When I first heard about the arrests of the group planning to blow up a plane in London I had two thoughts. Both conflicted with each other. My first thought was “Gee, how convienent to have this happen so soon after Lieberman lost his primary. It probably has no more substance than the Miami wannabes who were provided what little they had by a undercover agent.” My second thought was “But this was a British plot foiled by the British. Surely they wouldn’t arrest a bunch of nobodies.”
I pushed the first thought aside because I had more faith in the British system then I had in ours. We’ve made way too much fuss over arrests that turned out to have napped people who were far from likely to ever be able to carry anything out.
Friday, however, a third thought came to my head. “It wouldn’t be the first time that the US forced the Brits to make an arrest early to suit US political needs.”
Turns out that third thought was right.
Contrary to the first reports about the recent arrests in Great Britain, the group was not ready to go forth with their attack. According to a senior British official, most of the suspects had yet to purchase plane tickets. This official also told NBC News that the British police were pressured into make arrests at least a week ahead of time by American officials.
One of the U.K. based suspects was ready to perform a “dry run.” British authorities were planning on letting him do his “dry run” before making further arrests. If this had been allowed to happen, by the way, any connections to this organization that lived in the United States could have been identified. However, the United States wouldn’t allow the dry run to happen.
Of course, a White House aide is saying that there was never any disagreement between the British and the United States on when the members of this group should be arrested. Not all U.S. officials agree with the White House aide.
Whether the United States forced the arrests to be done earlier because they were “edgier” as some analysts suggest or to once again bring the spector of terrorism to the forefront after a political loss is up for debate. You’re welcome to chose whichever side that you wish. I know that I’m going with the second reason. Too many times this administration has raised terror alert levels on information about a “potential” threat within a day of a political loss. Since they can no longer go with the nebulous “reports of a potential threat” they now go for arrests of groups that are less than threat worthy. I believe that the United States government pressured the British into making the arrests early as a result of Lieberman’s loss.
Personally, I feel that the British should have been allowed to monitor the “dry run” planned by one of the group’s members. They could have coordinated with United States authorities to follow the man after he landed in the U.S. to see who his connection were in this country. Now we don’t know who he might have been contacting so we don’t know if he would have meet with uninvolved family and friends or other members of this group who had plans of their own.
I don’t know about you, but all the times the administration has cried wolf has made me very suspicious of their “alerts.” Knowing that there could unknown members of this group in this country doesn’t make me feel any more safe. Nor does it make me feel like this administration has the best interests of its people in mind.
Gillie says:
It’s a damn hard call… as a left leaning (but New Labour hating) Brit (with a Republican Dad living in Ca)I find myself stuck in the middle, jokers to the right and all that
I am not a politcal expert and frequently find myself posting on blogs only to find myself cut down by someone more up to the minute than I. However, there are few people who are up to the minute politically, and whilst they can play games on each other’s blogs, some of us have to live the lives we choose and can’t play games. Thank you Laura for giving me a voice
One of the biggest issues that we in the UK have is that Tony Blair no longer has the support he once had; like all politicians he is facing the political nightmare of “Do as I say, not do as I do” and corrupt attitudes, general unscrupulessness and the general approach of he and his spin doctors has lead many people to feel disenfranchised. We , in the UK, now find ourselves following the puppet of George Bush …. without ever having the opportunity to vote for or against the man himself. I am beginning to feel like the man on the Bagdhad Omnibus: When, if ever, do you listen to me? Sadly, I know the answer – you don’t. There is not a government from here to Timbuktu who gives a flying monkey’s about anything other than where the next vote is coming from. And if you are a candidate for election ANYWHERE in the world and want to refute what I have just said…….. think VERY VERY carefully, because anything you say will be here to haunt you. And the fact that you daren’t reply is proof that you know that it isn’t worth the fight with the insignficant electorate.
Sorry Laura, I didn’t mean to get on quite such a high horse
8/13/2006, 6:57 pmLaura says:
Gillie,
Don’t worry about it. You’re welcome to get on any high horse here you feel like. Even though I live in this country and voted in both the 2000 and 2004 election, I still feel that my vote didn’t matter. Too much has come out about what happened during both elections to make me feel any other way. However, I’ll still vote.
At least your Republican dad in in California. My Republican mom is right here with me. Makes for some very tense drives when I have to take her some place.
Stop by any time, Gillie. It’s nice to get a perspective from the other side of the ocean.
jan says:
Although I believe in democracy (the worst form of government, except for all the others, I believe Churchill said this). Gillie’s statement is sadly oh, so true.
There is not a government from here to Timbuktu who gives a flying monkey’s about anything other than where the next vote is coming from.
8/13/2006, 7:56 pmPikkel Weezel says:
WOW, that’s quite a stretch. I wish I could live in a fantasy land also, it must be much easier than dealing with the real world.
8/13/2006, 10:08 pmDawn says:
Lieberman…terror alert…Lieberman…terror alert
Yes, yes, I see the connection.
8/13/2006, 10:31 pmLaura says:
Actually, Weezel, if you look at the timing of all previous raises in terror alerts in relationship to potential or real political loses for the Bush administration, it’s not that much of a stretch.
However, for someone who is firmly entrenched in the FauxNews/Karl Rove sound machine, it’s probably something that’s never even been noticed.
Laura says:
Lieberman, a man who has been in Bush’s hip pocket, lost his party primary. This is an event that is practically unheard of in recent history. Lieberman lost to a man whose campaign included an attack on the failure of the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq. Long before the primary even took place, people were saying that the results would give a strong indication of how the Iraq war would play when voters went to the polls in November.
Yeah, Dawn, you’re right. Bush et al doesn’t have anything to worry about with the loss of their favorite democrat.
Marinade Dave says:
Interesting theory, Laura. I certainly don’t put much past this administration, and obviously, Bush and Blair are sleeping on the same sheets. Lieberman is sleeping on the couch. In the next room. Bush did kiss him goodnight, though. On the cheek.
What I question is, would the rest of the British government go along with this, all because of an American election? Is Bush that powerful enough to push Blair around on a whim? Is Blair powerful enought to push his entire government around? Also, by the time Connecticut’s next election comes up, wouldn’t the Atlantic breezes have blown some of this hype out to sea by then? To me, this is not the best time to try to sway voter’s minds with the election far enough away. Not after a primary loss. Before a general election, I could almost see it. Do the British even care about Connecticut?
8/14/2006, 2:24 pmLaura says:
I doubt the Brits give a damn about Connecticut. I do think that Bush & Co have enough of something to pull something like this off.
Yes, this is too far from the general election, but the difference in execution seems to be only 1 or 2 weeks. Which would possibly make more of an impression, a major arrest within 24 hours after what could be seen as a major political blow to Bush and the many Republican incumbents? Or to wait until two weeks later when no one is talking about Lieberman’s loss to have these arrests pulled off.
Look at what the arrests being held now did. It stopped almost all of the discussion about what Lamont’s victory means for incumbents. Instead of the talking heads discussing that for the next week or two, they are talking about potential terror threats to the US at home and abroad.
Would you believe that I used to never believe in conspiracies?
Marinade Dave says:
Sorry. I might agree somewhere, but Lieberman, Connecticut and the Bush conspiracy has gotten me totally unphased. As much as you might like to think, this is not that. Lieberman is a Democrat, or was, and I beg to differ with your opinion. As much as you think he is sucking Bush ass, I think he would beg to differ with your opinion. But, what do we really know? Do we know all the answers? Is London calling?
Is Lieberman just as responsible for 9/11 as Bush? After all, it was him, not bin Laden, right?
How does Bush get all these men to sleep with him?
8/14/2006, 11:17 pmLaura says:
Did I say or even imply that Lieberman was responsible for 9/11? No, not at all. What I said was that Lieberman’s loss was getting a lot of air play. That air play diminished dramatically with the announcement of these arrests in London.
Lieberman’s loss could be seen as a potential outcome for other incumbents, particularly those who continue to support the war in Iraq.
You read way too much into my response to you than I intended or even wrote. I’ll agree that I think that Lieberman is Bush’s favorite Democrat. I also think that Lieberman is a poor loser (not only because he intends to run as an independent, btw). Do I think he is “sucking Bush ass?” No. I think that he’s following whatever ass he feels will keep him in office. He just happened to have made a bad choice this time.
As to how Bush gets all these men to sleep with him? I don’t know. Maybe he offers to have Cheney take them hunting if they don’t.
Marinade Dave says:
I guess if I had no choice other than to sleep with Bush or hunt with Cheney, I’d have to take Bush. And I’m not gay, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I don’t hunt, either. Never killed an animal.
Lieberman probably is Bush’s favorite Democrat, or he used to be. I wonder if he would still call himself a Democrat at heart, now that he’s an Independent? I don’t know enough about his overall voting record, particularly on matters not related to Bush, Iraq and national security. Now, he leads in the polls up there against Lamont. He’s back in the news anyway. I think what is happening in Connecticut and what we’re hearing would be the same, regardless of what news spewed out of England. I don’t feel the Republicans, nor Bush, were all that concerned over this race, simply because the Republicans fielded a weak candidate and knew that most (R) voters would turn to Lieberman anyway, along with a fair amount of Democrats and Independents. That was my point. I think most political strategists had this one pegged from the gitgo, from both sides of the fence, and the England thing was not part of some overall strategy to skew the news back here at home. Fox news, well, yes.
8/18/2006, 3:16 pm