I think I was one of the first mainstream bloggers to openly wonder this week whether there might be an al-Qaeda/Islamic terror connection to the California brushfire disaster.
Andrew Sullivan is outraged that FOX News’ morning program brought the topic up at all. He calls it “ImaginationLand.”
If I recall, the 9/11 Commission Report stated that all parts of the Federal Government failed in their “imagination” about what al-Qaeda was capable of and willing to do. I guess Andrew will have to completely renounce the 9/11 Commission findings now since the winds are blowing against imagination today?!?
However, CNN has no problem casting blame immediately on American youth, greedy homeowners or even a firefighter.
From CNN.com Main Page – 3:50PM – October 26, 2007…From lead paragraph into the main story at the time:
“Arson investigators get on their hands and knees to track how and where suspicious fires began. Then they have to find the fire-starter, who could be a flame-obsessed kid, a property owner seeking an insurance payout — or even a firefighter looking for glory.”
So even entertaining the thought of a possible terror connection is off-limits in our post-9/11 World, but CNN can engage in broadly brainstorming about which Californian may have started the blaze.
How very typical of Andrew & CNN.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (from GPW): It’s uncanny sometimes how, without contacting one another, Bruce and I often have similar thoughts, or, in this case, “speculations,” on certain issue. I put the word, “speculations” in quote for two reasons, first, because it sounds awkward in the plural and second, because it is, I believe, the key word in his initial post on the topic. And note how he modifies the word “speculation” with the adjective, “COMPLETE,” which he had put in all caps. I might have called it an interesting speculation. And Bruce accents the importance of that word by using a form of it in the title to this post.
Bruce, gets it exactly right here. As long as we’re making clear that it’s speculation at this point, it is an interesting angle on the disaster and a necessary perspective to have, given our failure of imagination prior to 9/11 and the persistence of the terrorist threat. Bin Laden and his ilk have made clear that they’d like to attack us again.
Given all that, it’s amazing that others are making other speculations, but ignoring the terrorist one — or daring to fault those of who do wonder if there was terrorist involvement. As if history for them began on September 12, 2001.
and here we have Randi with own theory
Didnt’ we read somewhere that the FBI had a guy in Arizona that mentioned wildfire arson as a possible tactic?
Entertaining this idea is not paranoid, it’s responsible.
We’ve lost so many acres here in AZ on bad years, and it would be an amazingly easy thing for a terrorist to pull off. Impossible to stop if the person was willing to take any risks at all, and one heck of a lot easier to sell than blowing yourself up.
Off-Topic-But-Related: Bill Clinton finally shows an ounce of patriotism and moral fibre, however self-defensive or self-interested it may ultimately be, in telling some 9-11 Troofers where they can get off.
Crude has hit $92.00 a barrel. Hugo Chavez has said he wants minimum price to be $100.00 a barrel. All of this money will go to finance terrorism around the world. I would not be at all surprised if the arson was related to Al Qaeda. I have suggested, from time to time, that we use public transportation and car pool a couple of times a week for at least a month. In the north and east turn down the thermostat to 60 when nobody is home and no more than 70 when at home saving on home heating fuel. If we can push the price of crude down, thatñs less money going to the terrorists.
#4
Although, that’s less money going to Canada, Mexico, Kuwait, Algeria, Nigeria, Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia etc. There’s no way to know where the gas you use came from.
Not to mention the money that the American store owners lose out on. Sure they make more money from C-store goods, but if you don’t stop in for gas, you’re less likely to get that Slurpee or Subway.
Which is partialy why gas boycotts don’t work.
TGC, gas boyaotts can work if nation pulls together. Ecuador is in the sphere of influence of Hugo Chavez. President Correa is also an anti-American populist, so if we hurt his economy, there will be a coup. The last time I was in Colombia I never saw an oil well. If memory serves me neither Brazil, Colombia nor Ecuador are members of OPEC. Venezuela, si´. The less money that goes to nations that spawn terror the safer we will be, whether it is attack on buildings, ships , or fires that destroy our homes.
As a conservative I would think we would be more proactive in doing whaever is necessary to bring down the cost of goods, especially as it relates to helping to reduce financing our enemies.
Pamela, is it true that on Halloween if you look into a mirror and say ‘Bloody Mary’ 14 times, Randi Rhodes appears?
The last time I was in Colombia I never saw an oil well.
The last time I was in Texas, I never saw an oil well. Ditto Oklahoma. Nor any time I went to the Gulf of Mexico. Try Googling Ecopetrol sometime. Colombia is the eleventh largest exporter of oil to the US providing 126,000 bbls/day.
If memory serves me neither Brazil, Colombia nor Ecuador are members of OPEC.
Nor are they listed as state sponsors of terrorists.
As a conservative I would think we would be more proactive in doing whaever is necessary to bring down the cost of goods, especially as it relates to helping to reduce financing our enemies.
Whatever is necessary? No. I would never be “more proactive” for crippling economies just to thumb my nose at Islamo-fascists. You’re proposing hurting waaaaay too many people along the way.
Ecopetrol was founded in 1951. they were an entity that was non productive until they, in a joint venture with Occidental Petroleum, found a field. It wasn´t until 1986 they became an exporter of petroleum. That was 10 years after I was there visiting various parts and staying at the hotel of my then ¨ amante´s¨maternal grandmother the cousin of former French P.M. Georges Pompidou. We are forttunate that President Uribe governs from the right and is a friend of the U.S.
Ecuador will be a home to terrorists just as Venezuela is about to become. President Correa will go to Tehran to forge alliances with Iran just as Chavez, Ortega, and Morales have done. Last year I saw oil wells alive and pumping in Texas and this past spring in L.A. and Long Beach.
Who will we hurt by forcing down the price of crude? Certainly not the man in streets of the middle east and Venezuela. It´s the governments. A reduction won´t hut Irani´s anymore than they already are. It´s the islamofascists that will be hurt. And Chavez uses his money to finance campaigns of his ilk. I expect to see his petro dollars coming to El Salvador to finance the FMLN in next years election. Before Chavez the poverty rate in Venezuela was 25% or 30% now its about 75%. More than double. The communists like poor people so much they make more of them. So TGC hold on to your gay gold, you might need it to pay taxes if Charlie Rangel has his way.
You left out the misrepresentations FOX made about the memos’ date. Once again, GPW, this site has painted a picture with a detail or two (no, well, one detail actually) and ignored the rest:
Fox presented multiple bits of information which painted a picture with key details: detainee, past plot, FBI memos, and multiple references to all of the above, all the while changing the dates (accidental, I’m sure). All of that compares, in your selective quoting, to ONE throw-away line about theoretical firebugs and insurance defrauders.
[ Do you even read our posts or do you just spew out bile any time you find a post which is not to your liking? The issue here is not the details, but the validity of wondering whether or not terrorists were behind the arson. All we did was speculate as the title clearly indicates–and about which I wrote extensively in my update. We didn’t offer any conclusions about the arsonist, but said merely that investigators should consider the possibility. And such considering would mean dismissing the speculation should more facts come in about the actual arsonist. Once again, given your difficulty reading, I’ll repeat what we’ve been saying. We never said it was terrorism, but speculated that it could be. Not sure how that leads to us painting an inaccurate picture. This is not a post purporting to be news, but one offering food for thought. –Dan]
You’re comparing a wagonload of apples to one orange.