Earlier, I mentioned a series of far-right bloggers who connected the terrorist plot in London, remarkably, to Ned Lamont’s Senate campaign. As Glenn Greenwald noted, it was just the beginning — several top conservative writers are using the thwarted plot to justify…well, everything they already believe.
[S]upporters of President Bush have wasted no time attempting to exploit this event to make what they evidently perceive are powerful political points in defense of the president and his most controversial policies.
Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds excitedly points to this terrorist plot and then claims that “some people” — he does not, of course, say who these “some people” are — “have decided that the war on terror is passe. But although you may not be interested in terrorism, terrorism is still interested in you.” Michael Ledeen in National Review attempts to use this incident to argue that we should confront Iran: “But here was a secret plot we found out about, and we acted. Iran announces its intentions openly, however we don’t act.”
Also in National Review’s Corner, Cliff May quickly seized this plot as a weapon to attack seemingly every political opponent he could think of, from the ACLU and the New York Times to Howard Dean and Ned Lamont. And one popular right-wing blogger who writes anonymously behind the name “Ace of Spades,” actually insisted that this event all at once demonstrates the wisdom of warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency, the Patriot Act, Guantánamo military tribunals and torture (only to then casually recant all of that once it was pointed out to him that it was British law enforcement agents, not Americans, who foiled the plot).
If I didn’t know better, I’d say there are a number of conservative bloggers who reflexively try to exploit terrorist threats for political gain immediately upon learning of them, whether the facts support the notion or not.
In this particular case, I’m not quite sure what the plot helps the right prove.
To be sure, this is still very much a breaking story, and none of us have all the details about the attackers, their plot, their capture, etc. But most of the conservatives’ arguments are immediately flawed, even at face value.
No one, for example, has argued that the war against terrorists is “passé.” On the contrary, the left generally believes there needs to be an effective international policy that combats and prevents terrorism — but the administration’s approach is not only hopeless, but actually making the problem worse.
Using the incident to launch a war against Iran is just bizarre unless there’s some evidence to tie Iran to the plot. Any proof, Mr. Leeden?
As for the Patriot Act and Gitmo, it’s probably worth noting that the plot was foiled by British intelligence and law-enforcement officials. Whether the NSA is secretly keeping your list of phone calls to your uncle has nothing to do with today’s successful intervention.
Glenn summarized the problem nicely:
But this effort is as incoherent as it is manipulative. Nobody doubts that there are Muslim extremists who would like to commit acts of violence against the U.S. and the West. No political disputes are premised on a conflict over whether terrorism exists or whether it ought to be taken seriously. As a result, events such as this that reveal what everyone already knows — that there is such a thing as Islamic extremists who want to commit terrorist acts against the U.S. — do nothing to inform or resolve political debates over the Bush administration’s militaristic foreign policy or its radical lawlessness at home.
Opposition to the war in Iraq, for instance, is not based upon the premise that there is no terrorist threat. It is based on the premise that that invasion undermines, rather than strengthens, our campaign to fight terrorism.
It’s rather breathtaking to peruse far-right sites today and see conservatives respond to the thwarted plot by saying, “See? We told you so.”
Told us what, exactly?