"This wasn't supposed to happen today," a U.S. official told the Washington Post of the arrests and terror alert. "It was supposed to happen several days from now. We hear the British lost track of one or two guys. They had to move." Meanwhile, British antiterrorism chief Peter Clarke said at a news conference that the plot was foiled because "a large number of people" had been under surveillance, with police monitoring "spending, travel and communications."
Let's emphasize that again: The plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications. Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or the New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs."
"Ted Kennedy chimed in that "it is clear that our misguided policies are making America more hated in the world and making the war on terrorism harder to win." Mr. Kennedy somehow overlooked that the foiled plan was nearly identical to the "Bojinka" plot led by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to blow up airliners over the Pacific Ocean in 1995. Did the Clinton Administration's "misguided policies" invite that plot? And if the Iraq war is a diversion and provocation, just what policies would Senators Reid and Kennedy have us "focus" on?
Surveillance? Hmmm. Democrats and their media allies screamed bloody murder last year when it was leaked that the government was monitoring some communications outside the context of a law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA wasn't designed for, nor does it forbid, the timely exploitation of what are often anonymous phone numbers, and the calls monitored had at least one overseas connection. But Mr. Reid labeled such surveillance "illegal" and an "NSA domestic spying program." Other Democrats are still saying they will censure, or even impeach, Mr. Bush over the FISA program if they win control of Congress."
11 comments:
Cute. Clever. Think of that yourself?
Or should I have said "Think of that, Yousef?
Before the Nadirs claim that this was an invented plot designed by the Bushies to validate their totalitarian (just like Castro!) tactics: why didn't these evil Bushies then stage this here in the US?
And if these Bushies themselves created 911, why not just blow a few planes out of the sky today, and blame it on some muslims?
File these questions with: If Bush "lied", then he KNEW that Iraq lacked WMDs, and thus he KNEW that his invasion would expose him.
The difference? The Brits worked within the law. Impeach Bush.
Really? I suppose you know that because you work for Scotland Yard, or maybe the MI5, or maybe you're an MP, or simply a plain old Brit. No? Oh. Well then, why don't you save it until you know what the f*ck you're talking about, Mr./Ms. Impeach Bush.
Cute blog. Nice shade of pea green.
U-S-E-F-U-L I-D-I-O-T-S.
You know what pal/honey, UI's like you would be the first to get your heads lopped off under shariya.
Wait, that's right, I forgot. Your WCW/DOTBR pal Nadir says there's no reason to ever worry about shariya here in the States. That's Canada I'm thinking of.
Never mind, you're safe.
British police used tactics that would be opposed by US lefties.
Here's another morsel for Mr./Ms. Impeach Bush:
Reports have it that British intelligence purposely did not inform U.S. intelligence of this plot. Why you ask? Because they didn't want to risk having the traitors within our own intelligence agencies leaking information about the plot and the plan to bust it up to the traitors at The New York Times.
Yeah, that's right, I said traitors.
Had the NYT caught wind of this intelligence they undoubtedly would blown the cover on the whole thing.
Put that in your hashpipe and smoke Ms./Mr. Impeachfuzz.
Post a Comment