Let me tell you. If George Bush told Ehud Olmert that the US was going to cut off funding to Israel, and discontinue re-stocking parts for military equipment if Olmert went after the Hezbollah kidnappers, we wouldn't be watching bombings in Lebanon today.
Now we know that NYC police have known about the liquid bomb terrorist plot for months. It is just too coincidental that Joe Lieberman loses on Tuesday, Tony Snow suggests that Democrats are getting weaker on terrorism on Wednesday, and there is a huge bust with massively intrusive new security measures and red alert status on Thursday. Now we know that Tony Snow knew the bust was coming down when he framed the Lieberman loss as a softening in the Democratic position on terrorism, as the full orchestra of the right wing echo chamber blasted.
Now, the question is, was the bust put in motion as an anti-terrorism move or an asymmetrical political warfare move-- capturing the mainstream media's attention and loyal stenographic coverage of the UK bust. On the left, on the progressive alternative media, there are plenty of people who are suggesting that this bust is very suspicious. In England, young Muslim men are shown on CNN wondering about the bona fides of this bust.
The Lieberman defeat is a clear, CLEAR message that the war and a relationship with Bush was deadly for Lieberman. The republican echo chamber tried for a day to put a positive spin on what is terrible news for the right wing... and it was so pathetic, so clearly unsuccessful....
Pull something else out of the magic hat.
It's nice to be in command of the most powerful, wealthy country on earth. You can make almost anything happen, or better, seem to happen.
So, voila, we have a big, hyper media event big, humungous terrorist bust. Now, these things don't just happen. They take international, intergovernmental agency cooperation, deep digging, months, or years of cooperative work. The Pakistani connection could mean that clues came from the computers of terrorists captured years ago. The fact that undercover agents were involved tells us that there was a lot of humint (human intelligence) invested in this-- something that is very rare when it comes to Islamist terrorists.
So, why take it public? Why divulge the names of 19 of the accused "terrorists?" This goes totally against all the rules of espionage and intelligence operations. It surely blew the covers of the undercover agents, probably among those 19 named "terrorists" in an effort to camouflage their identities.
Why? Because it's a a great media ploy, a great way to embellish the message that was blasted on Wednesday by the republican echo chamber, that Democrats are weak on terror. But there's a difference. The latest polls show that the public sees the DEMOCRATS as better on terror. So here is woofie the poodle Blair, Bush's anti-terrorism buddy busting a bunch of terrorists with soda and shampoo bottles and tooth paste tubes. And here in the US, a batch of Republican governors (CA, FL, MA) activate their national guard troops and send them into their airports carrying automatic weapons. Build that fear. Disrupt life as usual. Remind Americans that they are being protected by Republicans from Terrorists. Or is that the republicans are being protected by the terrorists, or the story about terrorists.
Go ahead. Call me a wacko conspiracy theorist. But then explain how making an operation like this so visibly public makes sense in any way other than as a media ploy.
If you even entertain the possiblity that this cynical, chronically dishonest administration would use every trick in the dirty tricks book to influence voter opinion, then it's helpful to think ahead. What do they control that they can manipulate to produce news that they think will help them?