Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Marshall)   For the past five years, every terrorist act, plot or announcement has provoked accusations that the timing sure was convenient for Bush, Cheney and Rove -- 8/10 is, of course, no exception   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

1455 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Aug 2006 at 6:59 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



99 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2006-08-10 6:08:51 PM  
Sure is a convenient time to be posting this, Subby! Do you have an agenda, perhaps?
 
2006-08-10 6:10:18 PM  
I bet terrorists have a schedule that factors in GOP convenience for maximum impact.
 
2006-08-10 6:11:38 PM  
Any farking time anything like this happens is convenient for Dubya. He will take anything and everything in his favor at this point... How stupid.
 
2006-08-10 6:36:20 PM  
Business as usual.
 
2006-08-10 6:36:48 PM  
What a bunch of dung that article was.
 
2006-08-10 6:44:00 PM  
Bush needs the terrorists and they need Bush.
 
2006-08-10 6:47:54 PM  
[image from img.photobucket.com too old to be available]
 
2006-08-10 7:05:40 PM  
Maybe this means that for five years, the populus has has had their eagle eyes on.

/drtfa
//got nothin
 
2006-08-10 7:07:53 PM  
Bush needs the terrorists and they need Bush


Ding Ding Ding
 
2006-08-10 7:15:29 PM  
Eat More Possum: Bush needs the terrorists and they need Bush.


Exactly. If Bush didn't have the war on terror he would have a complete failure of a presidency.
 
2006-08-10 7:16:38 PM  
damn.... you've convinced everyone! GOOD JOB!@!
 
2006-08-10 7:17:13 PM  
I guess this is on FARK just to have an excuse for a flamewar. There was absolutely nothing worthwhile in that blog post.

FTBlog: "And the timing, well ...

Let's wait and see how this develops.
"

Yes, and? Thanks for having nothing insightful, inciteful, or otherwise to add. At least throw out some wild speculation instead of leaving it up to the reader.
 
2006-08-10 7:17:27 PM  
Just like the recent Florida and Canada "terrorism" cases, this was probably the invention and work of an agent provocateur- which means the government could have 'sprung' them at any moment. It is not inconcievable that they have done so at convenient times.
 
2006-08-10 7:18:35 PM  
The CraneMeister:
I bet terrorists have a schedule that factors in GOP convenience for maximum impact.

No they don't, but the volume at which they handle the terrorist events is completely at the discretion of the President.

Turn it up during an election year, keep things nice and peaceful during the other years. Fear is like a spice to politicians. You can't put it on too strong, or else people will panic and not vote for you. But just a light touch will give the impression that you have the magical terrorist fighting skills.
 
2006-08-10 7:18:57 PM  
"Asinine" tag trumps "Obvious" tag here?
 
2006-08-10 7:19:47 PM  
Soon enough blogs may have to go through a rigorous journalistic standard to publish non entertainment-related material.

The disclaimer "for entertainment purposes only" would apply to speculative fiction like this article.
 
2006-08-10 7:20:02 PM  
Talk about a blast from the past:

[image from img98.imageshack.us too old to be available]
 
2006-08-10 7:22:59 PM  
Brettster808 Exactly. If Bush didn't have the war on terror he would have a complete failure of a presidency.

I still am looking for the one thing President Bush did right in his terms of office so far and it surely isn't the War on Terror.
 
2006-08-10 7:25:23 PM  
He created that marine reserve near Hawaii.

/yeah, that's the only good thing I can think of
//I used to include Afghanistan until that went to shiat and we still don't have Osama... remember him?
 
2006-08-10 7:28:08 PM  
Ahem. This IS an election year.
 
2006-08-10 7:28:35 PM  
We have an election year EVERY OTHER YEAR. So 50% of the time, any good news is a conspiracy according to this guy.

And is Maddox a shill for Bush?
 
2006-08-10 7:30:00 PM  
Look I will freely admit that I have zero trust for this adminstration; and I am probably more suspicious of their motives than I should be. I think it is reasonable to note the following facts about the last few days however:

1. this arrest was clearly the result of a long term Monitoring/infiltration by British Intelligence agencies. They've said as much in their press conferences.

2. US authorities were kept appraised of the plot as it developed. Chertoff's public statment this morning, more or less confirmed that.

3. Therefore, It is almost a certainty that US officials and the White House were informed of the decision to move in, shut down the terror ring and make the arrests, before it actually happened. For an operation of this magnitude, likely earlier this week

4. Thus, it is reasonable to note that the White House knew that the News of these arrests would break today.

5. In that light, the timing of the unusually strong comments Tony Snow, Dick Cheney and Ken Mehlman made yesterday, all but accusing Democrats of inviting another 9/11 attack, and/or guaranteeing one if they take back Congress this fall, need to be looked at askance.

While I do believe the Plot was genuine, it also appears the White House decided to use the plot for partisan polticial advantage by "pre-framing " the news before anyone else was privy to it. And that to me is a Shameful and despicable Mis-use of governmental power.
 
2006-08-10 7:31:19 PM  
DarkSoulNoHope: I still am looking for the one thing President Bush did right in his terms of office so far and it surely isn't the War on Terror.

It surely is the one thing that helps control his approval ratings. I bet after today's "CODE RED -EVERYONE PANIC" event his ratings get a boost.
 
2006-08-10 7:31:32 PM  
I used to include Afghanistan until that went to shiat and we still don't have Osama... remember him?

Who? I remember that pinko commie terrorist Kerry and his fake swiftboat stories and his weeee beady eyes.
 
2006-08-10 7:32:09 PM  
Etchy333: No they don't, but the volume at which they handle the terrorist events is completely at the discretion of the President.

Wow. I didn't realize Bush personally runs the British transport authority as well as the TSA.
 
2006-08-10 7:40:01 PM  
Welcome back to the nexus of politics and terror (tm Keith Olbermann).
 
2006-08-10 7:43:16 PM  
skookum said,

"Soon enough blogs may have to go through a rigorous journalistic standard to publish non entertainment-related material.

The disclaimer "for entertainment purposes only" would apply to speculative fiction like this article."


Oh, you mean like Fox News! (pops)
 
2006-08-10 7:47:30 PM  
Had this happened two days ago, conspiracy nuts would be screaming that it was the Bush administration trying to influence the Lieberman primary. I DO think the administration trumps up terrorist stories (remember the goofball "Al Qaida cell" in Miami?). But I don't believe this is one of those cases.
 
2006-08-10 7:58:31 PM  
Fox News happens to be the only real news outlet worth watching. They don't bog down the viewer in half-baked sensationalistic anti-Bush propaganda for one.

No, I mean that blogs will have to go through some kind of certification process to meet journalistic standards, or else they should be regarded as mere entertainment.
 
2006-08-10 8:06:19 PM  
When did mindbuzz change his name?
 
2006-08-10 8:06:32 PM  
Terrorists like Bush because he inflames their War on America and he is predictable. Changing politicians may mean less predictability and less war. Why do you think Osama released that anti-Bush video just before the election in '04? He knows Americans hate him so if he says to vote Kerry they'll vote Bush.
 
2006-08-10 8:08:25 PM  
>>>Magorn>>>

"5. In that light, the timing of the unusually strong comments Tony Snow, Dick Cheney and Ken Mehlman made yesterday, all but accusing Democrats of inviting another 9/11 attack, and/or guaranteeing one if they take back Congress this fall, need to be looked at askance."

I believe that today Snow stated at press conference that Bush knew about this investigation/plot a WEEK before today.

/i prefer aluminum to tin
 
2006-08-10 8:10:33 PM  
skookum said,

"Fox News happens to be the only real news outlet worth watching. They don't bog down the viewer in half-baked sensationalistic anti-Bush propaganda for one.

To save you the trouble of having to click on the link I provided, I thought you would appreciate having the information brought to you.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

sierratimes | By Mike Gaddy

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie. By Mike Gaddy Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast. On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.

Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.


Oh, and extra special bonus points for bringing you this news story courtesy of FreeRepublic - where crediblity is unquestioned by many people, including you, I would guess.
 
2006-08-10 8:11:23 PM  
If Republicans didn't try to endlessly capitalize politically on these types of incidents (which clearly have nothing to do with GOP politics) it wouldn't lend itself to such crackpot nonsense. This was apparently a very good job by the British intelligence and police agencies (with the added bonus of them not shooting any innocent people in the head) but that won't stop people who had nothing to do with it claiming it as justification of one thing or another, regardless of how tangential.

Bonus points however for attaching a date to the arrests when they are usually reserved for catastrophic attacks these days. Very catchy. Pretty soon it will be tough to keep track of them all though.
 
2006-08-10 8:17:27 PM  
It does make it hard to bring legitimate concerns up when
the wacko haters think every single thing is a conspiracy.

 
2006-08-10 8:20:11 PM  
If this had occurred in any other country I wouldn't even question that it was a coincidence. The recent collaboration between British and American security forces however, make it easy for anyone to believe that upon such a seeming vocalization against the war in Iraq, i.e. Lieberman's defeat, that Bush wouldn't call up Blair and have him bust one of those several terror groups that they've been monitoring for the last several months.
 
2006-08-10 8:20:21 PM  
[image from i106.photobucket.com too old to be available]
 
2006-08-10 8:21:33 PM  
Fox News happens to be the only real news outlet worth watching. They don't bog down the viewer in half-baked sensationalistic anti-Bush propaganda for one.

No, they happen to bog down their viewer in half-baked sensationalistic propaganda of another sort:


[image from img126.imageshack.us too old to be available][image from img212.imageshack.us too old to be available]
[image from img212.imageshack.us too old to be available][image from img122.imageshack.us too old to be available]
 
2006-08-10 8:31:41 PM  
Etchy333


The CraneMeister:
I bet terrorists have a schedule that factors in GOP convenience for maximum impact.

No they don't, but the volume at which they handle the terrorist events is completely at the discretion of the President.


Believe it or not, the radical Islamic countries are very scared and apprehensive regarding Shrubya, because he's been a complete 180 from basically every President in the last 30 years regarding his aggressive stance on the MidEast and his eagerness to intervene.

Along with this fear, though, comes a realization. If they can successfully attack American home-soil-- ESPECIALLY right before an election-- they can alter the outcome, helping to put in more Dems who are on a mission to get the US out of the Arab backyard.

Putting more Dems into Congress also [typically] means that there's more of a reluctance for any kind of military action, beyond firing a few cruise missiles at unimportant targets with no military value at all. And again, it changes the scope of our policy regarding going-it-alone. With a Liberal majority, we're a LOT less likely to even think of unilateral military action, with or without Poland at our side.

They're very smart, and understand the political ramifications of these things. Its not local home-grown terrorist cells that are planning/funding/recruiting for these kinds of attacks. Its the diplomats and leaders at the highest levels of a few countries that are under the spell of radical Islam.
 
2006-08-10 8:36:15 PM  
If they can successfully attack American home-soil-- ESPECIALLY right before an election-- they can alter the outcome, helping to put in more Dems who are on a mission to get the US out of the Arab backyard.

???
 
2006-08-10 8:36:19 PM  
The election was 2 days ago. This administration cannot get ANYTHING right! Morans!
 
2006-08-10 8:52:58 PM  
inFARKshun

???

My bad for not elaborating.

I'll clarify: Right now, a large portion of the American people think that we are no-safer than before we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. Of that group, a significant portion think that we are in fact even less safe, because we've angered the radicals in the neighboring Islamic countries.

If terrorists can still successfully perform a major strike on US citizens and assets thar aren't directly involved in the ongoing War, it stands to reason that Bush's policies have done nothing to make America safer thus prompting people to push for quick and decisive change in the upcoming elections (read: more Democrats in Congressional offices)
 
2006-08-10 9:03:50 PM  
We're also missing the other point. Every single time left wing democrats are asked about security they sound like elementary school kids who haven't done their homework trying to bluff there way past the teachers question. If democrats took the issue a little more seriously and sounded like they knew what they were talking about GOP conspiracies wouldn't work anymore.

Even if you don't like Bush's foreign policy or his anti-terrorism measures who the hell on the other side has any better ideas?
 
2006-08-10 9:04:27 PM  
efinkelnburg,

The reverse is also possible where the cry will go out "We can't change leadership in the middle of a war." followed closely with, "The Democrats are soft on terror! If they hadn't gotten in our way, we would have nuked everywhere but the US and gotten every single last one of the terrorists."

Spin is a wonderful thing.

Tadow,

You're wrong, the election is in three months but it was the urgency that was created two days ago.
 
2006-08-10 9:16:21 PM  
Maybe it's because over the last five years, most of these WERE convenient for Bush.
 
2006-08-10 10:01:54 PM  
Oh gee I wonder why anyone would think the Whitehouse would seek to politicize terror alerOH WAIT:


Bush seeks political gains from foiled plot

by Olivier Knox Thu Aug 10, 2:53 PM ET

CRAWFORD, United States (AFP) - US
President George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
ADVERTISEMENT

Weighed down by the unpopular war in
Iraq, Bush and his aides have tried to shift the national political debate from that conflict to the broader and more popular global war on terrorism ahead of November 7 congressional elections.

The London conspiracy is "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," the president said on a day trip to Wisconsin.

"It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America," he said. "We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people. But obviously we still aren't completely safe."

His remarks came a day after the White House orchestrated an exceptionally aggressive campaign to tar opposition Democrats as weak on terrorism, knowing what Democrats didn't: News of the plot could soon break.

Vice President
Dick Cheney and White House spokesman Tony Snow had argued that Democrats wanted to raise what Snow called "a white flag in the war on terror," citing as evidence the defeat of a three-term Democratic senator who backed the Iraq war in his effort to win renomination.

But Bush aides on Thursday fought the notion that they had exploited their knowledge of the coming British raid to hit Democrats, saying the trigger had been the defeat of Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut by an anti-war political novice.

"The comments were purely and simply a reaction" to Democratic voters who "removed a pro-defense Senator and sent the message that the party would not tolerate candidates with such views," said Snow.

The public relations offensive "was not done in anticipation. It was not said with the knowledge that this was coming," the spokesman said.

Snow said Bush first learned in detail about the plot on Friday, and received two detailed briefings on it on Saturday and Sunday, as well as had two conversations about it with British Prime Minister
Tony Blair.

But a senior White House official said that the British government had not launched its raid until well after Cheney held a highly unusual conference call with reporters to attack the Democrats as weak against terrorism.

An aide to Lieberman, who would have been one of the first Democrats to hear of the plot because he is the top Democrat on the Senate
Homeland Security Committee, said the lawmaker first heard of it late Wednesday.

On Wednesday, Cheney had suggested that Democrats believe "that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't, we can't, be," he said.

While some Democrats have opposed some steps in the war on terrorism, and more and more are calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, no major figures in the party have called for a wholesale retreat in the broader conflict.

But Bush's Republicans hoped the raid would yield political gains.

"I'd rather be talking about this than all of the other things that Congress hasn't done well," one Republican congressional aide told AFP on condition of anonymity because of possible reprisals.

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060810/pl_afp/britainattacksairli ne_060810185330
 
2006-08-10 10:11:30 PM  
Yeah, Harry Pooter, that was certainly some unbiased reporting there.
 
MFK
2006-08-10 10:12:28 PM  
well, on NPR this morning, right after chertoff's announcement, they were asking why Bush was going to a fundraiser in chicago and not back to washington.

The answer was that Bush and Blair had already discussed the arrests OVER THE WEEKEND and that everything was under control.

So yes. The timing is suspect for sure. Regardless if it's real or not. Yesterday you have Cheney telling people that every vote for Lamont is a vote for another 9/11 and you had Tony Snow framing his win as how the anti-war, cut-and-run far left democrats are not serious about the war on terror. Then today, you have these arrests and massive disruptions to the population as a result. They knew about this while they were making those comments and they're using today's events as justification to keep us all in line.

I'm glad that the Brits foiled this thing, because it looks like it was the real deal, but the administration is totally using this to make us all afraid so we'll keep in line and not make waves.
 
2006-08-10 10:16:48 PM  
Random Reality Check

Yes, it can be spun that way too.

However, let's look at terror strikes going back about 35 years...

A plane full of Americans was hijacked by Iranians. The US Embassy in Lebanon was bombed, killing 200+ US Marines (particularly disturbing to a current Marine like myself). The WTC was hit with a failed bombing attempt. The USS Cole was bombed in port in Yemen. Embassies across Africa have been hit with suicide bombers.

This is just a handful of the many strikes against Americans that have happened. In damn near every one of these, the US response was minimal, at best. Perhaps float a warship into the region and throw out a few Tomahawks, perhaps just spike up the rhetoric in the international diplomacy circles.

And its not even that this response has been reserved for one side of the political spectrum, either. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton all practiced appeasment as it concerned radical Muslims. The rallying calls from the Left right now are that the current administration has done nothing to make the country safer, and that we need to get out of the region to calm the countries preaching death to America.
 
2006-08-10 10:24:05 PM  
The Islamic terrorists in Britain had been inflitrated by British authorities months ago, and were being monitored and watched continuously.

The timing of these arrests is 100%, completely, without question, at the discretion of the British authorities and their American allies.

They had complete control over when and how they decided to take down the terrorist cell that was planning these attacks.

So, please spare me any nonsense about how thinking about how convenient the timing is, is some sort of wild-eyed conspiracy theory. It's not. It's simple facts and logic.

The authorities could have done what they did last week, or today, or tommorrow, or even next week. It was their call on when to shut down the group that they'd inflitrated and had under survelliance.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.