The alleged UK terrorist plot sparks new skepticism

August 17, 2006

Following up on yesterday afternoon’s post, the alleged [tag]terrorist [/tag]plot disrupted in [tag]Britain[/tag] last week is looking weaker by the day.

A week ago, Homeland Security Secretary Michael [tag]Chertoff[/tag] told reporters, “Certainly in terms of the complexity, the sophistication, the international dimension and the number of people involved, this plot has the hallmarks of an al-Qaida-type plot.” That’s largely true, except for the parts about the complexity, the sophistication, and the international dimension.

Home Secretary John [tag]Reid[/tag], Britain’s chief law-and-order official, acknowledged that some of the suspects would likely not be charged with major criminal offenses, but said there was mounting evidence of a “substantial nature” to back the allegations. […]

Two top [tag]Pakistani [/tag]intelligence agents said Wednesday that the would-be bombers wanted to carry out an al-Qaida-style attack to mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 strikes, but were too “[tag]inexperienced[/tag]” to carry out the [tag]plot[/tag].

The two senior agents, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that if the terror cell members arrested in Pakistan and Britain had appropriate weapons and explosives training, they could have emulated massive attacks like those five years ago in New York and Washington as well as the July 7, 2005, London bombings.

Did you count all the exculpatory phrases? After a year of surveillance and an announcement about a horrific terrorist plot, officials now have “mounting evidence” … but most of the suspects won’t be charged anyway. The suspects didn’t have the experience needed to carry out a plot, nor did they have materials or training.

It’s not looking good at all.

So, what are we left with here? The Bush administration pushed the British to move before they wanted to; James Galbraith noted that no bombs, chemicals, equipment, or testing ground have been found; and Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, believes this story is far less than it appears to be.

Oh, and we also have an administration with a disconcerting record of exaggerating alleged terrorist threats for political purposes.

There’s plenty to this story that we’re just not in a position to know, but I think it’s safe to say this terrorist plan was far less serious than we were originally led to believe. Kevin Drum argued yesterday that “Bush and Blair better be purer than Caesar’s wife on this one.”

There’s growing reason to believe they’re not.

Sadly, it likely doesn’t matter. Most of the public will believe that these guys are the real deal, any subsequent dismissal of charges will be ignored/go unnoticed, and the administration will still have gotten away with fanning hysteria. We still won’t be able to carry-on water bottles though.

Same thing will happen with the cell phone guys, charges will be dismissed (like they were for some other cell phone guys earlier this week, IIRC).

Terror! We are at WAR! People want to kill us! Fear fear fear! Hate hate hate!

It’s all the administration has left. Expect about a big announcement (though not necessarily this big) each month until November.

  • Actually, Ugh, I think it does matter.

    This plot was sprung far too early for the November elections. Now we are beginning to see that it had no substance. It if did, the story would have legs until the election. Now, everytime the Republican’ts bring it up, we can claim they suffer from ‘premature incarceration’. Common problem of nervous guys with a lot of stress. Basically their story will erode before the public’s eyes. And 60% of Americans are already inclined to distrust the Bushites on everything.

  • So are we going to be allowed to bring our bottled hydrogen-oxygen mixtures onboard aircraft again?

  • Does ANYONE know what happened with the guys in Florida that were arrested weeks ago?
    This stuff has just gotta stop flying off the radar…
    Were they charged? Are they in Guantanamo? Are they being brought before a court of law?

  • I can already hear the loonies arguing this is proof of why we need a War on terror, not a police action. If Britain had just handed the suspect to the US so we could hold them indefinitly in Gitmo, B&B could declare another victorious attack against terror without proving a thing. Instead we get a namby pamby police action and the evil terrorists escape due to a technicality.

  • As Ugh noted and Tom hinted at, the American public will be quickly distracted by the next shiny news object. The fact that the most recent “plots” weren’t all they were made out to be really doesn’t matter — the news spent days covering these things, and the masses will just remember that some guys got arrested for trying to do us harm. What happened afterwards is moot.

  • Chertoff’s line when questioned the day and day after the arrests was “I can’t comment because I want to respect the British legal system and not jeopardize the potential convictions” or some such. So. . . they pushed for early arrests, thereby jeopardizing the convictions, only to dodge detailed questions for precisely the opposite reason?

  • I don’t know what to say to this any more. First, it looked as if the London Police had captured “bona-fide” terrorists, using the very tactics that “dummyhead” had ridiculed in the ’04 campaign.

    Now, the entire plot is coming unraveled.

    My personal take on this is:

    (1) There was, in all likelihood, an actual plot. A whole lot of stuff not connected in any way to the US pointed in this direction a week ago. The very existence of this thing was clearly a black eye to the adminstration, and its “we’re-keepin’-Murika-safe-y’all!” silliness.

    (2) The “coerced” pre-emptive arrests failed to net several members of the overall cell—including most of those destined to board the aircraft. This could relate to most of those arrested being “support personnel”—thus, having no need for passports, tickets, or intimate knowledge/possession of ordnance.

    (3) The story that’s now beginning to develop is coming across as an “emphasis-shifter.”
    ***(A)There are those who tried to play this against the Dems (remember CNN’s comment about Lamont being the AlQuaeda candidate?)—and it’s been blowing up in their faces like a healthy dose of napalm.
    ***(B) There are those within both the administration and thr Reich noisemaking machine who tried, right from the beginning, to establish that US intelligence—and Herr Bush himself, for that matter—were “intimately involved in this from the early stages.” statements like “we gave them the tools” were running rampant, like fleas in a dog-pound. That fell to pieces as well, and left more than just a few bruised egos in its wake.
    ***(C) The MSM played this to the hilt—not with direct-feed information from the BBC, or Scotland Yard—but with data-bytes from unnamed “US officials.” Now, we’ve got ourselves an MSM with egg all over their faces—and they don’t like it very much.

    Sorry, CB—but my skepticism-alarm says that this one just might be a classic “double-fake.” It’s the kind of thing that can entice everyone to start beating up on everyone. It’s the perfect divisor to fragment any cohesive effort to concentrate on the greater picture—and there’s only 82 days to the midterms. Maybe that’s “Mehlman’s Plan”—if the GOP cannot unite its base, then it simply fragments the opposition’s base. In this, Lieberman is indeed the GOP’s prototype….

  • Actually, the Dems’ best strategy may be to give these would-be terrorists teh benefit of the doubt. Lets assume they were in fact the real baddies. I seems to me that is the worst case scenario for Premature Bush.

    “Scotland Yard and MI5 were doing exceptional investigative work, obtaining the cooperation of Pakistan, and were continuing to follow leads, build a case, learn more about how these plots occur, and trace communications to others in the chain. Because of Bush’s meddling and US pressure to grab positive headlines about terror, many of these dangerous criminals will now be back on the streets — not because Britain is soft on crime, but because Bush’s political needs got in the way of solid police work. They’ll be let go for lack of evidence because Bush just couldn’t show the patience that comes with maturity. We’ve now lost our best chance in years to track back up the terrorist chain of command, to get inside their networks. But in a panic because one of his supporters lost in a primary election, Bush chose to put us all at risk, to lose this precious opportunity, by leaning on Britain to move in before the best investigators on the case believed the time was right. This administration puts politics, plain and simple, over real results in the war on terror. This sloppy, selfish approach does not make us safer, it makes us much less safe. We cannot let this politics-over-all approach hurt our fight against terrorism. We cannot let this bumbling White House go unchecked while terrorists are let go because of Bush’s mistakes. We must elect Democrats in November to ensure the hunt for terrorists is carried out properly, stongly, smartly, and with patience, not just politics.”

  • Dang it all!! Talk about takin’ the steam outta mah viagra! Ah wuz a-hopin’ we’d have us a real red-white-‘n’-blue war with the mother country over this’un. Best put mah flags ‘n’ bugles back, then git mah pacemaker checked.

  • Reading that story, the press is still feeding into the “Bush Saved Us!” and conveniently ignoring there was no plot and no ability to pull the bombings off. As long as the media portrays this as a foiled terrorist plot the Republicans will continue to exploit it. What we really need now is Democrats pointing out the many, many problems with the whole story.

    Putting politics aside, cynical exploitation of “terrorist plots” like this matters for another reason: It takes valuable resources and attention away from legitimate terrorist threats. I think the U.S. and Britian is likely missing something important while they chase after cell phone buyers and loudmouth kids.

  • Um, CB, gotta call you on a bit of hyperbole…

    some of the suspects would likely not be charged with major criminal offenses

    vs.

    … but most of the suspects won’t be charged anyway – CB

    There is a BIG difference between “some” not being charged with major criminal offenses and “most” not being charged at all.

    My position is, there’s no need to exaggerate, the facts are weak enough in this case, and exaggerating just makes one vulnerable to criticism from one’s opponents. 🙂

  • If this does turn out to be the huge pile of BS it is likely to be, I want to see a MAJOR lawsuit filed by all the airlines who were killed by the astounding incompetence of both governments. A major law suit would bring all the evidence forward very publicly.
    No w NOW | 08.17.06 – 12:43 am | #

    Great point “No W Now”. The situation could have been handled in a way to prevent panic and great loss of money for the airlines and time and money for the customers but the administration wanted panic and especially FEAR. What better way to bring the frightened sheep back into the flock. There was no iminent danger and they knew it.
    Tired | 08.17.06 – 2:50 am | #

  • If this investigation started last December why did they wait until August to ban liquids and gels on passenger flights. Could’t a simultaneous plot have been being planned by other groups endangering human life and creating “unimaginable death and destruction!”? What an incredible scam. Rove hard at work for his country.

  • I’m going to hold judgement for now. The fact that these folks were not immediately ready to get on a plane with explosives (and perhaps this is part of why they cannot be pegged with a ‘major’ charge) does not *necessarily* mean that the plot was not substantial.

    I certainly wouldn’t put it by Cheney/Rove & Co to gin this up (my skepticism has been up since the first report), but I don’t want ‘my side’ to be mistaken if in fact there was a real (if questionably ‘imminent’) danger from this plot.

  • I love Lance’s “Premature Incarceration”

    These guys definitely appear to have needed watching and probably arrest when the cases were made but it’s not worth the publicity blitz.

    I work in Manhattan near Times Square and there have been Afro-American youths on the 42nd Street sidewalks talking loudly about what a great bunch of people Hezbollah is for the past several weeks. By the Bush standards they are clearly international terrorists worth front page headlines. By NYC and PA (Port Authority) police standards they are big mouthed assholes. Since all of the North American police to die in terrorist attacks were either NYC or PA who do you think has a better idea of what’s real?

  • There’s plenty to this story that we’re just not in a position to know….

    This assumption is why so many people were willing to initially back the Iraq invasion. The average citizen just couldn’t believe that our highest government officials would do something that seemed so imprudent unless they had access to secret info that, by golly, they just couldn’t tell us common folk. Nuts.

  • This story and the security response to it at airports has pushed a boundary of the ridiculous that many Americans are starting to get. This ABC News story at – http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/authorities_war.html – talks about the govt. thinking about banning gel bras. The comments are sublime. One person wrote that if a terrorist decides to pack his rectum with C4 for the next attack will everyone then have to have a rectal search before boarding? I’m sensing the general public is realizing we will never be able to protect against all the ingenious ideas for creating terror, so it may be something that we just have to bravely live with.

  • everytime the Republican’ts bring it up, we can claim they suffer from ‘premature incarceration’. — Lance

    Premature Incarceration of Suspects Syndrome. Take the PISS out of Republicans! (though it would play better in Brit English than in US English, I’m afraid)

    • Comments are closed.