMGreat points, john f!
America's closest ally no longer trusts us NOT to play politics with sensitive intelligence information.
Another stunning accomplishment by the appalling Bushco.
Posted by euzoius at August 11, 2006 10:55 AMsnark, I agree. Thanks for clarifying your point. We are just as capable of knee-jerk Bushbashing as the righties are bashing everyone else, and sometimes we forget that there really are guys out there trying to kill as many of us as they can.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 11, 2006 11:12 AMSnark,
I think this post better decribes the point about the Administration's lack of action.
The only corporate news source that dealt with this story effectively was The Count Down on MSNBC. This Crooks and Liars Clip recalls a March 06 investigation and follow-up with the government about the exact threats the new procedures are intended to address. The terror president and the rest of the republican government did nothing. Yesterday they acted to protect the
American people. Please!!! Are these guys strong on national security? Are they really joking about being strong on national security?
I agree. Believe me I know the Bush administration is as incompetent as anyone does. But to argue that George Bush should have gotten off the phone on Friday with Blair and immediately called the FAA to tell them to start banning liquids on planes is just silly.
Posted by snark at August 11, 2006 11:26 AMsnark, that was my silly suggestion, shooting from the hip (which doesn't work for Bush either) - you're right, of course.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 11, 2006 12:01 PMsnark, I disagree with your characterization of what I said.....called the FAA to tell them to start banning liquids on planes is just silly. I never said that banning liquids was what they should have done...you inferred that is what I meant. So since you famous for picking nits... There's one for you. I questioned if they should have changed the policy about liquids but never once did I mention banning them. So quit mischaracterizing what I said. It was a more general statement if the alert level should have been changed and the proper airport authorities should have been notified about the type of threat(haven't seen anything to date on that yet).
I still disagree and think if the threat is as serious as they say it is/was, I believe they should have raised the threat level or at least notified TSA to be on higher alert. Period. I disagree with you. Would I have been cynical/skeptical as to all get out about the timing/suspicion of it...Most likely. But that is unavoidable at this point because we have been lied to so many times, I don't trust them anymore.
That is a huge problem as I see it snark. Idiosynchronic nails it in his comment above. Bush has no credibility among anyone anymore, not even his allies as john f's post mentions. Never mind the most obvious is that Bushco's demonstrated incompetence, lies and cover-ups in handling National Security issues for the past 5+ years (including 9/11, Iraq War, Katrina, and yes even outing CIA agents). These were things they were all aware of in advance (just like this plot), yet did not plan or prepare for adequately. And don't even get me started on foreign policy. Also, because of all these failures and credibility problems, Bush deserves my cynicism, skeptism, and yes bashing if need be! You call it knee-jerk, but after 5 years of the same ole Bushit (as smooth notes in his post), I call it reality.
Again,at this time knowing what I know, I agree to disagree with you and will leave it at that.
Lastly, I have a very young relative that flew out by themselves (first time flying solo) to visit a friend in another state on Wednesday, the day before the arrest.
This person will be returning home in a week. This person wishes they knew about the TSA changes before they left. This person isn't sure if they would have changed their mind about flying... but at the very least, this person would have had some family support/reassurance around them prior to making the decision to fly. And that is just one personal reason I feel so strongly about this issue.
Oops, and I see iamcoyote adresses my concerns above...thanks coyote :~)
smooth, those are excellent points and questions and I appreciate the link on the comment too.
Posted by emal at August 11, 2006 12:23 PMemal, sorry about that! I was trying to be a peacekeeper and got everyone riled up. Great rant, though. I deserved it. I'm sure snark'll get me back in some devilishly horrid way. Hugs all around?
Posted by iamcoyote at August 11, 2006 12:31 PMno problem at all coyote.....I have no problem with snark or anyone (except the usual culprits that I generally ignore). I just respectfully disagree on this issue that's all.
Posted by emal at August 11, 2006 12:36 PMEmal,
There was no meaningful actions to protect us, you know like raising the threat level, or changing the security measures in airports regarding liquids, carry on bags etc...nada...nothing! For 6 days...
Sorry if I mis-inferred that to mean you thought George Bush should have acted in less than 6 days to ban liquids as opposed to simply changing the policy on liquids.
So since you famous for picking nits...
Why is it that people can not confront an issue without getting nasty.
Your first comment delt entirely with the 6 day period between Bush finding out about the plot and the arrests. How can I interpret that as anything other than an appeal for Bush to have immediately begun ringing the clarion bells?That's what I was commenting on. You then expanded into an overall discussion of Bush's failure to improve security situations. On that we agree. So again, sorry for any misunderstning.
Bush has no credibility among anyone anymore, not even his allies as john f's post mentions.
But this was not about Bush. This was the Brits. And as you say, they kept Bush out of it as long as they could because they know no one in the administration is trustworthy. Bush didn't have anything to do with knowing about this plot until TOny Blair told him about it last week.
This person wishes they knew about the TSA changes before they left. This person isn't sure if they would have changed their mind about flying... but at the very least, this person would have had some family support/reassurance around them prior to making the decision to fly. And that is just one personal reason I feel so strongly about this issue.
I feel for them but I'm sure anyone planning to smuggle expolsives aboard a plane would have liked to know about the changes as well. If 'this person' was gonna travel next week then they'd know. Timing's a bitch sometimes.
Posted by snark at August 11, 2006 02:12 PMHas anyone else heard that it was a tip from the British Muslim community that started the ball rolling?
Posted by TIKI AL at August 11, 2006 04:42 PMYeah, I heard that this morning. After the bombings last year another muslim reported some suspicions about a neighbor.
Posted by snark at August 11, 2006 06:06 PMsnark...if you are still around. You said, "Why is it that people can not confront an issue without getting nasty."... in regards to my comment about what I thought was you picking nits.
Umm, I might add, in this thread you have called and characterized my statements/me as "knee-jerk", and "ridiculous" and now tell me I am getting nasty because I made one comment about you picking nits. And all I did was defend what I believed was your mischaracterization of my words, until I realized (after she brought it to our attention) that it was your friend iamcoyote that made the "silly"(your word not mine) comment about banning liquids. I am sorry...I didn't bother to refresh the thread in real time in order to read coyote's post before I posted my response. Otherwise I would have deleted that whole section of my comment.
Otherwise, I still stand by my conclusions and opinions about this issue. You continue to stand by your statements and opinions on this issue. Others on this board also have facts and opinions that don't coincide with mine or yours. We disagree. Sometimes even reasonable people do disagree.
Lastly, thanks for your concern and words of wisdom about timing being a bitch and all. As an adult, I can relate and fully understand that... often use those exact words myself. Unfortunately I am not so certain my anxious 13 yo relative will be reassured by them. But I appreciate your concern anyway.
emal, I'm sorry to have muddied things up. I think of all of us as friends, and if we can't disagree and remain friendly, then we're not who we believe we are. It was a good discussion, I thought; I shouldn't have barged in with half thought out comments. Thanks for the follow-up.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 11, 2006 08:29 PM...in regards to my comment about what I thought was you picking nits.
I wasn't looking to get into a pissing match here. I didn't call you nasty because you thought I was nit picking in this instance. What you wrote was 'Since you('re) famous for picking nits'. But hey, I don't want to be accused of....oh nevermind.
Umm, I might add, in this thread you have called and characterized my statements/me as "knee-jerk", and "ridiculous" and now tell me I am getting nasty because I made one comment about you picking nits.
I never called you ridiculous. You've denied that you claimed Bush should have called for the banning of liquids on planes. So if that's the case I didn't call YOUR statements ridiculous either. But I'll maintain, to claim that Bush should have gotten off the phone with Blair and immediately put the nation on high alert and called for the banning of liquids on planes BEFORE the Brits executed their raids is both silly and ridiculous. But since you didn't say that it doesn't apply to you. I would, however, like you to explain to me what you meant in your first post when you were complaining about Bush not doing anything in the 6 days after he was informed of the impending take down of this plot. You mentioned raising the threat level and changing the security measures in airports regarding liquids. What did you mean there? What was Bush supposed to do in those 6 days?
Posted by snark at August 11, 2006 08:31 PM