Report The Story, Spoil The Meme
The Admiral asks why this story isn't national, front-page, above-the-fold, bold-capital-letters headline news:
Ed touches on the political correctness angle and the Enemy Media wanting avoid bolstering the President's point that Islamist terrorism at home is still a threat against which we have to remain vigilant. I think it goes farther than that.
Above all else, the Left in America wants to be able to convincingly blame another 9/11 on George W. Bush. They tried to hang the 9/11 attacks around his neck three years ago in the public 9/11 Commission hearings. This partisan election-year gambit failed due to the insurmountable difficulty of having to pit Bush's at-the-time-of-the-attack eight months in office versus the eight years' worth of opportunities Bill Clinton had to bag Osama bin Laden and abort al Qaeda before it ever got started (to say nothing of first needlessly and foolishly escalating the mission in Somalia into a non-strategic nation-building endeavor and then cutting and running from it at the first sign of indigenous resistance, which gave bin Laden the idea that he could destroy us in the first place).
The libs couldn't stop Bush from being re-elected, but they can still destroy his anti-terror legacy. In order to do that, there has to be another major mass-casualty terrorist attack in the United States. Since many steps have been taken by the Bush Administration to prevent precisely that, and most if not all of them were clandestine in nature (note the tense), it follows that the Left, via its media arm, would do all it could to expose these counter-terror tools to the enemy. And, sure enough, that's exactly what happened in late 2005 and early 2006 when the New York Times, via convenient leaks from the Donk moles buried in the Justice Department bureaucracy, revealed the NSA terrorist surveillance program and the SWIFT program that formerly disrupted transnational financing of Islamist terrorist networks.
With the Dem triumph in the 2006 mid-term elections, the Bush White House was forced to largely shut down the TSP. What a surprise that now there is an escalating level of terrorist "chatter" akin to the one that preceded the 9/11 attacks. And if we do get hit again in the near future - and doing it, say, on 9/11/07 would be not only a commemoration of "Holy Tuesday" but land right before the much-anticipated Petraeus report to Congress on the "Surge" in Iraq - the libs will be able to blame it not just on Bush, but link it to "his" war in Iraq as well.
It's not about connecting the dots, but when they are connected, and by whom. Having hamstrung the Bushies from doing so, the press wants to be in a position to do it after the fact when the public is maximally open to stampeding toward tarring and feathering the nearest scapegoat - Bush, and by extension, the GOP. Raising public awareness before an attack, which might prevent it and reflect to the President's benefit, is not compatible with that seditious agenda.
When 24-year-old Ahmed Mohamed and 21-year-old Yousef Megahed appeared in court, there was no question in the prosecutor’s mind what this was all about. She says Mohamed was in possession of pipe bombs and materials that could have been made to make more bombs.
Sherri Jackson who was Megahed’s neighbor until March says FBI agents told her they were terrorists. … She says she saw lot of traffic, a lot of people going back and forth, oxygen tanks being delivered UPS and Fed Ex deliveries and a lot going on.
Former FBI agent and terrorist expert Oscar Westerfield said if they are terrorists the FBI must find out who is involved in this thing and how far it goes. Westerfield says much investigation has to be done, but he is concerned that the car was stopped with explosives seven miles from a naval base that housed detainees, adding it doesn’t look good.
Ed touches on the political correctness angle and the Enemy Media wanting avoid bolstering the President's point that Islamist terrorism at home is still a threat against which we have to remain vigilant. I think it goes farther than that.
Above all else, the Left in America wants to be able to convincingly blame another 9/11 on George W. Bush. They tried to hang the 9/11 attacks around his neck three years ago in the public 9/11 Commission hearings. This partisan election-year gambit failed due to the insurmountable difficulty of having to pit Bush's at-the-time-of-the-attack eight months in office versus the eight years' worth of opportunities Bill Clinton had to bag Osama bin Laden and abort al Qaeda before it ever got started (to say nothing of first needlessly and foolishly escalating the mission in Somalia into a non-strategic nation-building endeavor and then cutting and running from it at the first sign of indigenous resistance, which gave bin Laden the idea that he could destroy us in the first place).
The libs couldn't stop Bush from being re-elected, but they can still destroy his anti-terror legacy. In order to do that, there has to be another major mass-casualty terrorist attack in the United States. Since many steps have been taken by the Bush Administration to prevent precisely that, and most if not all of them were clandestine in nature (note the tense), it follows that the Left, via its media arm, would do all it could to expose these counter-terror tools to the enemy. And, sure enough, that's exactly what happened in late 2005 and early 2006 when the New York Times, via convenient leaks from the Donk moles buried in the Justice Department bureaucracy, revealed the NSA terrorist surveillance program and the SWIFT program that formerly disrupted transnational financing of Islamist terrorist networks.
With the Dem triumph in the 2006 mid-term elections, the Bush White House was forced to largely shut down the TSP. What a surprise that now there is an escalating level of terrorist "chatter" akin to the one that preceded the 9/11 attacks. And if we do get hit again in the near future - and doing it, say, on 9/11/07 would be not only a commemoration of "Holy Tuesday" but land right before the much-anticipated Petraeus report to Congress on the "Surge" in Iraq - the libs will be able to blame it not just on Bush, but link it to "his" war in Iraq as well.
It's not about connecting the dots, but when they are connected, and by whom. Having hamstrung the Bushies from doing so, the press wants to be in a position to do it after the fact when the public is maximally open to stampeding toward tarring and feathering the nearest scapegoat - Bush, and by extension, the GOP. Raising public awareness before an attack, which might prevent it and reflect to the President's benefit, is not compatible with that seditious agenda.
posted by JASmius at 1:29 PM
<<< Home