Dick Cheney says that the election of Ned Lamont is an ominous sign.
“[They terrorists are] betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.
“And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today.”
He said that yesterday. Today we get the terror alert that Steven D has been predicting for a nearly a year. I don’t know the details of the terrorist plot. It may have been more serious than the man that wanted to use a blowtorch to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, or it may be less serious than the three year old intelligence the GOP used to disrupt the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. It’s hard to say. All that is certain is that we have been predicting both a widening of the war in the Middle East, and an increase in terror threat reporting for this summer, and we predicted it starting last fall.
We had solid reasons to make these predictions. They involved an analysis of the last midterm elections, in 2002, and analysis of the poor polling numbers for the President, for Republicans, and for incumbents/Congress. It involved an analysis of the facts on the ground in Iraq and the status of negotiations in the UN over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It involved an analysis of PNAC documents and public policy papers and editorials by leading neo-conservatives. It involved a careful reading of Michael Ledeen’s columns over the last five years.
Starting with the 2002 midterm, we now know the following:
Ridge said he wanted to “debunk the myth” that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.
“More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it,” Ridge told reporters. “Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don’t necessarily put the country on (alert). … There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, ‘For that?'”- USA Today, May 10, 2005.
We also know that a marketing campaign was rolled out in September of 2002, involving Judith Miller and Scooter Libby. Andy Card explained the timing.
“from a marketing standpoint, you don’t roll out a new product in August.”
Of course, this year, after so many lies and so much failure, a post Labor Day terror alert would not be easily believed. It’s the story of the boy who cried wolf. This year, from a marketing point of view, you don’t roll out a campaign of fear after Labor Day, because it is too close to the elections and smacks too much of desperation.
Of course, these terror alerts are not just about covering up for failure, they are also for mobilizing public opinion for Phase Two: Syria. First, Israel bogs down in an intractable war in southern Lebanon, then the international community proves incapable of providing a united front against Hizbollah, or of providing a peacekeeping force. Then fear is ratcheted up in the U.S. and the U.K., then American troops are inserted into southern Lebanon, then they are attacked, then we move on or bomb the hell out of Damascus. All of this was probably discussed at Beaver Creek. I also discussed this here.
Contrary to many in the blogosphere, I refuse to be a proud member of the reality based community. That phrase is probably the most misinterpreted statement in modern history. What the aide meant was that the neo-cons create history, while we merely study it.
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
How do they create history? They give the Israelis the go ahead to invade Lebanon at the next provocation. They issue false terror warnings based on old intelligence or the the mad ravings of mental patients. They plant phony stories of terror and WMD in the New York Times. Perhaps they carry out false-flag operations. They act. We witness.
When you predict that something will happen because you have analyzed the enemies intentions, and then they do pretty much exactly what you predicted at the time you predicted using the methods you predicted, then it is not a conspiracy theory.
We can either be a reality-based community that credulously ignores the past, including the history of 2002, or we can shout down conspiracy theorists for their lack of complete knowledge and cooroboration…or we can admit that the administration was lied about terror in the past and are likely do the same, now.
There are real terrorist out there aiming to hurt us. Cheney’s policies increases their numbers and passion every day. But we should not succumb to these tactics. We must stand up to them. Otherwise, we “will be left to just study what [they] do.”
very well put. When I first turned on GMA this morning and saw the story being reported, I turned to the missus and said how this was not a shock at all, and it is sad that there has been so much crying wolf that even a real threat is questioned.
Yes, there are those who want to do harm to us and our country. But this administration has done a heckuva job in doing that without any additional help from Bin Laden and any other terror groups. And they have lied to us enough times that when there is a real plot (as today’s may very well have been), many of us brush it off as a typical lie.
And even if it was a real plot, there are still a number of basic unanswered questions.
I have little doubt this was a serious plot. But I have a lot of doubt about who the real sponsors were, rather than the alleged.
I was so disappointed in the press – I don’t want to speculate on the sponsorship because there isn’t enough info yet to evaluate. But the press was trying hard to make a case for al Qaeda, based pretty much on solely one thing – they were well-organized and well-funded. Well, that pretty much describes the intelligence operation capabilities of every major country on the planet. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was a false flag plot designed to lure in and ensnare terrorists, ala the Russian operation “The Trust”, which James Angleton obsessed over for years, and made all new operatives study for not less than two years before they could work for him.
In that operation, the newly installed Bolshevik government set up its own anti-Bolshevik group, which talked about overthrowing the government. The purpose was to lure in genuine resistors, find their friends and networks, and destroy them by whatever means necessary.
That this group was exceedingly well-organized and well-funded, according to media reports, to me indicates we should not rule out involvement of the British or American governments, not necessarily for nefarious means. Nor should we rule out the ISI (the Pakistani intelligence service, which has close ties to the CIA), or Saudi intelligence, or any other country’s intelligence operations. Indeed, the sheer size and coordination seems to rule out an organization like al Qaeda, which allegedly functions by autonomous cells.
But all that said – the timing of this is sure appears to be designed for maximum political effect.
To support the notion that the rollup was politically timed, read this comment and associated info from CBS – comment pilfered from Larry Johnson’s blog:
UPDATE: LIEBERMAN WAS TOLD THURS.
Daily Telegraph (AUS)
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20090475-5006506,00.html
Joe and the GOP have been playing political games with this for days. This is a classic case of partisan misuse of intelligence. They should all have their security clearances pulled.
is related to this.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/britain_terror_plot
I am a little dubious of the timing. But even if this is a pure coincidence, our actions abroad are doing nothing to prevent more people from signing up to be a suicide bomber.
I had similar thoughts when I woke to this story.
Why did we have no terror alerts – NOT ONE – in 2005?
Because it was not an election year. Not a year in which major federal seats were at stake.
So it was only a matter of time. And coming on the heels of the Lamont victory does indeed make your thesis highly compatible with the evidence.
Maybe we should admit to being a part of the conspiracy-based community – those understand that all the major machinations that have ever transpired have been planned in secret, and have all too often resorted to illegal methods. And that, my friends, is the very definition of conspiracy.
Btw – please see my post re this and related issues in my BT diary today – just posted.
Booman!!! thanks for posting this and thanks for analyzing “reality based”.
terror alert the day after Ned Lamont wins. coincidence, obviously. Gotta run, I’m out shopping for a bridge.
Thank you Booman. I was watching MSNBC while cleaning today and they mentioned that the airline screeners had been screening for IED’s starting last December. To be more specific, they were trained to look at pieces that could make up an IED because they predicted that the bomber would use several pieces and bring them on the plane separately. It is possible that the terrorists could be plotting some type of similar attack but the timing of this story is rather dubious at best. It is difficult talking to my republican family because they think I am ignorant and that I should take this seriously. The best retort is that I am so thankful that we went to Iraq so that we don’t have to fight them here. Oh wait….
Cheney says a lot of things that are full of shit.
Well, make take is different. I don’t seriously doubt that this was genuine. The British police force is not made up of Cheney’s fixers, and there are 21 suspects that will have to be charged and put on trial, presumably in the UK.
Instead, we are seeing the failure of the “GWOT”. From a WaPo article last month that I’ve quoted from before:
Now, what could possibly account for the “regenerative capacity” of these networks?
The British police are tight with British Intelligence, which is in turn tight with American Intelligence. Blair and Bush have joint goals in the Middle East.
I also don’t think that if the story as put out has any falsity that means automatically Cheney did it. I’m opposed to the point of view that says if they lied, Bush and/or Cheney was behind it. There are a lot of powerful people in the world who will lie to cover things up for a variety of reasons.
That said, of course, I think the WaPo piece is important, and justified. Yes – whatever the role of terrorism in the past, we’ve added much fuel to the fire (ironically, in our efforts to gain control of fuel to make fires….)
here in a diary I did when it came out.
Obviously, I agree with you as you can see by my diary….
Yeah–the GOP are all about propaganda, spin, fake news and manipulating the electorate. (Note the editorial about Republican voter suppression in today’s NY Times.)
Of course, Lamont had to be undercut.
Was the plot real? Probably, in a sense. There are plenty of people in any country who want to do damage to the US and Britain.
But it ain’t because of our “freedom,” such as it is. It’s because of our pro-corporate military stranglehold on the rest of the world (including the U.S.)
There’s no way twenty-one people who want to blow up planes could buy British Airways tickets to America and British Intelligence not figure it out in advance. Just think of Choice Point, the Patriot Act, etc…
There are no surprises anymore. It sure looks like a plot right out of James Angleton’s playbook.
US Military intelligence was probably on top of — if not involved with– this thing every step of the way.
So it hit the papers the day after the Republicans call Lamont and Dems “soft on terror.”
What a surprise.
I just found a very eloquent explanation of ‘why they hate us’ – from a Muslim who renounced his faith, only to realize Muslims were the only group still standing up to the neocons:
…This puts me in a personal quandary. The earlier-mentioned instances of the Taliban types’ brutality gave birth to the secular in me. I do not any more follow the rituals like I used to, and find the Mullah’s hate sermons no more than the blabbering of a dangerous idiot.
But when I look around the Muslim world, the ground reality instantly gives high voltage shocks to the liberal secular in me. I find that the only forces resisting the neocons’ ghoulish empire-building excursions are none other than the very radical forces I so despised thus far. If these resistance forces are drawing their inspiration for all this from Islam, or their version of it, so be it. After all, the suicide bombers of the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, admittedly the deadliest liberation organization on earth (one that makes the Al Qaeda legions look like a bunch of kindergarten kids) must also be drawing their inspiration from some set of beliefs.
The time has come to decide–just like George Bush, the neocons’ poster boy, once said–“You are either with us or against us.” For me, and millions more like me in the Muslim world, the option has now boiled down to being with the assailant or the victim, the tormenter or the tormented. The choice, I think, is abundantly clear.
You also, gotta remember that when this thing is when the ME started a few weeks ago and the press got out the word that bush and blair knew what the Israelis were gonna do, the brits were very angry at blair over this. Also a British MP quit over this thing just this week or the end of last.
I also ask some of you that are very good in chemistry to answer me one question, what liquid will be stable enough to stand going through the security and shaking and handling at the airport, to not get in a very disturbed manner to use.
Now if they are not letting moms feed their babies formula without being tested first, this then makes it so mush more important for moms to breast feed their babies now, isn’t it..:o)
does anyone knwo the reasoning behind the ban on liquids and gels? That just sounds insane to me.
exactly my point. From my chemistry I took a combination of liq could be mixed together to make a big explosion, but geez louise, what is going on with formula for babies and liq for contacts, or even sodas or coffee or tea or water. This is insane! even in to including gel for shaving…I mean give me a royal break, if you will….;o) some smart terrorist there, right..;o) besides, taking all the water and sodas and giving it to the homeless…oh good heavens…
I think they must be talking about all those nifty cool uber-leet ‘MacGuiver’ school terrorists. I KNEW that show should have been banned.
DAMMIT.
The irony here is that nazifying airport security had nothign to do with catchign those turrists. Good ol’d fashioned ‘chasing down a lead’ intelligence work did that.
So.. are we hearing about how we are doign that? No.. I hear talk abotu ‘getting out notebooks and pens adn taking notes but it doesn’t seem like anyone’s really listenignto teacher after all…
Have a 4…..
Next they will be banning new mothers for carrying concealed weapons.
Well, this “experimenting” with liquid explosives have been tried before by the Al-Qaeda terrorists Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaik Mohammed in “Operation Bojinka” in 1995. Operation Bojinka never materialized thanks to an accident that led to the discovery of the plot, but the perpetrators tested their homemade bombs by placing the bombs on different places and sites during 1994, including a Philippine Airliner resulting in the death of a Japanese businessman. The liquid explosive used was a nitro-glycerine cocktail smuggled on to the airliner in a contact lens solution bottle.
I sincerely do not know about the stability of nitro-glycerine, but if I remember it is very unstable just handling it. How would they have done that without ?????what was the cocktail. did it ever get reported or was this just the beginning of the scare-fear tactic that is being used today…just asking.
I have to admit that my knowledge about liquid explosives is rather limited, but according to the Wiki article the nitro-glycerine used in Operation Bojinka was stabilized by cotton ball substances. Nitro-glycerine is known to become more stabile when exposed to low temperature or mixed with more solid substances for instance the substance Kieselguhr, which the Swede Alfred Nobel patented as dynamite in 1867.
You can also use chemical substances like ethanol, acetone, or dinitrotoluene to desensitize nitro-glycerine.
the “discussion” on this over at the Big Orange, but, as usual, it’s so voluminous and scattered that any point made is lost in the volume.
My thoughts:
My default position is “bullshit”.
but I probably agree.
I think this “terror alert” is 100 percent bullshit from start to finish, every last detail. There was no real informant. There are no real terrorists. There are no explosives. There is no physical evidence.
I’m quite thoroughly amazed at how many people on the DKos version of this thread take the news story at face value, I really am.
OK, I just caught the tail end of a report with an English accent on Jim Lehrer’s news hour saying that this bust was planned and BUSH WAS BRIEFED REPEATEDLY by the Brits on this investigation for weeks before today. (I see Lisa said something about this upthread and no doubt it’s been covered extensively by others but I can only read sporadically.) WTF?!?!? Why is TODAY the big red terror announcement? I commented this morning that it was hard to believe Blair and Bush would disrupt air traffic in such a big way, just to mess with us but it seems it’s all true. Get me my tin foil hat, I’m ready to believe anything now.