Is it possible that the London terror plot was really just another one of the Bush administration's attempts to sex up the terrorism threat for political purposes? It's starting to look that way. Steve Benen points out some curious facts about the case:
No one has been charged with any crime.
There is no evidence that an attack was imminent.
The suspects did not have passports, nor plane tickets.
The British wanted to wait longer to arrest the suspects, but the Bush administration insisted they be arrested on Thursday.
Craig Murray, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan, has expressed doubts about whether there's even enough evidence to take the case to a jury.
Murray further notes that all the suspects were under surveillance, and nothing in that surveillance suggested a need for an early arrest.
Murray also points out that the plot was discovered through Pakistani interrogations, the details from which did not match up with the surveillance mentioned above. Moreover, Murray believes the information was obtained via torture, and may not be reliable.
Murray finally mentions that Bush and Blair talked about the possible arrests over the weekend last week. Why?
All this seems to be adding up to say that the Bush administration ordered the arrests on shoddy, if not totally manufactured, evidence that contradicted intelligence that the British were getting. We all know that it would be in the administration's best interest for an terror plot to be foiled, especially in light of Lieberman's primary defeat. Put these together, and it's pretty clear that the administration's back to its old ways.
All this seems to be adding up to say that the Bush administration ordered the arrests on shoddy, if not totally manufactured, evidence that contradicted intelligence that the British were getting. We all know that it would be in the administration's best interest for an terror plot to be foiled, especially in light of Lieberman's primary defeat. Put these together, and it's pretty clear that the administration's back to its old ways.
It's perfectly fair to say that the Bush Administration has done this many times. But in this particular case, it's simply too early for outsiders to responsibly speculate. You shouldn't yet declare that you or we are "fooled again" or call it "clear". It isn't clear; Craig Murray could be off the mark.
Posted by: Greg Kuperberg | August 16, 2006 at 08:06 PM
You're right that this analysis relies heavily on Murray's veracity. But assuming Murray's right, there's no real logical conclusion other than the plot was a fake.
Posted by: Minipundit | August 16, 2006 at 09:09 PM
But assuming Murray's right, there's no real logical conclusion other than the plot was a fake.
Sure, just like assuming that Murray's wrong, it follows that the plot was real.
You are relegating the heart of the matter to supposition.
Posted by: Greg Kuperberg | August 16, 2006 at 09:59 PM
Not to supposition, to one exceptionally well-placed source. The question is who I trust more: the Bush administration or Murray. That isn't a tough call.
Posted by: Minipundit | August 16, 2006 at 10:25 PM
The question is who I trust more: the Bush administration or Murray. That isn't a tough call.
It is for me. The Bush administration is not a monolith (even though they try); and I don't know Murray from Adam.
Posted by: Greg Kuperberg | August 16, 2006 at 11:50 PM
I've believed that it was a load of BS from the start. Isn't it funny that it happened only a few days after Lieberman lost to "The Al Qaeda candidate", which would only encourage terrorism. Say, whatever happened to that guy, I think his name is bin laden or something like that. I guess he isn't that important if the Bush administration isn't concerned about him. Iraq is obviously a lot more important for the war on terror.
Posted by: mike3k | August 17, 2006 at 12:17 AM
I don't know Mike. My personal theory is that this was all orchestrated as a publicity stunt for Snakes on a Plane ;)
Posted by: Minipundit | August 17, 2006 at 08:55 AM