President Bush said yesterday that ten Al Qaeda plots, including three on U.S. soil, have been foiled in the last four years:
The United States and its allies have thwarted at least 10 serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since Sept. 11, 2001, including never-before-disclosed plans to use hijacked commercial airliners to attack the East and West coasts in 2002 and 2003, President Bush and his aides said yesterday.The reported plots aimed to strike a wide variety of targets, including the Library Tower in Los Angeles, ships in international waters and a tourist site overseas, the White House said last night. Three of the 10 were directed at U.S. soil, officials said.
Holy cow! Supposedly, the skyscraper — L.A.’s tallest building, which has since been renamed the US Bank Tower — was targeted for an attack in “mid-2002.”
Me and Becky in L.A., with the Library Tower in the background, in May 2003.
Well, I always did feel a little nervous when I was in the area around the Library Tower downtown. With good reason, it turns out!
However, the L.A. Times takes a skeptical tone:
The White House later issued a list of the foiled plots, citing potential Sept. 11-style airliner attacks on the East Coast and West Coast, a plot to blow up apartment buildings and surveillance of gas stations, bridges and tourist sites nationwide. However, several senior law enforcement officials interviewed later questioned whether many of the incidents on the list constituted an imminent threat to public safety and said authorities have not disrupted any operational terrorist plot within the United States since the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
It’s good that the Times isn’t accepting the government’s claims at face-value. But it’s downright bizarre that the Times — this is the Los Angeles Times, remember — does not mention the Library Tower at all in its article! Not even a passing reference! Why, it’s “almost as if the LAT’s mid-level editors feared that doing anything readers might be too interested in would be a sign of unsophisticated tabloidish irresponsibility!” (Quote from Mickey Kaus; scroll about halfway down the page to the heading “Sunday, September 11, 2005.”)
Anyway… all this came out as a result of Bush’s big terrorism speech yesterday. Excerpt:
The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places — in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we’ve seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus — and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics. …
[T]he militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation.
Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. Well, they are fanatical and extreme — and they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, “We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life.” And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously — and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply. …
Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 — and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.
Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence — the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we’re not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We’re facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers — and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder. …
When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple — the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion. These militants are not just the enemies of America, or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and the enemies of humanity.
Those who fail to grasp the enormity of the struggle against Islamo-fascism, and those who falsely paint it as a struggle against Islam, would do well to heed Bush’s words.
P.S. I just noticed the date on this post. Today, October 7, is the fourth anniversary of our first bombing raids in Afghanistan.
P.P.S. L.A. Observed points out that the Library Tower threat is actually not new news. I didn’t realize that.
|
Categories: Uncategorized
|
October 7th, 2005 at 9:50:26 am
This illistrates why it will be very difficult for us to win this thing.
1. There have been no terrorist attacks on the US in 4 years. The press has had no news to report of calamity in the US in that time.
2. They downplay the threat since, obviously, there haven’t been any attacks, there is nothing to worry about.
This is the same press that lements the fact that the prisons are full in spite of the crime rate falling.
Perhaps the “methods” used to obtain information work after all. :)
October 7th, 2005 at 10:27:49 am
First of all, WHO with the least bit of serious interest in the subject could possibly disagree with Bush’s characterization of the terrorist movement? The problem is, the speech nothing but a bunch of syllogisms and boilerplate rhetoric — it contains NO insight into how we can be more successful choking off the insurgency in Iraq or better guaranteeing security and emergency response at home!!!! It doesn’t even hint at anything ANYONE can do to further those goals except maybe vote Republican! Absolutely nobody who wasn’t stuck on a deserted island will read this speech and view it as a useful clarification of something they didn’t already know.
Second of all, cheering for both ND and USC is pretty craven, man. The whole point of sports is picking a side, investing your feelings, and letting the chips fall where they may — otherwise what possible satisfaction?? Straddling the fence and covering your bets is for bookies.
October 7th, 2005 at 11:50:46 am
I have a rock that keeps tigers away. Since there are no tigers around, I can claim that my device works.
The problem with Bush putting this info out is that it is impossible to know (or to prove) exactly how many terrorist threats have been prevented. It may be 10, as the president said. But it may also be 1 or 100, and he wouldn’t know.
The statement he gave seems to be more focused on raising his low popularity (26%!!!!). That speech was full of sound and fury, but it signifies nothing.
(Lud and Judy would be pleased at my misquote of Shakespeare).
October 7th, 2005 at 11:51:24 am
Dude, why are you bringing the World Health Organization into this? They’re innocent, man!
October 7th, 2005 at 12:16:00 pm
3 foiled “serious” domestic plots since 9/11. Zero “operational” US plots disrupted in that time? I’ll reserve final judgement until I understand more about the “serious” nature of these apparently pre-operational threats, but for now I’m underwhelmed.
I dont recall the civilized nations of the world destroying sovereign nations to rid us of Bader-Meinhoff.
October 7th, 2005 at 12:32:28 pm
It’s interesting how, during the Clinton years, you would actually HEAR about these plots being foiled as they were being planned (the Lincoln Tunnel plot, the Brooklyn Bridge plot, the bombing of LAX). And people actually went to trial, were convicted, and went to prison.
The plots Bush has foiled involve Jose Padilla, who was kinda sorta thinking about a dirty bomb, we think, though he didn’t have any materials or physical plans to actually do anything, and the Feds haven’t actually charged him with anything because, of course, they have no case. Then there is the guy who tried to buy Stinger missiles. Funny thing is, he didn’t seek them out. The FBI went to him and basically convinced him he needed to buy some Stingers and then arrested him when he actually tried to do it. Before the Patriot Act, that was called entrapment. Then there have been the cases in upstate New York and in Michigan that have been thrown out due to lack of evidence.
Yeah, that Bush is foiling them, all right.
October 7th, 2005 at 12:34:39 pm
A&A, if the plots are not “operational” when we are stopping them, then obviously that is a sign we are stopping them before they become operational, meaning we are ahead of the curve compared to when Clinton was president. That is a good thing, numbskull.
October 7th, 2005 at 12:39:10 pm
Don’t forget, the first attack on the WTC (car bomb) was in 1993. Then another attack occured in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
Just because nothing has happened doesn’t mean it WON’T ever happen.
October 7th, 2005 at 12:53:06 pm
I’m getting really dizzy from all of this spin. “War on Terror?” I think it’s more like a “Spin on Terror” if you ask me. The fact of the matter is the “War on Terror” has been about as successful as the “War on Drugs” here in the states - that is, not so successful. A great gesture, but overall the effect is minimal if at all.
October 7th, 2005 at 1:07:25 pm
This information is really going to help the Cheney ‘08 campaign.
October 7th, 2005 at 1:24:43 pm
Andrew-
Do you call your “rationale” pre-crime or thought-crime? Either way, your way of thinking IS a crime.
October 7th, 2005 at 1:35:30 pm
Dumber and Dumber, a terrorist plot/conspiracy doesn’t have to become operational for it to still be illegal. If I sat around with some white-wing nuts in Idaho drawing up plans to off President Bush on his next visit to Couer d’Alene, the feds don’t have to wait for us to begin trying to implement it before they can legally round us up and crack our balls together.
October 7th, 2005 at 1:46:13 pm
“Those who fail to grasp the enormity of the struggle against Islamo-fascism, …”
< pedant >
Enormity doesn’t mean size. That should be ‘Those who fail to grasp the enormity of Islamo-fascism,’ or ‘Those who fail to grasp the scale/scope/extent/whatever of the struggle against Islamo-fascism,’
< /pedant >
October 7th, 2005 at 1:50:02 pm
cheering for both ND and USC is pretty craven, man
Umm… well, let’s review. I went to USC, so I root for them in all their games. I now go to ND, so I root for them in all their games except one: the one against USC. I have “picked a side”: my alma mater’s side. USC’s side. But why am I not allowed to have a second-favorite team, and have that team be the place where I am attending law school? Although many USC fans hate Notre Dame and vice versa, as long as I pick a side in the actual game between those two teams, I don’t see how rooting against the rival in all its other games is “craven.” (In fact, thanks to the BCS, it actually makes sense to root for your opponents in their other games. If Notre Dame had won one more game against a non-mutual opponent in 2003, USC would have gone to the Sugar Bowl!)
October 7th, 2005 at 5:19:12 pm
We have been kicking the shit out of the Islamic Terrorist and we are taking losses in the process.
You want to cut and run, move to Canada but if you understand what 9/11 was all about then I am glad to have you in the fight.
October 8th, 2005 at 2:44:26 am
“I dont recall the civilized nations of the world destroying sovereign nations to rid us of Bader-Meinhoff.”
I don’t recall Bader-Meinhoff killing thousands of people, adversely affecting the global economy, operating on every continent …
*sigh*
October 8th, 2005 at 7:10:28 pm
Knemon,
We surely agree on the extent and horror of the destruction Al Qaeda hath wrought to date. I just have difficulty reconciling this frightening global organization capable of 9/11 and hellbent on “our” demise with a mere handful of vaguely AQ-related domestic charges since.If terrorists only need to be right once in four years within the porous borders of the mother of all satanic nations(ha)with 280 million soft targets, what might that suggest about Al Qaeda’s current focus and/or capabilities in the US?