If The Terrorists don't get us, we can scare ourselves to death instead
William Arkin (Early Warning blog Washington Post 08/11/06) on the Big Question about the Heathrow bomb plot:
If liquids are a threat to airline safety and not just a prop in Michael Chertoff's press conference, then why hadn’t Homeland Security and TSA dealt with them months ago, when the intelligence agencies became aware of the British investigation (July 2005)? Why not after 9/11 in the first place? After all, there’s the already thwarted "Bojinka" plot, originally hatched and planned by al-Qaeda in 1995, to blow up airliners simultaneously over the Pacific Ocean.
If the TSA and Homeland Security KNEW that liquids could be used as explosives and they did nothing, particularly if they did nothing so as not to disrupt the British investigation, then indeed little has changed since 9/11. The government has promised us is that it is no longer going to hoard information and investigate endlessly If it comes upon actionable intelligence, the government claims, it is going to use it to protect citizens first.
The flying public should be incensed that a threat known to the security types since at least 1995 has slipped through the cracks. The flying public should be incensed that after five years, the Department of Homeland Security hasn’t solved some the most basic airline security screening tasks and still depends upon panic and over-reaction as the primary means to get the desultory screeners to go beyond their rote routines.
It's always easy after to the fact to say, "Why was this allowed to happen?" But in this case, it's an entirely sensible question, for the reasons Arkin outlines here.
Also, inspired by an observation and story link from John Aravosis in his AmericaBlog, I put together the following timeline of the Republicans' political rollout of this British bust.
Friday 08/04/06: Bush hears about the alleged British plot. From Bush seeks political gains from foiled plot by John Knox AFP/Yahoo! News 08/10/06 (via John Aravosis at AmericaBlog):
[White House spokesman Tony] Snow said Bush first learned in detail about the plot on Friday, and received two detailed briefings on it on Saturday and Sunday, as well as had two conversations about it with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Tuesday 08/08/06: Joe Lieberman loses Senate primary race to Ned Lamont.
Wednesday 08/09/06: The Republican Party comes out with their usual unified position, this time saying that the Lamont victory means that Democrats are soft on terrorism. Party Chair Ken Mehlman sends e-mail to Republicans stating:
[Democratic] leaders ... want to cut and run from the War on Terror, and surrender other tools needed to keep America safe. ...
With 90 days to go before the election, National Democrat leaders have made their choice in favor of defeatism, isolationism, and blaming America first.
The thing that’s partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly 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 if that’s becoming the dominant view of the Democratic Party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won’t — we can’t be. So we have to be actively engaged not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but on a global basis if we’re going to succeed in prevailing in this long-term conflict.
So it’s an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy...
... But clearly within the Democratic Party, it would appear to be that there are deep divisions. I think there’s a significant body of opinion that wants to go back - I guess the way I would describe it is sort of the pre-9/11 mind set, in terms of how we deal with the world we live in. (my emphasis)
Thursday 08/10/06: British officials announce the discovery of an alleged plot to bomb planes travelling from Britain to the US. "Put simply this was intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale," said the statement from Scotland Yard, who apparently decided that the famous British style of understatement was not appropriate for the announcement.
The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation. ...
This country is safer than it was prior to 9/11. We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people. But obviously, we're still not completely safe, because there are people that still plot and people who want to harm us for what we believe in. It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America. And that is why we have given our officials the tools they need to protect our people.
Travelers are going to be inconvenienced as a result of the steps we've taken. I urge their patience and ask them to be vigilant. The inconvenience is - occurs because we will take the steps necessary to protect the American people. (my emphasis)
Knox/AFP:
His remarks came a day after the White House orchestrated an exceptionally aggressive campaign to tar opposition Democrats as weak on terrorism, knowing what Democrats didn't: News of the plot could soon break.
Vice President Dick Cheney and White House spokesman Tony Snow had argued that Democrats wanted to raise what Snow called "a white flag in the war on terror," citing as evidence the defeat of a three-term Democratic senator who backed the Iraq war in his effort to win renomination.
Friday 08/11/06: Screaming headlines greet commuters and early-morning coffee-drinkers (headlines take from the online sites 08/11/06:
ON ALERTSan Francisco Chronicle Airline Plot Was in Final Stages, Authorities SayLos Angeles Times A Conspiracy to Rival Sept. 11San Jose Mercury News A security clampdownBoston Globe Airport orderly, security up on second day of new rulesSacramento Bee In Orlando, travel slows, nerves frayOrlando Sentinel Plot Rattles Air TravelTampa Tribune 19 ID'd in terror plotChicago Tribune [There were 19 hijackers in the 9/11 attacks in 2001.] 19 of 24 air-terror suspects identified — BritishHouston Chronicle On high alert: 9/11-like plot reported foiled; air travel in turmoilPhildelphia Inquirer Terrorists' scheme of destruction detailedSeattle Post-Intelligencer
What we almost certainly will see in aftermath of the alleged plot to blow up several planes en route to the U.S. is a thunderous response from President Bush and other Republican leaders.
With the midterm elections less than three months away, they will attempt to scare Americans into re-electing Republicans or risk facing instant annihilation at the hands of an evil and murderous enemy.
Choose us and live. Choose them and die. Your call.
