Al Quaida Plot Foiled by, um, Somebody

[Johnny Angel]

According to the AP wire, Bush has given some details of a successful 2002 thwart of an al-Qaida plot to attack L.A (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1598715).

Probably you're thinking that nothing but petty hatred of America and an inability to admit that Bush has done something right would make anybody raise cynical questions about this glorious news. But you know, it's funny. I can't help but wonder...

Why reveal this now, when it could have helped his election chances less than a year-and-a-half ago? If the answer is "because this has nothing to do with boosting his popularity" then the question remains. Why now? His popularity could certainly use a boost lately.

Of course, as the article points out, he is not claiming that his illegal, unconstitutional and unpopular wiretapping of American citizens helped in this case. So obviously he can't be trying to prove that this program was a success. Unless of course he was hoping we'd make that inference anyway.

In fact, he did not actually say that the U.S. had a part in foiling the plot.

The president said the plot was derailed when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al-Qaida operative. Bush did not name the country or the operative.

Nor does he say this resulted from anything the U.S. did.

Bush said only that "subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations" after the arrest of the unnamed operative led to information about the plot, and to the capture of other ringleaders and operatives involved in it. Hambali, for instance, was captured in Thailand in 2003 and handed over to the United States.

No information here on who performed these debriefings.

Here's the closest he comes to claiming the U.S. actually took part in the bust:

It took the combined efforts of several countries to break up this plot," the president said. "By working together, we took dangerous terrorists off the streets. By working together, we stopped a catastrophic attack on our homeland.

It looks like some unnamed countries in Southeast Asia did all the work. And there's something hincty in what he's not saying about that, too. He didn't say what kind of evidence led to the arrests of these four Southeast Asian terrorists, and it appears that all information about the plot came to light after the arrests.

Step 1. Arrest people
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Confession!

There has recently been controversy about various means employed to glean information from persons in the custody of the U.S. or of allies not nearly so hung up about human rights. And it has been pointed out many times that people being tortured are quite willing to make things up to end the abuse.

So, yeah. Maybe it's all the puppies I was force fed as a child, but I don't think this shows that Bush's policies had anything to do with foiling a plot, and I'm not entirely convinced that a plot was actually planned, even if it did get confessed.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

In fact, he did not actually say that the U.S. had a part in foiling the plot.
Nor does he say this resulted from anything the U.S. did.

To be fair, Bush is extremely modest: I don't think I've ever heard him brag on himself or on his Administration's accomplishments. It's perfectly possible that the US was the driving force behind these arrests and that the illegal wiretaps were vital to the case and that he just doesn't want to toot his own horn.

Daniel

[carnivorousplant]

To be fair, Bush is extremely modest:

You're whooshing us, right? :)

[Sam Stone]

As for why now, there are several plausible reasons - some political, some not.

A political reason: Going into an election year, it helps the Republicans to remind Americans that people are still trying to kill them. Republicans do best on national security issues.

A quasi-political reason: Too many Democrats lately have been claiming that the war on terror is just a way to scare people into voting Republican. If there are real threats, then this kind of talk is dangerous, and Bush may be countering it, which also helps his party.

The non-political reason: It could be that they couldn't release the material until now because it would have compromised intelligence. For example, the unknown Asian person may still have been in place, providing useful information, so any successes had to be kept secret lest the enemy figure out who he was. Or perhaps the arrests of a bunch of operatives were done quietly so their contacts would think they were still uncompromised. This is actually common. I remember when they announced that they got one of the big al-Qaida guys (I think it was Khalid Shaikh Muhammed), they came up with a cover story for how they got him, but it turned out he had been captured some time earlier and kept on ice so that all of his contacts and cell members wouldn't go to ground, destroy their communications channels, burn their codebooks, or whatever else it is they do to protect themselves when a member is captured.

There may not even be an 'asian nation' involved. That part of the story could be a coverup to hide the true methods they used. We'll never know. Or not for many years, anyway.

[David Simmons]

As for why now, there are several plausible reasons - some political, some not.

A political reason: Going into an election year, it helps the Republicans to remind Americans that people are still trying to kill them. Republicans do best on national security issues.

A quasi-political reason: Too many Democrats lately have been claiming that the war on terror is just a way to scare people into voting Republican. If there are real threats, then this kind of talk is dangerous, and Bush may be countering it, which also helps his party.

The non-political reason: It could be that they couldn't release the material until now because it would have compromised intelligence. For example, the unknown Asian person may still have been in place, providing useful information, so any successes had to be kept secret lest the enemy figure out who he was. Or perhaps the arrests of a bunch of operatives were done quietly so their contacts would think they were still uncompromised. This is actually common. I remember when they announced that they got one of the big al-Qaida guys (I think it was Khalid Shaikh Muhammed), they came up with a cover story for how they got him, but it turned out he had been captured some time earlier and kept on ice so that all of his contacts and cell members wouldn't go to ground, destroy their communications channels, burn their codebooks, or whatever else it is they do to protect themselves when a member is captured.

There may not even be an 'asian nation' involved. That part of the story could be a coverup to hide the true methods they used. We'll never know. Or not for many years, anyway.And of course GW has always been such a straight talkin', straight shootin', and above-board kind of guy, that we just have to believe him. Right?

[Johnny Angel]

A political reason: Going into an election year, it helps the Republicans to remind Americans that people are still trying to kill them. Republicans do best on national security issues.

A quasi-political reason: Too many Democrats lately have been claiming that the war on terror is just a way to scare people into voting Republican. If there are real threats, then this kind of talk is dangerous, and Bush may be countering it, which also helps his party.

Both of these would have applied at the time of the election, so the question isn't resolved on those grounds, unless they were saving it for later.

The non-political reason: It could be that they couldn't release the material until now because it would have compromised intelligence.

This would be a good reason, but the article doesn't give us any hint that Bush is claiming this, and his administration has a track record on intelligence breaches that tends to suggest he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[Evil Captor]

What? Bush says a plot he can't describe was foiled by unknown persons? This changes EVERYTHING!!!

[Apos]

To be fair, Bush is extremely modest: I don't think I've ever heard him brag on himself or on his Administration's accomplishments.

That must be why he took credit for a drop in drug use that he had such a powerful effect on that it began before he even took office.

[Czarcasm]

Under the plot, the hijackers were to use shoe bombs to blow open the cockpit door of a commercial jetliner, take control of the plane and crash it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, since renamed the US Bank Tower, Bush said.

Is this for real? Are we to believe that, rather than force the door open themselves or threaten someone's life if the door wasn't opened for them, they would risk blowing the cockpit to smithereens with a "shoe bomb"? The isn't something you would need the forces of the NSA to stop-U.N.C.L.E. or C.O.N.T.R.O.L. maybe. And when was that tower ever called The Library Tower?

[alaricthegoth]

According to the AP wire, Bush has given some details of a successful 2002 thwart of an al-Qaida plot to attack L.A (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1598715).

Probably you're thinking that nothing but petty hatred of America and an inability to admit that Bush has done something right would make anybody raise cynical questions about this glorious news. But you know, it's funny. I can't help but wonder...

Why reveal this now, when it could have helped his election chances less than a year-and-a-half ago? If the answer is "because this has nothing to do with boosting his popularity" then the question remains. Why now? His popularity could certainly use a boost lately.

Of course, as the article points out, he is not claiming that his illegal, unconstitutional and unpopular wiretapping of American citizens helped in this case. So obviously he can't be trying to prove that this program was a success. Unless of course he was hoping we'd make that inference anyway.

In fact, he did not actually say that the U.S. had a part in foiling the plot.



Nor does he say this resulted from anything the U.S. did.



No information here on who performed these debriefings.

Here's the closest he comes to claiming the U.S. actually took part in the bust:



It looks like some unnamed countries in Southeast Asia did all the work. And there's something hincty in what he's not saying about that, too. He didn't say what kind of evidence led to the arrests of these four Southeast Asian terrorists, and it appears that all information about the plot came to light after the arrests.

Step 1. Arrest people
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Confession!

There has recently been controversy about various means employed to glean information from persons in the custody of the U.S. or of allies not nearly so hung up about human rights. And it has been pointed out many times that people being tortured are quite willing to make things up to end the abuse.

So, yeah. Maybe it's all the puppies I was force fed as a child, but I don't think this shows that Bush's policies had anything to do with foiling a plot, and I'm not entirely convinced that a plot was actually planned, even if it did get confessed.
you are too cynical.

We have been told that the information came from Khalid Sheikh Munammed.

Any other man, hey, maybe he was squealing like a pig making up whatever would get him over

But everyone agreees that KSM took the waterboard longer than anyone before he bro....

oh yeah....



n

[alaricthegoth]

Is this for real? Are we to believe that, rather than force the door open themselves or threaten someone's life if the door wasn't opened for them, they would risk blowing the cockpit to smithereens with a "shoe bomb"? The isn't something you would need the forces of the NSA to stop-U.N.C.L.E. or C.O.N.T.R.O.L. maybe. And when was that tower ever called The Library Tower?
isn'tthere a problem here? I don't think the cockpit doors were armored until well into 2002.

What's all this bullshit about shoe bombs? That was reid and the whole plane. It's like W was free-styling and this is how the rap came out....

these guys are really reaching...]

[Seven]

Is this for real? Are we to believe that, rather than force the door open themselves or threaten someone's life if the door wasn't opened for them, they would risk blowing the cockpit to smithereens with a "shoe bomb"? The isn't something you would need the forces of the NSA to stop-U.N.C.L.E. or C.O.N.T.R.O.L. maybe. And when was that tower ever called The Library Tower?

You need to go back and listen to the audio of Bush. He says they were to use shoe bombs to breech the cockpick door and fly the plane into Liberty Tower.

[alaricthegoth]

You need to go back and listen to the audio of Bush. He says they were to use shoe bombs to breech the cockpick door and fly the plane into Liberty Tower.
I heard him say "Liberty Valence"--I figured the angel dust kicked in and he was having Jack Palance flashbacks....

[RTFirefly]

What else do we have?

It's kinda interesting that Bush never bothered to have any underling notify the city of Los Angeles that they'd been a target (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/ap_on_re_us/la_terror_plot).

And of course, testifying before the 9/11 Commission a couple years ago, the FBI knew nothing of any such foiled attacks (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/special/v-pfriendly/story/203698p-175780c.html):
The CIA officials, including one who called himself "Dr. K," made an extraordinary claim that they have thwarted several Al Qaeda attacks since Sept. 11, 2001.

"I think we've probably prevented a few aviation attacks against both the East and West coasts," Davis said.

Asked about that during a break in the hearing, Pistole at first said he was "not sure what [the CIA] was referring to."

Even after consulting CIA officials, Pistole still would not call the alleged threat uncovered in the summer of 2003 an advanced plot.

FBI officials also drew a blank about a CIA report from June 2001 that said 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was sending operatives to the U.S.
(Hat tip to John Aravosis of AmericaBlog (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/02/growing-questions-about-whether-bush.html).)

[Czarcasm]

You need to go back and listen to the audio of Bush. He says they were to use shoe bombs to breech the cockpick door and fly the plane into Liberty Tower.
I that case, we both were mistaken-it was called The Library Tower until U.S.Bank bought it in 2003, so if he called it the "Liberty" Tower he was still wrong.

[Johnny Angel]

What else do we have?

It's kinda interesting that Bush never bothered to have any underling notify the city of Los Angeles that they'd been a target (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/ap_on_re_us/la_terror_plot).

And of course, testifying before the 9/11 Commission a couple years ago, the FBI knew nothing of any such foiled attacks (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/special/v-pfriendly/story/203698p-175780c.html):
John Aravosis of AmericaBlog (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/02/growing-questions-about-whether-bush.html).)

Which suggests that even if it were true, the problem that stopped them from preventing 9/11 -- failure to communicate among investigative agencies -- remains as much a barrier as ever, only now we're also spying on Americans, too.

[Crotalus]

Somebody appears to be Malaysia. Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060210/ts_nm/security_usa_malaysia_dc)Malaysia is holding several members of an al Qaeda suicide cell that U.S. President George W. Bush says planned to launch a September 11-style attack on Los Angeles, a security official familiar with the case told Reuters.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

You need to go back and listen to the audio of Bush. He says they were to use shoe bombs to breech the cockpick door and fly the plane into Liberty Tower.I didn't hear the audio, but I read an account of his speech; I assumed he was just mispronouncing "Liberry tower."

Daniel

[RTFirefly]

Which suggests that even if it were true, the problem that stopped them from preventing 9/11 -- failure to communicate among investigative agencies -- remains as much a barrier as ever, only now we're also spying on Americans, too.If interagency communication is so bad that, even in 2004, the FBI didn't know about foiled attacks on America that happened in early 2002, that's pretty pathetic.

Especially given that, by then, the Administration had had nearly three years to fix the problem. It's not like they had any problem getting antiterrorism legislation through Congress after 9/11; the Patriot Act, as it was passed, was basically written by the White House, and passed by Congress before they'd had time to even read it in any detail. So they can't even complain that they needed Congress to pass enabling legislation; they had carte blanche when they needed it.

So if the problem here is bad FBI-CIA communication, that's just one more Bush fuckup.

[ExTank]

This would be a good reason, but the article doesn't give us any hint that Bush is claiming this, and his administration has a track record on intelligence breaches that tends to suggest he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

And only a politician worthy of that appelation would divulge anything more than he has already; by Intelligence standards, even that's too much.

First Rule of Intelligence Operations: You Don't Talk About Intelligence Operations.
Second Rule of Intelligence Operation: You Don't Talk About Intelligence Operation.
Third Rule of Intelligence Operations: I Forget.


You don't talk about successes; you don't talk about failures; you don't talk whether you have one going, or not; you don't even talk about whether or not you even conduct them.

And if, OG Forbids, you do talk abotu them, you lie. Plausibly, deniably, lie. Lie in a manner that makes everyone else think you did something else entirely than what you actually did.

More later, work calls.

[Sam Stone]

What else do we have?

It's kinda interesting that Bush never bothered to have any underling notify the city of Los Angeles that they'd been a target (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/ap_on_re_us/la_terror_plot).

And of course, testifying before the 9/11 Commission a couple years ago, the FBI knew nothing of any such foiled attacks (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/special/v-pfriendly/story/203698p-175780c.html):

(Hat tip to John Aravosis of AmericaBlog (http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/02/growing-questions-about-whether-bush.html).)

Hmmn... If the whole episode was still classified, then that would explain why they refused to talk about it, wouldn't it?

Also, it's possible that the FBI weren't involved. If the Malaysians passed this information through to the CIA or State Department, they may have been requested to simply arrest the subjects. I'm not sure if the FBI would be in the loop on something like that.

[bup]

Sam - you missed one big political reason, that I think is the reason:

to kill the NSA wiretapping scandal.

People are apparently having a hard enough time understanding that nobody's objecting to the wiretapping, just to the lack of warrants.

So this, Rove Bush figures, will kill the issue once and for all. Nobody in the senate will dare to pursue it now - s/he'd look like they wanted terrorists flying planes into buildings!

[Stranger On A Train]

The non-political reason: It could be that they couldn't release the material until now because it would have compromised intelligence. For example, the unknown Asian person may still have been in place, providing useful information, so any successes had to be kept secret lest the enemy figure out who he was. Or perhaps the arrests of a bunch of operatives were done quietly so their contacts would think they were still uncompromised.Except he still hasn't released any information; not one single bit of evidence that could be corroborated by investigation. The whole thing reads like a pitch meeting for the next series of 24:
Screeenwriter: "So we have these terrorists with shoe bombs, and they're going to hijack a plane and crash it into a building..."
Kiefer Sutherland: "THERE'S NO TIME! WE HAVE TO START FILMING NOW OR MILLIONS WILL BE FORCED TO WATCH RERUNS OF FULL HOUSE!"

To be fair, Bush is extremely modest: I don't think I've ever heard him brag on himself or on his Administration's accomplishments. It's perfectly possible that the US was the driving force behind these arrests and that the illegal wiretaps were vital to the case and that he just doesn't want to toot his own horn.I have two words for you: "Mission Accomplished."

Bush doesn't like to toot his own horn like Courtney Love doesn't want to violate the temple of her body with drugs. That guy toots like a train engine whenever he walks down the street.

I heard him say "Liberty Valence"--I figured the angel dust kicked in and he was having Jack Palance flashbacks....Minor nitpick, but as a fan of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056217) I feel it necessary to supply a correction: Lee Marvin played the titular villian. I believe you may be thinking of Palance in Shane (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046303/), though he's certainly played a number of other villians.

Stranger

[JohnnieEnigma]

According to the AP wire, Bush has given some details of a successful 2002 thwart of an al-Qaida plot to attack L.A (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1598715).

Probably you're thinking that nothing but petty hatred of America and an inability to admit that Bush has done something right would make anybody raise cynical questions about this glorious news. But you know, it's funny. I can't help but wonder...

Right, I read that Bush started declassiying this information a few weeks ago and released the story as an attempt to increase public support for his counterterrorism policies - all while the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearings are happening. It's all probably just a coincidence though.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Hmmm. If Bush releases information, he's just declassifying it. If Congress releases it, they're leaking it.

[jsc1953]

You don't talk about successes; you don't talk about failures; you don't talk whether you have one going, or not; you don't even talk about whether or not you even conduct them.

I'm willing to give Bush enough benefit of the doubt to concede that there may have actually been a plot against the Library Tower. And that we were in some way involved in foiling it.

That he's bringing it up (however vaguely) now, contrary to the "1st rule of intelligence operations", is purely a function of his position in the polls and the NSA Wiretap brouhaha.

[alaricthegoth]

Except he still hasn't released any information; not one single bit of evidence that could be corroborated by investigation. The whole thing reads like a pitch meeting for the next series of 24:
Screeenwriter: "So we have these terrorists with shoe bombs, and they're going to hijack a plane and crash it into a building..."
Kiefer Sutherland: "THERE'S NO TIME! WE HAVE TO START FILMING NOW OR MILLIONS WILL BE FORCED TO WATCH RERUNS OF FULL HOUSE!"

I have two words for you: "Mission Accomplished."

Bush doesn't like to toot his own horn like Courtney Love doesn't want to violate the temple of her body with drugs. That guy toots like a train engine whenever he walks down the street.

Minor nitpick, but as a fan of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056217) I feel it necessary to supply a correction: Lee Marvin played the titular villian. I believe you may be thinking of Palance in Shane (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046303/), though he's certainly played a number of other villians.

Stranger
that's a big oops.

I counfounded them on acount of kid shaleen

[alaricthegoth]

I'm willing to give Bush enough benefit of the doubt to concede that there may have actually been a plot against the Library Tower. And that we were in some way involved in foiling it.

That he's bringing it up (however vaguely) now, contrary to the "1st rule of intelligence operations", is purely a function of his position in the polls and the NSA Wiretap brouhaha.
you don't have to waterboard w to get him squealing--just show him an approval rating below 40%, and he'll tell you anthing....

[alaricthegoth]

Right, I read that Bush started declassiying this information a few weeks ago and released the story as an attempt to increase public support for his counterterrorism policies - all while the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearings are happening. It's all probably just a coincidence though.
when do we become entitled to consider that our intelligence (even the questionable use of that term vis-a-vis the ameirican public) has been so terminally insulted that if it happens one more time our heads will blow off our shoulders like in that movie with the prisoners trying to escape....

[BrainGlutton]

First Rule of Intelligence Operations: You Don't Talk About Intelligence Operations.
Second Rule of Intelligence Operation: You Don't Talk About Intelligence Operation.
Third Rule of Intelligence Operations: I Forget.


You don't talk about successes; you don't talk about failures; you don't talk whether you have one going, or not; you don't even talk about whether or not you even conduct them.

And if, OG Forbids, you do talk abotu them, you lie. Plausibly, deniably, lie. Lie in a manner that makes everyone else think you did something else entirely than what you actually did.

How many years have to pass before those rules no longer apply to a particular operation?

[BrainGlutton]

Hmmn... If the whole episode was still classified, then that would explain why they refused to talk about it, wouldn't it?

That would be no excuse for failing to warn the mayor of L.A.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I have two words for you: "Mission Accomplished."
I've got two words for you, and the first one is "who." Can ya guess the second? ;)

Daniel

[alaricthegoth]

That would be no excuse for failing to warn the mayor of L.A.
hey, he has a tv like everyone else

he can now consider himself warned...

[JohnnieEnigma]

when do we become entitled to consider that our intelligence (even the questionable use of that term vis-a-vis the ameirican public) has been so terminally insulted that if it happens one more time our heads will blow off our shoulders like in that movie with the prisoners trying to escape....

It's obvious that the release of a foiled attack story came during the surveillance hearings. Since you don't really know me, how would you know my entire post was laced with cynicism ... although I normally have a deep aversion to cynicism. I'm not faulting Bush, if I were in his shoes I would do the same to build my case. He's covering his ass, is all.

[Evil One]

The fact that a threat still exists is an inconvienient reality that is sullying an otherwise pristine ideological landscape for some.

Heads will remain comfortably in the sand and in the clouds until another attack occurs.

[ExTank]

How many years have to pass before those rules no longer apply to a particular operation?

It's not a "time" thing. It's a matter of security. If anyone who took part in an operation is still alive; if anyone who supported an operation is still alive; if anyone could conceivably still benefit from the info; if anyone could conceivably benefit from knowing that we obtained info (and knowing is a benefit in and of itself); any of these can combine to form a damned good reason why you just don't talk about operations.

You know that crap from WWII that's still classified? It's probably still political dynamite; like maybe we assassinated Churchill and replaced him with an American impostor.

Politicians being politicians, will want an occasional bone to toss to the masses. In which case, the various national intelligence agencies dip into their haversack of Dead Ops., change things around to obfuscate times, dates, places, and methods, and say "Here ya go Mr. Pres. Tell 'em all about this one, where we stopped terrorists from pouring deadly bio agents into the L.A. reservoir system."

When in reality, they stopped some bombmaker in Tunisia from building a bomb for a terrorist cell in Sudan, that was going to hijack an El-Al jetliner and fly it into Mecca. Or something.

Telling the Mayor of L.A. prematurely could've spooked the bunnies back underground, where we would have to again locate them, infiltrate them, and probably, again stop them at a later date.

Telling the Mayor of L.A. could've spooked some staffer into leaking the information "for humanitarian reasons*," only to see L.A. dissolve into a bloodbath as everyone scrambles to evacuate, and don't care who they shoot, maim, or kill to get out of town.

*And that's ascribing more altruistic motives; it could be as simple as him calling his nice, senior citizen mom at home and telling her to get out of town. NOW! She calls Gladys and Henrietta, her dear, dear, friends, and tells them her Tommy, who works at the MAyor's Office, overheard a call from the Dept. of Homeland Security, and now he's telling me to get out of town, quickly.

Now Gladys and Henrietta call two more friends each, as well as each and every one of their grown children. And you see where this goes: L.A. dissolve into a bloodbath as everyone scrambles to evacuate, and don't care who they shoot, maim, or kill to get out of town.

[alaricthegoth]

*And that's ascribing more altruistic motives; it could be as simple as him calling his nice, senior citizen mom at home and telling her to get out of town. NOW! She calls Gladys and Henrietta, her dear, dear, friends, and tells them her Tommy, who works at the MAyor's Office, overheard a call from the Dept. of Homeland Security, and now he's telling me to get out of town, quickly.

that's more or less what just happened with NYC and the subway scare.

Is it realistic to expect a hermetic seal on this kind of stuff? Probably would be more sensible to snatch up any relative at risk of any person with knowledge and get them out of the way proactively.

[ExTank]

*And that's ascribing more altruistic motives; it could be as simple as him calling his nice, senior citizen mom at home and telling her to get out of town. NOW! She calls Gladys and Henrietta, her dear, dear, friends, and tells them her Tommy, who works at the MAyor's Office, overheard a call from the Dept. of Homeland Security, and now he's telling me to get out of town, quickly.

that's more or less what just happened with NYC and the subway scare.

Is it realistic to expect a hermetic seal on this kind of stuff? Probably would be more sensible to snatch up any relative at risk of any person with knowledge and get them out of the way proactively.

As in, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?"

[elelle]

Telling the Mayor of L.A. prematurely could've spooked the bunnies back underground, where we would have to again locate them, infiltrate them, and probably, again stop them at a later date.

Telling the Mayor of L.A. could've spooked some staffer into leaking the information "for humanitarian reasons*," only to see L.A. dissolve into a bloodbath as everyone scrambles to evacuate, and don't care who they shoot, maim, or kill to get out of town.

*And that's ascribing more altruistic motives; it could be as simple as him calling his nice, senior citizen mom at home and telling her to get out of town. NOW! She calls Gladys and Henrietta, her dear, dear, friends, and tells them her Tommy, who works at the MAyor's Office, overheard a call from the Dept. of Homeland Security, and now he's telling me to get out of town, quickly.

Now Gladys and Henrietta call two more friends each, as well as each and every one of their grown children. And you see where this goes: L.A. dissolve into a bloodbath as everyone scrambles to evacuate, and don't care who they shoot, maim, or kill to get out of town.

Well, I see your point at the temporal crux, but why, after the fact of the thwarted threat now held to light, would the powers that be in Los Angeles not be notified that there was a real threat to their city, in order to put all first responder teams on alert, in order to make a well-thought out plan for dealing with such an emergency? Don't you think the public officials at a high level want to avoid mass chaos? If local officials aren't briefed on possible disasters, how can they deal with them if they occur?

This just doesn't make much sense.

[alaricthegoth]

As in, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?"
beats either leak scenario on the table.

[Frostillicus]

The fact that a threat still exists is an inconvienient reality that is sullying an otherwise pristine ideological landscape for some.

Heads will remain comfortably in the sand and in the clouds until another attack occurs.


Please tell me when this threat will be gone so I won't have to be constantly afraid anymore? Oh wait, I'm not the one who is hiding under the bed and hoping that Fearless George will catch the all the bad guys.

[SteveG1]

I'm relieved to see I'm not the only one who thinks this "failed terror plot" is pure bullshit lies. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. Maybe there is hope after all.

[Evil One]

Please tell me when this threat will be gone so I won't have to be constantly afraid anymore?

With the fundamentalist government in Iran able to provide money and support, probably a decade or more. Syria is most likely providing covert support as well. As are Wahabbi Saudis. There are mullahs preaching all over the middle east that it is the duty of every good muslim to kill as many Americans as possible.

And they aren't doing it because the recount wasn't done in Florida or Ohio. They aren't doing it because they hate GWB's accent or his philosophy. They aren't even doing it because the United States military is currently under arms in arab countries.

They are doing it so they can divert the attention of a neglected and undereducated population away from their incompetent governance and toward the bugaboos of Israel and the "Great Satan". And they are doing it because they are high on the opiate of power.

They have money and committment. They have followers that are willing to die. And they aren't going away.

What's the solution? It's not hiding under the bed. It's to pragmatically recognize that the threat exists and to acknowledge that steps have to be taken to combat the problem that might be idealogically painful. It's to resist the temptation to play "gotcha" politics in favor of the long term greater good. And when the next attack comes, it's to clean up and move on.

[Magiver]

Right, I read that Bush started declassiying this information a few weeks ago and released the story as an attempt to increase public support for his counterterrorism policies - all while the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearings are happening. It's all probably just a coincidence though. I'd say it was aimed at getting the voite for the Patriot Act (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/10/politics/main1307635.shtml)

The information presented by the President coincides with events that occurred after 9/11. There was a concerted effort (presumably by Al Quaida) to explore the use of commercial aircraft for similar attacks. From what I could gather by interviewing people there was a concerted effort to take pictures of the modified cockpit doors and also to test how crews would react to certain behavior. They may have also been trying to see if they could flush out an air marshal by behaving erratically. It seems to have fallen off in the last 6 months but then I've also stopped actively trying to gather that kind of information. I do know that additional procedures have been put in place to secure the cockpit because of what occurred.

[ExTank]

beats either leak scenario on the table.

True; I'd say it beats just about any "leak" scenario I could imagine. Being the occasional cynic, though, I don't want my public officials to "relax" in their brainstorming efforts at keeping my hairy white ass alive just 'cause they know their families are relatively "safe" should a terrorist plot come to fruition.

Putting their faimilies into the same general basket as the rest of us peons gives them incentive to get (and stay) inventive and innovative in their thinking, being it ways to keep attacks from happening, or how to respond effectively to minimize casualties, or how to effectively treat mass casualties and handle evacuations.

[alaricthegoth]

it's kind of catch 22 the way you set it out.

hope these guys are on their toes for more than just to keep their girlfriends alive.....

[Stranger On A Train]

I have two words for you: "Mission Accomplished."I've got two words for you, and the first one is "who." Can ya guess the second? ;)So you don't consider a big press mosh photo op conducted like the triumphant final scene of a Jerry Bruckheimer film claiming (inaccurately) to have completed all major operations in Iraq to be Bush "tooting his own horn"?

Bush (like virtually every other political figure of either major party) never passes the opportunity to promote his own (alleged) successes when it best benefits his agenda. I don't think we've had a president since Ike who didn't make a major press event out of a claimed successful program or operation. The only disctinction here is that he claims to have averted catastrophe without offering the tiniest sliver of evidence that there was ever a threat to begin with. Wag that dog, George.

Stranger

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

So you don't consider a big press mosh photo op conducted like the triumphant final scene of a Jerry Bruckheimer film claiming (inaccurately) to have completed all major operations in Iraq to be Bush "tooting his own horn"?
The second of my two words is "osh!"

Daniel

[alaricthegoth]

what I could gather by interviewing people

um, you wanna expand on that a little?

for starters:"interviewing"...is that like "interrogating" or like Larry King.

"people" would that be our people (not really a good source on the topic explored ) or some other side's "people"

if that latter, would these interviews occur on cross country bus rides (like the time Nick Berg borrowed the Al Q guys laptop on the bus...) or in more confined venues, as it were.

[Stranger On A Train]

The second of my two words is "osh!"Nicely done. Only a hint of vermouth.

Stranger

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Nicely done. Only a hint of vermouth.

Stranger
Sorry about that. I thought that my sarcasm was self-evident, but I forget that not everyone knows that I'm convinced Bush is a megalomaniac who's concerned only with himself and incapable of looking at the world from perspectives other than his own, and also I forget that not everyone knows I really like dry humor, esepcially when it's slightly ironic and self-referential.

I was trying to forestall any argument that Bush might be saying this stuff for reasons other than the self-aggrandizing: his presidency has been built on self-aggrandizing, often, it seems, at the expense of foreign policy.

Daniel

[SteveG1]

There is "discussion" about the Patriot Act in Congress. There is "discussion" about illegal wiretapping. There was the recent "revelation" that Cheney "authorized" Libby to leak Plame's identity to the press. There is still some resentment over the mishandling of Huricane Katrina. There is resentment about the failure of the Medicare "reforms". There will be "mid term elections" in 2006. This failed terror plot (which supposedly happened back in 2002) is a way to distract and divert attention away from real issues. There is that whole Abramoff thing. This failed plot story is a way to yell "Nine One One" so all the good patriots will give Bush yet another carte blanche.