Gay Patriot Header Image

Terror Plot Thwarted; Democrats Criticize Bush

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:04 pm - August 11, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Civil Discourse,War On Terror

When, just before bed Wednesday night, I first read about the thwarting of the latest terror plot against Western civilians, I had hoped to do a quick post, but was so numbed by the news I wasn’t quite sure what to say. While I noted that the initial MSM reports failed to include the nationality or religion of the bombers, The Malcontent‘s Robbie alerted me to Ace’s post making that very point — in a quite clever way.

During the past two days, as I read more about the plot — and learned how British, Pakistani and American investigators uncovered it, I realized how significant a victory this was in the War on Terror. I became increasingly optimistic about our eventual success in this ongoing conflict as I became aware of the cooperation of the government of a Muslim nation, Pakistan, and when I found out that the “original information about the plan came from the Muslim community in Britain.”

Many Muslims are as committed to defeating Islamofascism as are those in the West. And we know that that term Islamofascism defines only a segment of the Muslim world.

While the bulk of the credit for the success in thwarting this diabolical plot goes to our friends across the pond, American officials played a key role in uncovering it. According to Time magazine, “U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the [terror] group’s communications.” This is thus yet another success for the Bush Administration in the War on Terror.

And it’s not just the assistance Americans provided the Brits as they unraveled this plot, it’s that the policies the Brits used to uncover it are similar to many the Administration has put into practice since 9/11.

Given the reaction of the president’s critics, including the Senate Democratic leader, you’d think the Administration has somehow suffered a tremendous setback. Just one day after this victory in the War on Terror, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said, “Five years after 9-11, it is clear that our misguided policies are making America more hated in the world and making the war on terrorism harder to win.”

Instead of praising the Administration for its part in this success, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid lashed out against the war in Iraq, claiming it “diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists.

If Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats, like Kennedy, were decent human beings, they would acknowledge this success and praise the president for his part in it. They would make clear that all Americans stand united in uncovering such plots and in defeating terrorism. Yet, for them, the primary issue does not seem to be promoting America’s security, rather it’s attacking President Bush. They seem bent on using everything, even his successes, against him.

Today, we in the West, should be grateful to our British friends for thwarting this plot. They were not alone in unraveling it. They had help from many diligent officials in three governments and many good people, a number of them Muslim.

Just as we acknolwedge President Clinton’s role in enacting NAFTA and Welfare Reform, two policies which promoted economic growth and national well-being, so should all good people acknowledge the Bush Administration’s role in this week’s success. In uncovering this plot before it was launched, not only did we save thousands of lives, but we also learned much about terorrists’ modus operandi. This time, we connected the dots. And thanks to the cooperation between three nations, the United Kingdom, Pakistan and the United States, officials across the world are better learning how to thwart terror attacks.

It’s too bad so many Democrats are so consumed with animosity for President Bush that they can’t acknowledge the significance of this success — and his Administration’s role in uncovering this diabolical scheme.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Share

58 Comments

  1. “If Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats, like Kennedy, were decent human beings…”

    Wow. So much for that rule that goes a little something like this: “Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted. Repeated violators will be banned. Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.”

    The amusement never stops….

    Comment by jimmy — August 11, 2006 @ 10:46 pm - August 11, 2006

  2. “so should all good people acknowledge the Bush Administration’s role in this week’s success…”

    Who are the Bad People?

    Comment by jimmy — August 11, 2006 @ 10:51 pm - August 11, 2006

  3. It’s too bad so many Republicans are so consumed with animosity for the Democrats that they can’t acknowledge that the invasion of Iraq was nothing more than a diversion from the real war on terror. A failed diversion, at that. We’ve lost over 2,500 of our brave soldiers and spent over $300 billion for what? We’re sure not any safer than we were five years ago. Probably less so. Osama bin Laden and his minions are still free and still staging their terrorist attacks.

    It is sad that you are so enamored of George W. Bush and so blinded by your hatred of the Democrats that you are unable to see truth.

    Comment by Len — August 11, 2006 @ 11:22 pm - August 11, 2006

  4. #1

    Your quote belies your assertion. According to your logic regarding commenting rules, Dan would be guilty of breaking his own rule if he had said “If Ghengis Khan and Pol Pot were decent human beings”

    Comment by John in IL — August 11, 2006 @ 11:46 pm - August 11, 2006

  5. #0

    This is what I don’t understand about Democrats like Reid and Kennedy. How can thwarting a terrorist attack be seen as a failure and losing a war be seen as a success?

    Comment by John in IL — August 12, 2006 @ 12:09 am - August 12, 2006

  6. I disagree with what some of the Democrats have said in resonse to the terror plot disrupted in Britain. But, if true, I am equally upset by Dick Cheney andmaybe even the RNC making partisan attacks regarding terrorism knowing that the terrorist plot in Britain was about to be revealed.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — August 12, 2006 @ 1:55 am - August 12, 2006

  7. Once again, you miss the point of these statements. It’s pretty clear that these Senators fully support the capture of these terrorists. Seriously, can you find one single American who doesn’t support the capture of people intent on blowing us up?

    Their point is, as always, that much of this could have been done long ago if we had remained focused long ago on Afghanistan and captured Bin Laden first. In one month it will be the 5th anniversary of 9/11/01. Why is it that we haven’t caught this guy? We certainly had the resources to do so, but no. Bush and company decided to go on a little ideological diversion. Also, it remains a political advantage to keep US citizens fearful and thereby pound home at this non-sensical dogma that “only republicans can keep you safe”; how terribly convenient that Bin Laden remains at large. Sorry, but it was George Bush, not Clinton, who sat in a classroom in FL looking at “my little goat” upside down when we experienced the worst attacks ever on US soil.

    Comment by Kevin — August 12, 2006 @ 2:24 am - August 12, 2006

  8. My critics here show that the Democrats are not alone. All they can do is attack the president. They refuse to give him and his team credit for helping the Brits thwart a terror plot.

    Their obsession could save the GOP this fall.

    And no, Kevin, this couldn’t have been done long ago, given that the plot only started to take shape in the past few months. And it couldn’t have been done without the tools the Democrats and their supporters want to take away from the executive branch.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 12, 2006 @ 4:24 am - August 12, 2006

  9. Did the Democrats criticize Bush FOR helping thwart an attack? This post pretends as much.

    Why don’t you take a look at what exactly they are criticizing and deal with the criticims instead of demanding that they say what you want them to say? Do you even know if they, in fact, did say it was great that US agencies helped thwart the attack but journalists didn’t quote them on that…because why would one have to quote people on the obvious?!?! The story becomes the criticism, not the obvious joy that people were not harmed.

    Ghengis Khan and Pol Pot are not Senators of the United States of America. Ghengis Khan and Pol Pot were not Americans. “Civil discourse” gets bandied about around here quite a bit and yet there is no respect for half the population of the USA or the Senators of the Democratic Party.

    This post is really despicable. But I won’t question the decency or humanity of its author. John in IL might think that Democrats are more like Ghengis Khan and Pol Pot, but that is exactly the kind of nonsense that GPW claims to disdain. And there he goes questioning the decency and humanity of US Senators. Why do you hate America, GPW?

    Comment by sean — August 12, 2006 @ 5:23 am - August 12, 2006

  10. “And it couldn’t have been done without the tools the Democrats and their supporters want to take away from the executive branch.”

    Please substantiate this.

    Comment by sean — August 12, 2006 @ 5:36 am - August 12, 2006

  11. 8: The tools of the executive branch?

    “rallying a nation of television viewers to hysteria, to sweep us up into the White House with powers that will make martial law look like arnachy” – from the Manchurian Candidate, spoke by Eleanor Iselin (Angela Lansbury) a supposed conservative republican who is actually a communist.

    And by the way: a few weeks ago it was a decidedly conservative Supreme Court that bitch slapped the Executive Branch for overstepping its bounds in the use of these tools. Perhaps Bush should use these powers to burn down the Reichstag…er…Capitol…

    You show me how looking into the private bank/phone records of every american has helped to thwart this attack. It’s already been reported that their ranks were infilitrated and that’s the main reason this plot was stopped.

    Comment by Kevin — August 12, 2006 @ 5:46 am - August 12, 2006

  12. The NYTimes reports today:

    “The arrests overseas this week of people accused of planning to use an explosive that would be undetectable at airports illustrates the significant security gaps, they said.

    “While the department has hardened cockpit doors and set up screening for guns and knives, it has done far too little to protect against plastic and liquid explosives, bombs in air cargo and shoulder-fired missiles, the experts say.

    “The nation is still at risk from the same “failure of imagination” cited by the 9/11 commission as having contributed to the success of the 2001 attack, several argued.

    “They are reactive, not proactive,” said Randall J. Larsen, a retired colonel in the Air Force who is chairman of the military strategy department at the National War College in Washington.

    “Robert M. Blitzer, who served 26 years in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including as head of its counterterrorism unit, said the federal government had a serious problem because its personnel today turned over far too quickly.”

    HERE’s my question: Can we now say that the terror plot was thwarted and that the security experts criticize the government? That Larsen and Blitzer might no be “decent human beings”? Or can we safely assume that they were happy the plot was thwarted and there’s no reason for the story to say as much.

    If you are starting in bad faith, you end up even worse off.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/washington/12homeland.html?ex=1156046400&en=55e4b7e06851397b&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

    Comment by sean — August 12, 2006 @ 5:53 am - August 12, 2006

  13. Oh, and by the way: This man is an idiot. He’s the biggest moron to ever sit in the white house. I even give that psycho Nixon credit for being a better president. Bush doesn’t have the brains to make a cup of tea on his own. Just shows you how far you can get in America with a family name and a lot of money. Until political handlers (set upon him by his family) got a hold of him for the Texas gubentorial election, this guy had not one (*not one*) distinguishable acheivement in his entire life. On his own, he failed at both business and politics, with only his family name and money to keep him going. If it were not for this “war on terror” for him to wave the flag at, he would be nothing and would have been a one-termer. Here’s looking forward to January, 2009.

    Comment by Kevin — August 12, 2006 @ 5:54 am - August 12, 2006

  14. Now that Vera can’t smuggle her favorite flask on board the next flight out of town (unless she mixes up a batch of similac & Smirnoff – could this be the new drink of the season?), she has some suggestions for airport security. Apparently, Vera will also have to do without her lotions, potions, and creams (and this girl takes a lot of maintenance to look presentable) thereby putting her in a very pissy mood.

    Since Vera couldn’t possibly pose a threat to anyone other than a rude waiter or a surly sales girl (beware Vera’s ever present hat pins – not lethal but quite painful), and Vera would never be mistaken for an Abdul, Assad, Waheed or Muhammed (apparently the ‘Cody’ and ‘Dakota’ name craze skipped right over the middle east) she thinks Homeland Security should come up with a more efficient way to screen passengers.

    Start with sex: Since men are traditionally the dumber sex, anyone possessing a penis (as original standard equipment; no an after market add on) should be prepared for closer scrutiny and strip searches. As for militant – burqua clad women who profess to be womb warriors – pushing out future jihadist every nine months on behalf of the cause – include them as well. Militant lesbians (lesbolla?) – while scary – can usually be identified by their ever-present baseball caps. Please exclude them.

    Age: Exclude anyone wearing support hose or dentures. Also, if they can identify Vic Damone in a photo, they’re too old to be terrorist. Zero in on the bad boy – skate boarding – white rapper – boxer shorts around their chest crowd – if for no other reason than to show poor fashion sense must pay a public price. As the 19 men from London show (ages 17 to 36 – average age is 24), the prime demographic should be anyone who never knew Paul McCartney played in a band before ‘Wings’. Also, since sneakers and flip flops have become this generation’s only form of footwear, anyone wearing a decent pair of recently polished leather shoes should be excluded.

    Public strip searches of the prime candidates would not only insure that they have been rendered weaponless, but would provide a diversion for passengers waiting in line. Think of it as a pre-flight ‘reality entertainment’ where the passengers get to vote on the best in the crowd – and the airlines could award prizes.

    Vera thinks it’s the least the airlines could do, since they took away her booze.

    Comment by Vera Charles — August 12, 2006 @ 11:23 am - August 12, 2006

  15. It’s an election year. Both sides (GOP and Dems) are twisting themselves into pretzels to show why they should stay in/get power. The GOP wrongly implies that the Dems aren’t interested in national security. A laughable prospect. The Dems imply that the radical Muslims needed a reason to further attack us. Also laughable.

    Dems fully support the war on terror – but haven’t all bought into the (tenuous) belief that Iraq was an important part of the WoT (which is why you don’t hear anyone of note protesting the war in Afghanistan). And it’s pretty obvious that Bush and Co have screwed up the Iraq war by not fully understanding the realities of the region when it was started. (Spare me the ‘he follows the advice of his generals on the ground’ nonesense. That’s demonstrably false.)

    I could why some see Iraq as important (though, I myself view it as misguided policy). I would have much more understanding of pro-Iraq –war folk if they could acknowledge that the war in Iraq is debatable in purpose and success, and was initiated on evidence that was AT BEST shakey and cherry picked– but the GOP has effectively ended any ‘decent’ debate on the issue. From day one, they GOP has painted anyone who disagrees with Iraq (Purpose or Execution) as weak, unpatriotic, lovers of terror, and admirers of Saddam. They have painted anyone who questions the choice of war and and execution of the war in Iraq as being anti-troops and anti-American. Which is disgusting and false. Yet the Vice President continues to make such claims, as does Bush via his spokes people.

    I fully believe that the war in Iraq is hurting our national security by being an effective recruitment tool for al Qaeda, but don’t but that Iraq is the reason they’re looking to attack us (and other countries). They don’t need a reason beyond the fact that they hate everything we stand for.

    Both sides have their lack of decency – which is, of course, unfortunately what politics has become.

    Comment by Henry — August 12, 2006 @ 1:42 pm - August 12, 2006

  16. Why is this post despicable, Sean? All I’m pointing out is that the Democrats used the occasion of a success in the War on Terror to attack the president. And you go on some rant. I never criticized the humanity of Democratic Senators, just their decency. Your post does so amuse me because you attack me without getting to that point of the post (see italicized passage above).

    It’s not that they needed to praise him; it’s that they choose to criticize him. Get it?

    Sean, your point in #12 makes no sense. In the passage quoted, neither Larsen nor Blitzer attacked the president, but merely pointed to specific weaknesses in our anti-terror policies.

    And #13 just makes me smile as it proves me point–for all Kevin does is attack the president in juvenile terms.

    And no, Henry, the GOP has not painted anyone who disagrees with the war on Iraq “as weak, unpatriotic, lovers of terror, and admirers of Saddam,” as you claim. That’s just some leftist bromide with no evidence in fact.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 12, 2006 @ 2:11 pm - August 12, 2006

  17. Kudos all around to the law enforcement agencies who cooperated to nail this gang before it could carry out it plans. I have to wonder though, since we’ve known for about a decade that al Qaeda terrorists among others had the capability of using seemingly innocuous liquids to blow up planes in-flight, why on earth have we been allowed to continue to bring liquids on board flights? Especially after 9/11. It almost seems that when it comes to implementing procedures to thwart terrorist attacks on aviation, we always seem to be a step behind the terrorists – the 9/11 boxcutters, the shoe bomber, and now the group that was planning to use liquid explosives. We always seem to react to the LAST attack rather than try to foresee the NEXT one. Does anyone really need to bring liquids on board planes in their carryon luggage anyway?

    In any event, I guess having 130,000 US troops in Iraq has been good for at least one thing: this time around, there were no Iraqis planning and attempting to carry out this attack in stark contrast to the 9/11 attacks which WERE carried out by Iraqis… oh wait…!

    Comment by Ian — August 12, 2006 @ 2:14 pm - August 12, 2006

  18. Uh huh. Go to the GOP site (Rnc.Org). The first thing you see is a group of Dems labeled as ‘defeat-ocrats weak and wrong’.

    Of course, Bush and others are more subtle.

    September 2004

    You can embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message. You can dispirit the Iraqi people by sending mixed messages. You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages

    Shorter: Questioning the Iraq war supports the enemy and harms our troops.

    Lets look more recently

    When our soldiers hear politicians in Washington question the mission they are risking their lives to accomplish, it hurts their morale. In a time of war, we have a responsibility to show that whatever our political differences at home, our nation is united and determined to prevail. And we have a responsibility to our men and women in uniform — who deserve to know that once our politicians vote to send them into harm’s way, our support will be with them in good days and in bad days — and we will settle for nothing less than complete victory.

    We also have an opportunity this year to show the Iraqi people what responsible debate in a democracy looks like. In a free society, there is only one check on political speech — and that’s the judgment of the people. So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy — not comfort to our adversaries.

    Shorter: Questioning the war in Iraq hurts troop, is disloyal, unpatriotic, and aids the enemy.

    I didn’t bother linking to any of the World Net Daily or Free republic articles who do use words like unpatriotic and pro-saddam for those who oppose the war.

    Comment by Henry — August 12, 2006 @ 4:07 pm - August 12, 2006

  19. As usual , the gay left has proven itself to be useful idiots for the american radical left and the radical islam crowd. The gay left rants and calls the President names and makes alot of useless noise and tries its best to divide this country when we are all potnetial terrorist victums. And this is all done for POLITICS ! The gay left is out of power and BUsh is considerd more than enemy than terror groups that consider gay life style as vile and puinishable by death The foolish gay left would rather attack and impeach the President who is trying to defend them than facling the fact the are aiding anf abating the evil trying to kill us all. The gay left is a very twisted and mentally troubled crowd !

    Comment by rob — August 12, 2006 @ 4:19 pm - August 12, 2006

  20. 19 The foolish gay left would rather attack and impeach the President who is trying to defend them than facling the fact the are aiding anf abating the evil trying to kill us all.

    Rob helps make my point…

    Comment by Henry — August 12, 2006 @ 4:21 pm - August 12, 2006

  21. 12: Well, it’s like I’ve always said: If, as Condi Rice says, we couldn’t have imagined this, then it’s time to get people in our government who are smarter and have a better imagination.

    Truth is: People know about these things, especially security experts; they’re trained to find the worst possible scenarios. As we know a smiliar plot was considered and thwarted by terrorists over 10 years ago. Problem is, when it comes to security, we won’t implement measures because it would be bad for business (ie cost someone money). Let’s face it; security of citizens always takes a back seat to capitalism. It’s not conservative or liberal, it’s a fact of living in a nation that is really built on consumersim.

    There are still all kinds of scenarios out there that these nuts will contemplate and probably already have. Ever heard of a mule? It’s a person smuggles drugs in their body by swallowing them in balloons and then getting them out (ick) after they arrive at their destination. I expect that’s going to be the next step with these evil slimebags; finding some kind of way to ingest chemical components in their bodies and have them mix / activate after a certain time. When someone comes to a point where they have made the decision to die and take as many people with them as possible, they will think of any/do anything they can to accomplish this goal.

    Comment by Kevin — August 12, 2006 @ 5:07 pm - August 12, 2006

  22. 14: Not taking away your booze dear – now you can pay $20 for a tiny cocktail when you get on board. Just shows another way that people get rich because of the war on terror. god bless america. By the way, wasn’t the whole mixing of certain chemicals the basis of how the Joker killed people in the 1989 version of Batman?

    Comment by Kevin — August 12, 2006 @ 5:09 pm - August 12, 2006

  23. As usual Bush haters and gay left call the Prez him an idiot or an evil genius trying to blow us all up. The Lib MSM which is the real opposition party now facing Bush and Republicanas it tries its hardest to undermine every foreign and domestic policy for politcal reasons. For example, CBS drags an old Lefty like M Wallace out of retirement to interview the Iranian Radical Leader who is a Jewish hater and GAY killer ( hanging anyone). Mike gushes over him like a teen in love and Mike / CBS does it best to portray Bush as the crazy war monger and the crazy leader as a nice guy . This is real sick , Mike’s parents were Jewish emigrants from eastern europe who changed there last name. Just another Lefty who hates Bush and Repubs more than some crazy radical who would exterminate him and his family and drop a nuclear device on LA in heart beat.

    Comment by rob — August 12, 2006 @ 5:21 pm - August 12, 2006

  24. #21: “As we know a smiliar plot was considered and thwarted”

    While the main plan was thwarted, a successful test run by the terrorists was conducted on a Philippines 747 in 1994. Although the liquid bomb (in a contact lens solution bottle) was much smaller than what was planned for the main attack, it still killed one person and the plane had to make an emergency landing. So we’ve known that this mode of attack could be used and Homeland Security STILL did nothing until this latest plot?

    Comment by Ian — August 12, 2006 @ 5:59 pm - August 12, 2006

  25. Ian, unless, I’m missing something no such plots — to blow up US-bound airliners — have succeeded.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 12, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - August 12, 2006

  26. #24 – ianrajsybil, you of all people should know that to keep the enemy in the dark, you show as little of your hand as possible. Who is to say that DHS was not monitoring this in the USA prior to the arrests in Britain?

    But then again, that would just prove that everyone else is smarter than you, and that you can’t stand that type of embarrassment.

    Try again.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 12, 2006 @ 6:50 pm - August 12, 2006

  27. Vera Charles for Secretary of Homeland Security!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 12, 2006 @ 6:51 pm - August 12, 2006

  28. “Sean, your point in #12 makes no sense. In the passage quoted, neither Larsen nor Blitzer attacked the president, but merely pointed to specific weaknesses in our anti-terror policies.”

    And whose policies are they? When you’re done with gymnastics, there’s a jump rope.

    Comment by jimmy — August 12, 2006 @ 7:39 pm - August 12, 2006

  29. See here for your chances of dying from a terrorist attack.

    And to #22, if Kevin won’t buy you a drink Vera, I’ll be happy to buy you one (at any price).

    Comment by John in IL — August 12, 2006 @ 10:02 pm - August 12, 2006

  30. #25: The point I’m trying to make Dan is that at least since 9/11, we should not have allowed passengers to bring liquids onto commercial planes. We’ve known for 12 years that these terrorists were interested in liquid explosives and indeed had tested them up to and including successfully detonating one in a jumbo jet. Information on creating these liquid explosives from simple readily available and innocuous compounds has been on the Internet for years. Like I said before, we always seem to react and institute change based on the last successful or attempted attack. Frankly, I think they should ban carry-on bags and just allow a briefcase and a purse and subject electronic items to an explosive sniffer test. In fact perhaps all passengers should also have to pass through one of the “sniffer” systems. It might cost a couple of billion to get effective systems in place but frankly I’d rather see money spent on that than thrown into Iraq. BTW, apparently the Bush administration has been trying to cut funding for new explosive detection technology. What’s up with that?

    Comment by Ian — August 12, 2006 @ 10:18 pm - August 12, 2006

  31. #30

    Frankly, I think they should ban carry-on bags and just allow a briefcase and a purse

    Would my murse be exempt?

    It might cost a couple of billion to get effective systems in place but frankly I’d rather see money spent on that than thrown into Iraq.

    If you are worried about loss of life , throw that 2 billion into something that will actually reduce deaths in America. Spend a couple of billion on banning swimming pools.

    Comment by John in IL — August 12, 2006 @ 10:39 pm - August 12, 2006

  32. You know you can’t argue with some of our critics (and other Bush-haters) as they will never acknowledge any of the president’s accomplishments — and use anything they can (even his successes) to attack that good, but flawed man.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 13, 2006 @ 1:28 am - August 13, 2006

  33. Vera in #14: I’ve been arguing for years (not here, but elsewhere, including with one of my Senators) that airport security has been mismanaged since it was implemented. American citizens who fly with some regularity and who can convince the government they aren’t terrorists ought to be given special photo IDs that give them check-in priority, without having to go through time-consuming body and luggage searches, etc.

    I’m headed to Germany tomorrow to watch final assembly of a new car and am absolutely dreading the trip. Plans were made before the latest terrorism plot and (due to business and visiting friends) I have to change planes in Chicago, New York and London. Hours will needlessly be wasted going through every airport going over and coming back.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — August 13, 2006 @ 1:53 am - August 13, 2006

  34. #25 GayPatriotWest — August 12, 2006 @ 6:29 pm – August 12, 2006

    … unless, I’m missing something no such plots — to blow up US-bound airliners — have succeeded.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “no such plots” but you might want to do a bit of research. I know that research is anathema to left coasters, but, what the heck. Pan Am Flight 103, outbound from London Heathrow towards NYC JFK, was blown up over Lockerbie Scotland. (Those great circle routes can be such a pain–flying north to go to a southerly destination.) That was in 1988, and helped thrust the dagger into Pan Am’s impending bankruptcy–to mix a metaphor.

    Comment by raj — August 13, 2006 @ 7:12 am - August 13, 2006

  35. #32 GayPatriotWest — August 13, 2006 @ 1:28 am – August 13, 2006

    You know you can’t argue with some of our critics (and other Bush-haters) as they will never acknowledge any of the president’s accomplishments — and use anything they can (even his successes) to attack that good, but flawed man.

    I’ll let you write the treatise on “his successes,” but I’ll merely note the old saying that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. On the other hand, I’ll also note that I doubt very seriously that either he or his handlers have good intentions.

    Comment by raj — August 13, 2006 @ 7:13 am - August 13, 2006

  36. #33 Trace Phelps — August 13, 2006 @ 1:53 am – August 13, 2006

    I’m headed to Germany tomorrow to watch final assembly of a new car and am absolutely dreading the trip.

    We’re going Boston->Munich later this afternoon, and the only portion of the trip that we are dreading is the ridiculous “security” check at the Boston airport. The “security” check doesn’t do anything regarding security. More than a few of the TSA officials and, particularly, the minions, will, in a moment of candor, admit as much. They have done so to us. But, it provides a patina of security for the sheeple, and that’s all that matters–right?

    Actually, the only useful incident of security we noticed was at an airport in Europe–Munich, Frankfort, Zuerich, I don’t remember which. They had a miss-match of the number of passengers on board and the number of passengers who had checked luggage. They required everyone to get off the plane, and took out all the luggage and placed it on the tarmac. The passengers were required to identify their luggage. The identified luggage was loaded onto the plane, and the rest was left behind. So nobody could check luggage for a flight that they weren’t a passenger on. That would clearly reduce the likelihood that someone would stow luggage on board a plane, that contained an explosive device. Eliminate the likelihood? No, but reduce it.

    Comment by raj — August 13, 2006 @ 7:29 am - August 13, 2006

  37. #30 Ian — August 12, 2006 @ 10:18 pm – August 12, 2006

    It would be simpler just to shackle everyone to his/her seat just prior to take-off and not unshackle them until the plane lands.

    At some point, this stuff gets to be ridiculous. It was reported yesterday by CNN that the Phoenix airport was donating “contraband” to homeless operations. If they really believed that the bottles of water, for example, that they had confiscated had been explosive material, it is doubtful that they would have donated them to homeless operations. Unless, of course, they wanted to get rid of the homeless.

    Comment by raj — August 13, 2006 @ 7:38 am - August 13, 2006

  38. #37: “It would be simpler just to shackle everyone to his/her seat just prior to take-off and not unshackle them until the plane lands.”

    Even that wouldn’t necessarily work. As long as the bomber had access to his under the seat carryon, he could set off a bomb inside it. You can easily find recipes for the peroxide based explosives on the internet – only when you start mixing the precursor materials do the mixtures become highly unstable and dangerous. However that matters not to the bomber about to commit suicide. The mixing of the separate materials BTW could be accomplished within a single container – no need to look like a chemist in a lab. I still don’t think there is any need for folks to carry liquids (apart from the odd prescription drug) onto an airplane.

    Comment by Ian — August 13, 2006 @ 12:20 pm - August 13, 2006

  39. Raj, your comment #35 says all that needs to be said about your attitude (and that of other Bush-haters) toward the president. That you doubt his good intentions.

    It shows the degree of your hatred of this good, but flawed, man. And your inability to consider seriously the record of his Administration.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 13, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - August 13, 2006

  40. So….someone tell me:

    Does Haliburton have its finger in the manufacturing of liquids, toothpaste, lotions, etc…..???? That would explain alot. 🙂

    monty

    Comment by monty — August 13, 2006 @ 4:03 pm - August 13, 2006

  41. #39. Isn’t it YOUR post that signals your distrust of any members of Congress with a D after their name? You make out that their criticisms are really unhinged, obsessive hatreds–without a bit of evidence. Nice conjectures, but nothing to back it up. Politics is politics and the Democrats in Congress are right to critique a president if the criticism stands. But you don’t deal with the criticisms–you just ascribe personality characteristics to those doing the criticism. What kind of Congress are you looking for? One that rolls over for the White House? That ain’t America, honey.

    First, activist judges. Second, Congress members that won’t worrship the president. What are you looking for? A totalitarian regime?

    Comment by little italy — August 13, 2006 @ 6:39 pm - August 13, 2006

  42. Little Italy, thank you for making me laugh. My post makes no such claims about Democrats, merely notes how certain leading Democrats will use anything, even the Administration’s successes to criticize the president.

    I did provide my evidence, but did not make the sweeping generalizations you claim I made. Simply put, I do not distrust any member of Congress merely because he (or she) has a D after his (or her) name. And identify the specific quotes which attracted my attention — and inspired this post.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 14, 2006 @ 4:04 am - August 14, 2006

  43. It appears Raj has gone from “Self-Proclaimed Expert In All Things German” to “Omnipotent Mindreader” in his comments (#35).

    We should all be so grateful that His Eminence graces us by his intellect and supernatural powers each day.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — August 14, 2006 @ 12:11 pm - August 14, 2006

  44. 43. Wouldn’t the mindreader be GPW? He’s the one that knows hearts and intentions and sees deep into people’s souls to detect the unhinged anger they have for others. He is the sage.

    Comment by sean — August 14, 2006 @ 10:11 pm - August 14, 2006

  45. A little off topic but let me quote John Kerry:

    [The war on Terror is] primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.”
    Just like the Brits did
    Isn’t it nice that at least Blair is following his advice…

    Comment by keogh — August 15, 2006 @ 12:42 am - August 15, 2006

  46. #39 GayPatriotWest — August 13, 2006 @ 3:51 pm – August 13, 2006

    It shows the degree of your hatred of this good, but flawed, man. And your inability to consider seriously the record of his Administration.

    “Contempt” would be a better word than “hatred,” but, as far as I can tell, he has been nothing but a cheerleader most of his life. As far as I’m concerned, Bush II is the Cheerleader In Chief.

    Your comment re “And your inability to consider seriously the record of his Administration,” sorry, I have “considered seriously the record of his Administration” and I find it sorely lacking. As should be clear from my comments on this website. If you want to engage me in comments on other subjects, please feel free.

    Maybe you could persuade me otherwise, but I doubt it. I, unlike those who reside out there in LaLaLand, somewhere over the rainbow, am interested in some modicum of reality, that that is not what I get out of Bush and his puppet masters.

    One thing that you and others around you here seem to want to ignore is that this is not a “Bush vs. anti-Bush” issue. It is a “what is the best policy for the US issue.” I recognize that, since you are a member of the Ohio Republican party apparatchicks–most of whom are anti-gay, by the way–you wish to ignore that fact.

    So, if you want to. Feel free. Go boom on Iran. That’s what you really want to do now, right? It’s largely irrelevant to me. What I can’t figure out, though, is why you all, if you are so high and mighty in your 82 Keyboard Brigade paraphernalia, don’t voluteer for the impending war on Iran. You certainly didn’t do so regarding the war on Iraq. Maybe you can enlighten me as to why you don’t, but I doubt it. It’s so easy to go boom, when you aren’t involved in the booming and you aren’t the target.

    Comment by raj — August 15, 2006 @ 12:51 am - August 15, 2006

  47. Raj, once again, you get the facts wrong. I’m not a member of the Ohio Republican party-apparatchiks and have not participated in Ohio GOP politics in over sixteen years.

    And since this is my web-site, it’s not you who get to pick the topics. Since you read our blog, you must find it interesting. You’re the one who chooses to comment her, so, please take note of our posts, take the time to understand our arguments and take issue with our points. But, you have made it clear, particularly with that last comment that you’re not interesting in engaging us on our ideas, but baiting us on your bête noires.

    And Keogh, looks like the Brits had some cooperation from the Americans. And the president always said that was one part of the War on Terror.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 15, 2006 @ 3:18 am - August 15, 2006

  48. One thing that you and others around you here seem to want to ignore is that this is not a “Bush vs. anti-Bush” issue. It is a “what is the best policy for the US issue.”

    It is.

    And you always choose what is worst for the United States.

    So, if you want to. Feel free. Go boom on Iran. That’s what you really want to do now, right? It’s largely irrelevant to me. What I can’t figure out, though, is why you all, if you are so high and mighty in your 82 Keyboard Brigade paraphernalia, don’t voluteer for the impending war on Iran. You certainly didn’t do so regarding the war on Iraq. Maybe you can enlighten me as to why you don’t, but I doubt it. It’s so easy to go boom, when you aren’t involved in the booming and you aren’t the target.

    Mainly because we don’t think Iran should be able to do directly what they’ve been using Hizbollah to do.

    Also because we don’t believe in waiting for a country that has said openly that they will use a nuclear bomb to erase Israel from the map the minute that they get it to get one.

    Granted, we know that Europeans are more concerned with exporting cheap oil from Syria and Iran than they are genocide of Jews; it’s really no different than what they and you turned a blind eye to during the 1930s and 1940s.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 15, 2006 @ 12:18 pm - August 15, 2006

  49. I’m surprised this wasn’t addressed in the original post or any of the comments…
    I heard yesterday (yes, from the msm–take it with a grain of salt), that at least one of the suspected bomber/terrorists was released due to lack of evidence (i.e. fuses, plane tickets, etc.), and that still more may be released for the same reason … Ya think this might be because the bush adm. put so much pressure on the British to make the surprise raid/arrest too EARLY, before the investigation was fully completed, and before they had enough evidence to convict?? What good does a thwarted plot do if the terrorists who planned it are released and never convicted due to a lack of evidence. I loath the incompetence and arrogance of this administration, and I hope they all get thrown out on their asses in ’08.

    Comment by ndtovent — August 15, 2006 @ 1:10 pm - August 15, 2006

  50. ndtovent writes: “I loath the incompetence and arrogance of this administration, and I hope they all get thrown out on their asses in ‘08.”

    Gheez, nd, we couldn’t have guessed those are your sentiments.

    You keep that “hope” alive, nd; it’s all your side has… hope. And this time it isn’t a trailer park in Arkansas.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 15, 2006 @ 1:48 pm - August 15, 2006

  51. Ya think this might be because the bush adm. put so much pressure on the British to make the surprise raid/arrest too EARLY, before the investigation was fully completed, and before they had enough evidence to convict??

    I love how the moonbat mind and consciousness works.

    First the Bush administration was vilified by leftists and Democrats for supposedly not announcing the plot and taking public security measures the first minute they heard about it — because doing so “allowed the plot to go forward” and “created more danger for passengers”, even though it would have theoretically allowed more evidence and information to be accumulated.

    Now they’re being vilified for announcing it and taking measures too early — because it “prevented us from gathering more evidence and information”, even though it would have created more danger for passengers.

    The only consistent refrain in this whole thing, as GPW nicely points out in the post, is that the leftists and Democrats will criticize, smear, and blame the Bush administration regardless of what they do and when they do it — even if they do so in a completely contradictory fashion, criticizing them one minute and demanding that what they criticized be done the next.

    And, overriding all of this, is the simple fact that all of the leftists here would have been the first people screaming that Bush didn’t do enough if the plot had actually gone through — regardless of the fact that they are the main ones trying to destroy the tracking and intercept processes that allowed it to be detected, contained, and destroyed in the first place.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 15, 2006 @ 3:49 pm - August 15, 2006

  52. NDXXX, the Left is all about context.

    Remember the proposed new screening efforts two years ago for backpacks on subway riders in NYC? Well, the Left and MSM had a riot with that one suggesting that it was silly, impractical, why would the Homeland Security Nazis even need to check backpacks? Then London happened and the MSM got REAL quiet.

    Imagine for a second if the BritishAirlinerTerrorPlot hadn’t been announced and the Homeland Security folks put into place a new regulation stopping the carry-on of liquids… the MSM and Left and ACLU would have had a screaming fit about it.

    What it comes down to is what someone has mentioned here and elsewhere –the Left and Democrats only seem to be “in it” when there’s some play to injure Bush, Homeland security, the WOT or law enforcement. I swear that from the tone of some of that dribble on the Left these days, Ollie Stone and Jon Stewart are writing the talking points for the Left.

    Good points in #51.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 15, 2006 @ 4:32 pm - August 15, 2006

  53. And just as an FYI – a federal court in NY ruled that it IS allowable to search backpacks in subway areas. Thank God there’s someone out there who is not afraid of the ACLU!

    Wonder how long the ACLU would last if we transplanted them to, I don’t know, Tehran or Beirut. Maybe we could send Mike Wallace out there as well for a permanent retirement. He could be the Iranian president’s personal secretary…

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 15, 2006 @ 4:39 pm - August 15, 2006

  54. #51 –

    Today’s far Left are a bunch of screaming, whining, petulant children past their bedtimes. That’s all there is to it. They would be hilarious, if they weren’t dangerous and ugly.

    They still pretend to themselves that they have noble aspirations or make sense; but so do fascists, communists and terrorists (all of whom hypnotize the Left).

    Comment by Calarato — August 15, 2006 @ 4:42 pm - August 15, 2006

  55. #54 – Right on, Cal. Unfortunately, some things do not change over time.

    I just finished reading an old autobiography (circa 1951) from my dad’s library about Elizabeth Bentley, one of the more infamous Red spies of the 1940s who went double-agent and collaborated with the FBI to bring down the Russian Secret Police in the USA.

    It is downright scary how she described the “useful idiots” of the liberal/progressive/communist movement of the 1930s and 1940s and how she and other KGB agents manipulated them to achieve a spy apparatus all the way up to the White House and Pentagon. The same things could be said for the jihad apologists on the Left today.

    This book may be out of print, but the title is “Out of Bondage.” (And NO, she was not into lesbian S&M.) I highly recommend it.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 15, 2006 @ 5:20 pm - August 15, 2006

  56. #55 – A propos of that…

    There is a guy, Kevin Barrett, who teaches at University of Wisconsin, who I was just now listening to on the Michael Medved show.

    Barrett maintains, with a straight face, that there have been NO reliable or provable Muslim cleric-endorsed killings in the name of Islam in the last 5 years, and that to suggest otherwise is absurd.

    9-11 “was an inside job, as 90% of the world’s Muslims know”. All those beheading videos? Created by CIA as psy ops. Theo van Gogh’s murder? Well, Medved didn’t ask Barrett about that; he asked Barrett about another killing instead, whose victim’s name I can’t remember. But yeah – Barrett denied any Muslim inspiration or responsibility.

    What would be hilarious, if it weren’t dangerous and ugly, is that Barrett’s views of course go against overwhelming evidence that have been built up by tens of thousands of first-hand experiences over a period of years… making them clinicially insane and empty of their own (valid) evidence… yet, despite the lack of valid evidence, Barrett is the Left’s new darling and to be protected under “academic freedom”.

    I thought “academic freedom” was supposed to be protected in pursuit of, um, well, the truth. (Not clinical psychosis.)

    By the way – Barrett touts himself as a Muslim, outraged by our insults to his religion, blah blah blah. And, his accent is quite thoroughly “white”, American-liberal, maybe sort of East coast-ish. So I expect he is most likely, drumroll, an academic-Left convert to Islam.

    And yes, his tone of voice was pretty distinctly whining/petulant.

    Comment by Calarato — August 15, 2006 @ 6:06 pm - August 15, 2006

  57. Calarato, could it have been raj/Ian? The attitude of the debate –state a ridculous premise that flies in the face of all known reality and then quickly claim that anyone to doubt the “fact” would be absurd.

    Sounds like we found raj/Ian outside of cyberspace.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 16, 2006 @ 8:16 am - August 16, 2006

  58. And ironically, it’s our good friend George Soros who claimed in a WSJ piece this past week that the “vigilance of British Intelligence” prevented the alleged airliner terror attack.

    He neglected to mention that the British reported that both American and Pakistani Intelligence also worked on the case. And, meanwhile, Soros opposes the U.S. using the same surveillance tools the British claim were critical to uncovering the plot.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — August 17, 2006 @ 12:27 pm - August 17, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.