That gets my 'WTF?' reaction, as in 'WTF have they been doing the last four years? Warm-up exercises?'

(BTW, Talking Points Memo and Atrios have the latest CBS poll numbers.)

They also seemed to be exaggerating just how big a kaboom they would have had. What they had would have been a pretty fireball, and would have been nasty for those close by on a crowded street, but not what the media were making out.

And, even if they'd managed to set off a fuel-air explosion, I don't think they would have had the shrapnel from the bags of nails in the car. Although too many people were on the wrong side of plate-glass windows.

Oh, and we have a new Prime Minister. Good timing, that.

Don't you understand how the War on Terror works?

I doubt we'll be able to "succeed" in Iraq (for whatever value of "success"). Articles like the one in the link are why - four years in and we're finally applying Counterinsurgency 101.

These clowns are still trying to sell the product, long after most of the customers have left the lot.

The Bush Maladministration, of course, cannot admit the truth: since March 2003 Iraq's been in a constant state of civil war with a multiplicity of factions shooting at each other, blowing each other up, and using the mayhem as a means of entrenching themselves in power locally; and this civil conflict is facilitated by the very big, very heavy feet of the Bush Maladministration.

It is one of many insurgent/opposition groups who are against the situtation as it is now (some just want us out, some want other things, which also require us to be out).

But hey, look over there (maybe they have some WMD), 9/11, 9/11.

Don't think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? Well dontcha read the news, we're fighting Al Qaeda over there (which means we ain't fighting 'em over here), so we have to stay, we can't cut and run, when we have them just where we want them!

Or maybe not so much

Cynical much? Not me. I'm not bitter, disappointed or pissed off either.

Don't even get me going on the, "now that we are carrying the fight to them," shit. I tend to get loud, and end up spluttering.

/rant -- sorry.

If we keep killing just local folks in Iraq and labeling them Al Qaeda, if they aren't sympathetic to Al Qaeda now, they soon will be.

That he attacked us gets repeated often, but I have yet to see an explanation for assuming he was behind 9/11.

The survivors are rather bitter about it all, because they were actually on our side:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6239896.stm

It's not even that they were innocent victims: they were our allies, and we announced their deaths as "Al Qaeda".

Well, at least one reason is, Bush is so sure he's the Good Guy that he's going to keep on doing it his way until he wins, because people who oppose him are Evil.

Yep, it's insane, by my definition of insanity.

(I went out last weekend and bought a pitchfork (it's a manure fork, for the technically inclined), because you shouldn't have to storm the hardware store before you storm the palace.)

So I wonder when we start engaging the Mahdi Army, if they'll also be labeled al Qaeda?

Damned liberals. Next, you'll probably all start doubting that Iran is poised, like Nazi Germany in 1936, to take over the world.

I worry about how thing will go in the waning months of his presidency now that he seems actively concerned about leaving a legacy. (I mean, as if what he's leaving now isn't enough...)

the illegal activities have become so common that they don't even qualify as cable news anymore.

It's pretty simple: their bombs didn't even go off, and from what's been reported so far, didn't have a hope of being effective if they had gone off. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, knows how to build working and extremely effective bombs. Clearly they were not involved even to the extent of providing an adviser or consultant.

The Glasgow airport attempt sounds virtually ludicrous - the attackers drenched the car, and themselves, in gasoline and set themselves on fire. Perhaps they had seen too many Hollywood movies in which a burning car explodes into a gigantic fireball.

These were people who are not even competent to look for and understand instructions for making bombs on the Internet, or in "underground" books from a used bookstore.

I keep wondering who those 27% are.

Kung Fu Monkey explains it all.

Now every day we are in Iraq is a day the terrorists get to train against US technology. There was a wired story not long ago where the report was that IEDs are increasingly sophisticated as they learn how to defeat our technology. We need to get out NOW. Every day Bush and the neo-cons keep our troops in this terrorist training zone makes the next attack in the US more deadly and dangerous.

At this point we have not only given up honor, we seem to have lost our shame to boot.

Steve Martin = George Bush and El Guapo = Al Qaeda...

"Steve Martin: In a way, each of us has an El Guapo to face. For some, shyness might be their El Guapo. For others, a lack of education might be their El Guapo. For us, El Guapo is a big, dangerous man who wants to kill us. But as sure as my name is Lucky Day, the people of Santa Poco can conquer their own personal El Guapo, who also happens to be *the actual* El Guapo!"

Steve Martin = George Bush, Mexico = Iraq, and Jefe = any Iraqi...

"Steve Martin: I have three demands. One: That you stop harassing the people of Santa Poco. Two: That the land of Mexico be redistributed equally among the people and a proportional system of government be established consisting of three separate, but equal, branches the legislative, the executive and the judicial. And three: That the girl Carmen be returned to me unharmed.

Jefe: Amigo, why you come here? You don't belong. Now we have to kill you."

-The Three Amigos

Halfway through Thomas E. Ricks' Fiasco....

Again, no fan of Bush, but I will take issue with your statement that "everybody at the Naval War College knows better" about Al-Queda in Iraq. This article in the Small Wars Journal by Australian LTCOL David Kilcullen suggests the opposite.

That's a remarkably content-free article, and its forward-looking statements still rely on then a miracle happens planning, but even so the author notes that the opposition is "terrorists, extremist militias, and insurgents". That's a far cry from identifying everyone who opposes US actions in Iraq as Al Qaeda.

I so wish we didn't have the dumbest president ever(tm).

I wish our foreign policy could make sense but because of the previous statement it can't.

sigh.

In 2004, we were seeing platter charges that wiped out whole vehicles of soldiers: they weren't reported in the media till 2005, at the earliest. The only thing preventing the transplanting of IEDs and VBIEDs to the West is the lack of fields of arms, left unguarded and easily-available.

The guys in London and Glasgow didn't have access to the training and the discarded ordnance that's producing skilled bombmakers right now in Iraq. Nor did they have access to anything but gasoline and nails. They went to their local gas station and the hardware store, and they couldn't even wire the cellphone detonator correctly. (That's been standard technology in Iraq since late 2004, at least.) What next? Attacking the JFK fuel pipeline with a blowtorch?

I think some of the confusion here is that people visualize Al Qaida as being like the CIA or Mossad or KGB--with serious competence and expertise and budget, and with the property that if the CIA knows how to make a certain kind of bomb, say, its agents can use that kind of bomb anywhere. I think AQ's attackers in the UK are more like abortion clinic bombers in the US--they're inspired by some rhetoric, and maybe bankrolled by some shadowy conspiracy, but they're mostly on their own for technical competence and experience. The local terrorist may want to blow up a clinic, but he still has to figure out on his own, from whatever he can find on the internet, how to wire up a detonator, build a bomb, etc., preferably without blowing himself up or drawing the attention of the police.

Further, the recruiting probably works better on people who aren't all that competent or bright, and the obviously dangerous guys (say, someone working in a nuclear plant or someone with weapons design experience) are likely watched by the police.

But they're also very well-human-oriented and give sweet kitten kisses and loves when they want to be cuddled. So it's well worth it. (especially after having several years of geriatric cats in a state that made it impossible aquire a kitten because one would be a burden/torment on the ancient cats....).

"You've heard about the Al Qaida terrorist who tried to blow up a train? He burnt his lips on the exhaust stack."

I've seen this sort of thing several times recently. There was the business about terrorists going to blow up the aviation-fuel pipeline running to JFK, with the media reporting that it would have destroyed the airport, devastated the city, killed thousands of people, etc. Am I missing something, or is that nonsense?

I suppose it's good that Teh Terrists seem to think that fuel is explosive rather than merely combustible; it limits the potential consequences of a "successful" attack. But I don't care for the scare-mongering.

That totally creeps me out.

For those who haven't seen it, the full decision:
“Upon consideration of the motion for release pending appeal, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion for release pending appeal be denied. Appellant has not shown that the appeal raises a substantial question under 18 USC Sec. 3143(b)(1)(B). See United States v. Perholtz, 836 F.2d 554, 555 (D.C.Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (substantial question is one that is “close” or that “could very well be decided the other way”).

I used to work as a legal clerk for the Social Security Administration, and I have never had the pleasure of typing a decision that was less than five pages!

I don't think they were impressed with Libby's attorneys' efforts. Didn't they bring a new one on board just for the appeal phase?

While reading the WAPO article, I saw Bush as Mollari... (Am I insulting Mollari by saying that?)

That's an interesting turn of phrase. Was it deliberate, or a flub on the newsreader's part?

If you do it right it is, not that there seems much danger of the reported attack plans managing that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

Police say the men never got their hands on explosives or funding and lacked the technical expertise to attack JFK airport's fuel tanks and underground pipeline. However according to the criminal complaint, they were trying to recruit a radical Muslim organization based in Trinidad, Jamaat al Muslimeen (JAM), the group behind a bloody 1990 coup attempt in Trinidad that killed 24 people. In six days of rioting, JAM members failed to take over the country in 1990 but had stormed the Parliament building and took the prime minister and cabinet hostage. Suspects Hadir and Nur were also longtime associates of JAM, said the complaint.

The reason I could not take this story seriously is that this bunch of sad sack terrorists were targeting jet fuel. If these were gasoline lines I could understand it. Jet B/JP-4 would make some sense as well, as it has enough naptha to cause problems. Well at least until someone shut off the pumps to the pipeline.

But the Air Force stopped using JP-4 over a decade ago, and the Navy never used it on carriers, just for that reason. Commercial users preferred not to use Jet B unless they needed to because it was more expensive. These days it is all Jet A/JP-8 (JP-5 if you happen to be on a carrier) which is much safer. There are a lot of pipelines that would be higher priority targets, if you just did a little research. Out here in the west, in this drought year, you might do better hitting water pipelines.

Scottish terrorists are confined to more makeshift munitions because for some reason most governments greatly restrict access to military explosives such as RDX and HMX. This is in contrast to the US military policy in Iraq that allowed tons of the pure forms of these materials to remain in poorly secured warehouses, with little if any surveillance. Truckloads of the stuff could, and probably did, vanish in the night. One reason, among many, that our forces there now face devices much more deadly than propane tanks in cars.

BREAKING NEWS: Scooter Libby's appeal to stay out of prision denied by DC Court.

Not that it did much good, since Bush just commuted Libby's sentence.

No need to put much effort into an appeal with that in your pocket...

I'm extremely comforted that the English, bless them, have gone "Oh, yeah? Well, we're going to go right on doing what we were doing, so there." which has ever been the correct response to such tactics.

Well, if there was any doubt that Bush thinks he and his minions are above the law...

And the "good" thing about only commuting a sentence, as opposed to a pardon, is that Scooter still can claim his 5th Amendment right against testifying.

"I see a hand, coming out of the stars. The hand is your hand. And I hear billions of voices, crying your name."
"My followers?"
"Your victims."

Well, that's just it. From everything I read, Al Qaeda did operate exactly like that in its heyday - though not like the CIA or Mossad, so much as like a Venture Capital firm.

They would work with local groups of terrorists and they really did send consultants or advisors to countries around the world to make sure that the groups had a working plan, knew how to make their bombs detonate, etc. In some cases involving operations they considered particularly important they would provide funding or loaner staff for the operation itself, in other cases just advice and training.

Why don't you try reading up on the 1998 bombings of the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, for instance, or the bombing of Philippine Airlines 434 as a trial run for a larger plan?

More on the subject at http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2007/07/cnn-inadvertently-reproduces-uk-terror.html
(via The Sideshow)