Al Quaida Plot Foiled by, um, Somebody

Great Debates
1

According to the AP wire, Bush has given some details of a successful 2002 thwart of an al-Qaida plot to attack L.A.

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.

2

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

3

You’re whooshing us, right? :slight_smile:

4

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.

5

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?

6

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.

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.

7

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

8

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.

9

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?

10

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

11

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…]

12

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.

13

I heard him say “Liberty Valence”–I figured the angel dust kicked in and he was having Jack Palance flashbacks…

14

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.

And of course, testifying before the 9/11 Commission a couple years ago, the FBI knew nothing of any such foiled attacks:

(Hat tip to John Aravosis of AmericaBlog.)

15

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.

16

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.

17

Somebody appears to be Malaysia. Link

18

I didn’t hear the audio, but I read an account of his speech; I assumed he was just mispronouncing “Liberry tower.”

Daniel

19

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.

20

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.