About that disrupted attack… Part II

February 10, 2006

Yesterday, the White House made major headlines and received blanket coverage on the news networks by repeating a four-month-old claim about a “serious al Qaeda terrorist plot” that his administration helped thwart. Today, it’s worth taking a moment to consider just how “serious” the threat was — and whether it qualifies as an “al Qaeda terrorist plot.”

Here’s what the president said yesterday:

“We now know that in October 2001, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad — the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks — had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door, and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We believe the intended target was Liberty [sic] Tower in Los Angeles, California.”

With no research at all, some of the president’s details are odd. First, he got the name of the building wrong. Second, it seems awfully strange to try and hijack an airplane with a shoebomb.

But, more importantly, there are substantive concerns. Namely, a series of experts and knowledgeable officials suggest that Bush has seriously exaggerated this threat.

One law enfocement official told the LA Times, for example, that the Library Tower plot was one of many Al Qaeda operations that “had not gone much past the conceptual stage.” Many within the intelligence community told the WaPo that the Library Tower scheme was never much more than “talk,” and said yesterday’s speech was about politics, not national security.

One intelligence official said nothing has changed to precipitate the release of more information on the case. The official attributed the move to the administration’s desire to justify its efforts in the face of criticism of the domestic surveillance program, which has no connection to the incident.

Indeed, it’s also worth noting that similar concerns were expressed when Bush started playing this “threat” up last October. As Slate’s Eric Umansky noted, a counterterrorism official told the WaPo back then, “It’s safe to say that most of the [intel] community doesn’t think it’s worth very much.” And the LA Times cited “senior law enforcement officials” who “said authorities have not disrupted any operational terrorist plot within the United States” since 9/11.”

In other words, we may be dealing with yet another example of the Bush White House exaggerating dubious intelligence to scare Americans and make the president look good without cause.

I was detailed as an Air Marshal from October 2001 until March 2002 and we never received any intelligence regarding any new threats. I’ve never seen any dates as to when the US was notified by the foreign intelleigence agency that picked this up. It would have been a good idea to notify the FAMS.

  • “Dubious intelligence” pretty much defines the Bush Administration. They’re the Dub’ious Intelligent Design movement.

  • Yesterday Atrios posted this gem from the gaggle. It perfectly captures the absurdity of this ‘threat’

    Q Scott, I wanted to just ask a follow-up about the LA plot. Is there something missing from this story, a practical application, a few facts? Because if you want to commandeer a plane and fly it into a tower, if you used shoe bombs, wouldn’t you blow off the cockpit? Or is there something missing from this story?

    MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t know what you’re referring to about missing. I mean, I think we provided you a detailed briefing earlier today about the plot. And Fran Townsend, our Homeland Security Advisor, talked about it. So I’m not sure what you’re suggesting it.

    Q Think about it, if you’re wearing shoe bombs, you either blow off your feet or you blow off the front of the airplane.

    MR. McCLELLAN: There was a briefing for you earlier today. I think that’s one way to look at it. There are a lot of ways to look at it, and she explained it earlier today, Alexis, so I would refer you very much back to what she said, what she said earlier today.

    Think about it, indeed. A bomb will knock a plane out of the sky. I don’t see how it could help you aim that plane into a building.

  • I read this and I get the suspicion that the details of this ‘Plot’ were tortured out of Khalid Shaykh Muhammad. Why? Because, as JoeW says, the whole thing seems impractical.

    Questioner: What is your next plot?

    Shaykh: (Argh!) We are going to fly an airplane into the tallest building (which happens to be Library Tower in LA) on the American West Coast (Argh!)

    Questioner: How are you going to get control of the plane?

    Shaykh: (Argh!) We’ll break down the cockpit door! (Argh!)

    Questioner: How will you break down the door?

    Shaykh: (Argh!) We’ll use sledge hammers… (ARGH!)
    … We’ll use pry bars… (ARGH!)
    … We’ll use shoe bombs (Faints)

    Questioner: Would that work?

    Supervisor: Sounds plausible to me. Send it on to Langley.

  • “…if you’re wearing shoe bombs, you either blow off your feet or you blow off the front of the airplane.”

    No, no no. The shoes are just a threat. They are only used to cow the pilots, crew and passengers into being afraid of being blown up just long enough so that the plane can be rammed into the building.

    Once the plane, building and all aboard are destroyed and killed then the shoes become irrelevant.

    See, you’ve got to think like a terrorist. Shrub knows how to do that. That’s why he’s our Dear Leader.

    P.S. according to Randi Rhodes on Air America, Shruby used the words terror, terrorism and terrorist(s) 97 times in his speech about the attack on the “Liberty” Tower that his spying saved us from.

  • “We now know . . . had already set in motion a plan . ”

    What a strange way of describing the incident. It
    sounds as if they got wind of some whacko plan
    after the fact which really never went anywhere.
    And as JoeW points out, one would hardly blow
    a cockpit door open and expect the plane to
    be perfectly flyable. I mean, wouldn’t you want
    to test the theory a few times? Like maybe over
    here at fly school.

    How was the “already set in motion” foiled, by
    the way?

    I don’t buy it. It’s an orange alert distraction.

  • A shoe bomb probably wouldn’t be enough to blow an armor-reinforced cockpit door off its hinges. It would, however, be enough to rupture the aircraft’s skin. Now, if the plane is “at altitude,” a hole in the side of the plane will cause rapid decompression of the cabin…and suck the terrorists right out through the hole. Somewhere beyond that hole in the airplane’s side is a really big mechanical thing, attached to the wing. This is called “an engine.” Although the aftermath would be extremely messy—wouldn’t we all like to see the “stupid human trick” of a shoe-bomber being sucked into a General Electric turbofan at 30,000 feet?

    Now mind you—it probably doesn’t make a lot of sense to give Al Quaeda the blanket label of “stupid.” It does, however, seem that “the stupid shoe” fits perfectly on those who would try to convince the country that (1) this is relevant news, and (2) this isn’t just another smokescreen to divert attention from the multi-front war the administration is fighting right here at home. I’d wager that McClellan, for one, wouldn’t even need a shoe-horn to make the shoe fit; it describes his spin-mentality oh-so-well….

  • #12 – First time I clicked link, got article over Muslim protests against Danish cartoons. Second time, article about US Trade Deficit. Seems that LAT requires another method for links.

  • It’s not because of “dubious intelligence.”
    America was manipulated by Dubya’s intelligence.

  • My comment #10, above, is supposed to be a Swiftian response to CB’s “In other words, we may be dealing with yet another example of the Bush White House exaggerating dubious intelligence to scare Americans and make the president look good without cause,” BTW.

    • Comments are closed.