THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal


Sunday, August 13, 2006


Who did not see this news coming?

(I mean other than First State Politics et al...)

U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests
British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says

LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.


SO... Bush again MAKES US LESS SAFE by tryng to use the bomb plot arrest for PR instead of allowing the Brits to gather more intel. I'd just like to remind everybody that Michael Castle thinks Bush is doing a terrific job.

If I had categories, I'd file this under:


h/t Tommywonk

The implication is that the Bush administration wanted the arrests to go down before the Connecticut primary.
They wanted max political impact - NOT max security impact.

What else is new?

We can;t trust Republicans with National Security.
According to a British intelligence official, the planned near-simultaneous attacks -- which one top U.S. official said were intended to be "a second September 11th" -- were foiled when a member of the country's Muslim community contacted authorities after noticing an acquaintance acting suspiciously.

An undercover British agent then infiltrated the group to gather information, U.S. government officials told CNN.

After the arrests were made in Pakistan, one of the alleged terrorist operatives there gave the "go" signal for the plot to go forward, a British official said.

Oh, and the next few sentences of your article?

"The source did tell NBC, however, that police believe one U.K.-based suspect was ready to conduct a "dry run." U.K. authorities had wanted to let him go forward with part of the plan, but the Americans balked, according to the NBC report."

So the British were okay with them taking explosives on airplanes, but we were not. And this troubles you?

Jason -- Do you believe that there are people out there carrying out a jihad against the West? Do you believe that there are people whose only goal in life is to kill westerners? Did 9/11 actually happen? Or is it all a conspiracy?
9/11 was a tertrible crime. To continue to use it to support George Bush's horrible adminstrration of the counrty is beneath contempt.

The Brits used (legal) crime fighting techniques to stop another crime. They wanted to use other crime fighting techiques to catch even more criminals and make us even more safe.

Bush...not so much. You can defend Bush, but in so doing you are making us less safe.
The Brits used (legal) crime fighting techniques to stop another crime. They wanted to use other crime fighting techiques to catch even more criminals and make us even more safe.

And we didn't want people getting on planes with explosives. I'm okay with that.

The initial arrest was made in Pakistan. The major breakthrough was made by US intelligence. This was a collaborative effort. I know that doesn't fit in with your irrational Bush-hating, but the truth is the truth.

To think this had anything to do with Joe Lieberman is the height of arrogance.

We didn't want people to blow up airplanes. How can you not get that?

Is your partisan hatred that strong?
Last Thursday I wrote:

I'm a skeptic

Does the Bush operation have any credibility when it comes to terror...? Or does this kind of bomb plot come around every elections season?

I wonder if this bomb plot will turn out to be like the MIAMI Al al Qaeda cell..?

This news tells me that the London Bomb plot is going to sound more and more like the Miami Al Qaeda cell with every passing day. It served a purpose.

I'm not happy to be proven correct. I'd love for Bush to put the country above his party - but I don't see it happening.

And one more thing - call me a conspiracy theorist, but you can't deny that Bush decided to milk this thing for PR value.
telephone rings
Hello, Mr. Scott's blog office via his real employment.

Who, Oliver Stone? No, sorry, Mr. Scott is busy. He says he is working on your next manuscript. No, I'm sorry, it's not that, he's busy calling Mike Castle's secretary and throwing dung at Tom Carper's picture.

I'm sorry, what? You want to make a JFK II and the Johnson Years? How we laid the groundwork for Vietnam and went to war? You say it was the republicans and not Oswald? We can quote you right now! What? Verify? No, one source is plenty.

While you are on the phone, Mr. Stone, have you had a chance to meet Lamont yet? You have? Wow! He's a stud! What did you two do? Uh-huh...uh-huh. Went to the country club, right...then to the bank, righ...wait. The bank? Why? Oh! You counted his billions locked away from the cable company! That's a fun day!

Do you know MOT Newbie? Yeah, what an a$$hole.
I'm not happy to be proven correct.

You would need to be proven correct first.

I'm not happy to be proven correct. I'd love for Bush to put the country above his party - but I don't see it happening.

It takes a lot of nerve for you to say that, given that you regularly make things up to score partisan points.

I take it by you not addressing any of my points or questions that you are unable to.
MOT Newbie and Dave,

Does thou protest too much...? Me thinks yes.

I'll accept that I view many issues through the prism of how much Bush/Castle style governing sucks. I happen to see the connections in things like U.S. and British authorities having "significant disagreement" over the timing of "war on terror" PR announcements. Given Bush's record of screw up - Heck Yes, it gives me pause.

What I find strange is how you continue to leave Bush/Castle off the hook.

You are going to have to turn on Bush sometime. Common sense and deceny demand it.
Hey yo.....uh, Dave dry run means NO expolsives would be used..that is what a dry run is.

And the immediate, partisan outburst from Cheney et al (a CNN analyst called Lamont the Al Qaeda candidate) is yet more correlated evidence that this was meant to be a tool to somehow drum up a mantra that DEMs are weak on security.

I had a nice comment on why GOP is weak on security on FSP that was DELETED!!! that is how scared the right wing nuts are of the truth, they can't stand to see it in print. They are too dishonest to even connect the dots.

GOP weakens our security by:

wasting billions in Iraq (much to no-bid corp friends and campaign contributors)

not spending at home on port or rails (even secret ok of a port sale to Dubai, the bankers and keepers of the 9/11 terrorists)

not keeping an army by draft so now it is demoralized and weakened overusing National Guard and Reserves (stop lock) and lowering standards so that psychopaths like Green (the Midland TX murderer-rapist) get into our uniform.

flaunting the world's laws of war - rendition tortures, Gitmo and AbuGrab abuses so that Bush is growing the terrorist base in leaps and bounds

there is more to add, in the deleted posting I had a few more thoughts.
Actually, Nancy. I think that "dry run" means "make sure we can sneak everything we need onto the plane, just don't blow it up." If "dry run" meant "make sure we can all get on an airplane", then the terrorists are idiots, and we've already won. Getting on an airplane takes little more than purchasing a ticket.
Nancy, the military has met enlistment goals many months in a row, and is at 103% of goal. Seriously, do you really think you can keep making things up to make your point?

Do you have to keep proving that you don't know what you're talking about?

I don't delete posts. I don't know what happened to yours. Trust me, I am not worried about having to counter anything you have to say.

And you would have to start using the truth for me to be worried about it.

Jason -- It was the Bush Administration's surveillance programs that caught this plot before it happened. Why can't you give him credit for that?
It was the Bush Administration's surveillance programs that caught this plot before it happened.

Do you mean the legal surveillance programs that 100% of Congress supports?

Or do you mean the illegal programs the GOP is either denying or obstructing oversight of?
Does it matter, if it means that thousands of people didn't go boom?
I will take you at your word about the delete....sometimes things do not get entered because of my finger fumbling....but as for the enlistment....they LOWERED the standards and that is a truth you might as well fess up to, Dave.

Green would not have gotten into the army in any other time in history.
Nancy, if you think that there have been no murderers, rapists, theives or other less-than-reputbales in the military at any other time in history, you're fooling yourself and no one else.
ah, I did go a little over the top, poetic license?
I still have to wonder where that post went....

The facts remain that this army of ours is stretched thin and demoralized because of the awful, awful leadership of Rumsfeld et. al.

You must be a fairly young man there Burris, why not join up?
Because if I joined up, then people couldn't call me a chickenhawk and they'd actually have to form an argument. We can't have that, now, can we?
Besides, Nancy, no one busts your chops for insulting the current Secretary of Defnse - despite mever having held that job yourself!!

I'm waiting for Jason to join the Peace Corps, or Hezbollah...whichever one has the lowest enlistment standards.
He's too busy writing up that dissertation on why Dave Crossan specifically should be in Iraq and on the billion dollar savior of the Democrat Party.

J - tell me honestly that you are NOT that "noonenowhere" poster on the DWA comment thread about Dave Crossan. That never would have crossed my mind until you defended that crap.
I only comment as jason.

I don't have many rules but that is one of them.
MOT, Jason is indeed consistent in that.
Jay Leno: "British authorities said they were able to detect the terrorist plot using a surveillance program that the "New York Times” hadn’t got around to exposing yet."
Mickey Cucella (98 Rock): British travelers even had to give up tubes of toothpaste under the new restrictions, but if you've ever been to England you'd know that wasn't much of a hardship for them.
Thanks for the clarification, Jason. The similarities sent me thinking and I wanted to hear it. I am aware a lot of people vouch for you in things like this, so I am good with that.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   May 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]