Featured Photos

Baseball Hall of Fame - 8/23/11

Featured Video

Avery's QuEST Project - It's Healthy!

House Construction

The Completed Home Renovation

Home Renovation - Complete!

Our House Construction Photoblog

RSS Feed

« | Main | »

The Plots Thicken…

By Brian | November 10, 2006 | Share on Facebook

Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of the British intelligence agency MI5, says her agency is tracking plans for roughly 30 terrorist attacks originating from Britain, including a plan to blow up the New York Stock Exchange, and other plans involving chemical and nuclear weapons.

Does anyone have any doubt that if this were reported a week ago, the Republicans would have been accused of fear-mongering?

Topics: Political Rantings | 3 Comments »

3 Responses to “The Plots Thicken…”

  1. Jeff Porten says at November 11th, 2006 at 7:32 pm :
    Not necessarily. See, we believe MI5, as they tend to base their announcements on things happening in reality. At least, more often.

    Of course, that being said, “tracking plans” might not be in the least bit dangerous — it’s the capability of the planners that makes things relevant.

  2. Brian says at November 12th, 2006 at 2:06 am :
    That would be a clever logical maneuver, if not for the fact that it’s been done so many times. See, here’s the thing:

    If MI5 believes someone wants to blow up the New York Stock Exchange, you’re saying we should believe them, because they’re “reality based.” But then what happens? They share that information with DHS/FBI/CIA and those agencies start to take action (raising the terror alert level, for example). At that point, you’re implying that we don’t believe them, because Bush & Co. are just a bunch of fear-mongerers. The thing is this, though: there’s either a threat or there’s not. So we either listen to both agencies or neither one, unless you’re suggesting that MI5 should provide the NYSE with protection now…

    Meanwhile, it’s all kind of besides the point. My off-hand comment wasn’t about whether or not the threats were real, but about how the MI5 would have been received it it had spoken before the American election. I’m convinced many folks would have seen it as something that Bush put Blair up to doing, in order to swing the election the Republicans’ way.

    Do you disagree (despite the pointless, theoretical nature of the argument?)

  3. Jeff Porten says at November 15th, 2006 at 4:50 pm :
    Re your hypothetical point, you’re presenting me with a Catch-22. DHS doesn’t bother to source the information they give us, so yes, I have to say that I wouldn’t immediately trust an announcement they made, even if it came from sources I would trust. (BTW, this is not to say I categorically think DHS is a political mouthpiece established solely to serve Republican goals. Only that they’ve done so frequently enough that I take them with a large helping of salt.)

    Yes, many people would have thought exactly what you propose — much as most of us believe (and you don’t?) that the timing of the Saddam verdict was similarly suspect. That being said, I think it’s *less* credible in the case of your hypothetical, since I doubt MI5 would make a terror alert on those principles — people would believe otherwise, though, because they’re largely credulous. But perhaps I’m being too generous to MI5.


Comments will be sent to the moderation queue.