A Bogus New 9-11

[jd]

I think after the November elections - possibly regardless of the
outcome given the anti-Bush sentiment among even conservatives of late
- we're going to see some changes, hopefully some action.  I mean,
it's an election year here people, nothing serious is going to get
done until they all feel safe.

On 8/16/06, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> This story is starting to grow legs in the top-level political
> blogoshere.  It just might make it to the Big Time, especially if the
> "terrorist" are eventually not charged (although after those 28 days,
> public attention will be elsewhere).
>
> Blogoshere:
>
> http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html
>
> The Alleged UK Terror Plot
>
> "So far, no one has been charged in the alleged terror plot to blow up
> several airplanes across the Atlantic. No evidence has been produced
> supporting the contention that such a plot was indeed imminent.
> Forgive me if my skepticism just ratcheted up a little notch. Under a
> law that the Tories helped weaken, the suspects can be held without
> charges for up to 28 days. Those days are ticking by. Remember: the
> British authorities had all these people under surveillance; they did
> not want to act last week; there was no imminent threat of anything
> but a possible "dummy-run."  Bush and Blair discussed whether to throw
> Britain's airports into chaos over the weekend before the crackdown
> occurred.
>
>
> http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009440.php
>
> Over the last few years, there have been several occasions when -- for
> all my skepticism about the Bush administration's politicization of
> terror alerts -- I've been surprised at how my skepticism, even
> cynicism, about terror alerts just can't keep pace with the
> administration's bad faith.
>
> I'm not ready to say the London bomb plot is another bamboozlement. It
> at least seems clear the Brits were involved in a serious
> investigation. But even this case now seems to be turning out to be
> less than met the eye. And there are real grounds to question whether
> Bush and Blair jumped the gun for reasons other than
> counter-terrorism. We'll see.
>
>
> On 8/16/06, Carvill John <johncarvill at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Whether this makes much of a splash in the mainstream media naturally depends on how events unfold, particularly with regard to when/if the arrested suspects are charged. There is understandable scepticism of course.
>