When Credibility Croaks, or, Rather, Gets Croaked

Zogby poll: "Rating down despite foiled terror plot and Lebanon cease fire; Democrats hold generic Congressional lead."

Why? Read my previous post on returning from Europe. Nobody can believe the Bushits anymore when it comes to terror warnings or declarations of making things safer. Terrorism and the "war" thereupon are first and foremost political tools for Team Bush. William Greider, writing for The Nation, has it perfectly articulated.

More to the point, it is equally true that Bush desperately needs the terrorists. They are his last frail hope for political survival. They divert public attention, at least momentarily, from his disastrous war in Iraq and his shameful abuses of the Constitution. The "news" of terror--whether real or fantasized--reduces American politics to its most primitive impulses, the realm of fear-and-smear where George Bush is at his best.

So, once again in the run-up to a national election, we are visited with alarming news. A monstrous plot, red alert, high drama playing on all channels and extreme measures taken to tighten security.

The White House men wear grave faces, but they cannot hide their delight. It's another chance for Bush to protect us from those aliens with funny names, another opportunity to accuse Democrats of aiding and abetting the enemy.

This has worked twice before. It could work again this fall unless gullible Americans snap out of it. Wake up, folks, and recognize how stupid and wimpish you look. I wrote the following two years ago during a similar episode of red alerts: "Bush's ‘war on terrorism' is a political slogan--not a coherent strategy for national defense--and it succeeds brillantly only as politics. For everything else, it is quite illogical."

Then Greider asks the key question.

Where is the famous American skepticism? The loose-jointed ability to laugh at ourselves in anxious moments? Can't people see the campy joke in this docudrama called "Terror in the Sky"?

Now inevitably, some dickhead is going to accuse me of not taking terrorism seriously. Echoing the Donald Rumsfeld mode of Q&A, do I believe terrorism exists? Yes, of course. Do I understand that there are people who think nothing of killing thousands to make a point about their particular superstitious belief in invisible cloud beings and rewards after death? Absolutely. But do I think that the actual, measurable, and preventable acts of terrorism that truly threaten us have been responsibly addressed? In a word, no. Looking at actions versus rhetoric on the issue, I can only conclude that Bush and company care primarily for terrorism as a tool for the acquisition and consolidation of power and any protection of the people a fortunate coincidental occurrence.

After all, how many innocent people have been killed in Iraq? Has that action reduced the threat of terrorism? Are our ports better controlled? Are our borders secure? Where's Osama? Any word on those anthrax attacks four years ago? Are there fewer or more young Muslims ready to embrace the mythical 70+ virgins in martyr's heaven?

Good job, Georgie!

Detecting Bullshit in Berlin

Although I've been back since late Saturday night, it's taken me a while to get my thoughts together on the past week. Since my wife and I had to fly through London's Heathrow Airport from Berlin back to the US, we took acute interest in the alleged terror plot "uncovered" last Thursday. As I write this, our bags are still sitting somewhere in London, among more than 20,000 others, due to cancelled flights, broken screening machines, and the other effects of the alert. By some stroke of luck, we arrived at our ultimate destination in the United States less than two hours behind schedule, and even though our bags remain in limbo, I have to commend the British Airlines employees who worked so hard to keep things working. I'm very impressed with their diligence and calm in a rotten situation--they were universally helpful, understanding, remarkably good-natured, and I'll cheerfully fly British Air on my next trip back to the Old World.

On Thursday night, we came back to our apartment after a lovely dinner in a Mitte restaurant near Oranienburger Tor, and before turning bellies toward the ceiling to aid digestion, I flipped on the TV, hoping to catch another cool German detective show to help my admittedly poor language skills. On a German news channel, there was coverage of a terror plot uncovered and the effect it was having on air traffic through Heathrow. We switched to the BBC, needing to fully understand the implications for our return home, and received a calm and detailed report of what was known about the situation as well as information about what to expect as air travelers--delays, tight restrictions on carry-on baggage (i.e. none), and a rapidly developing situation.

Then over to CNN. The mantra: "Total chaos." This was repeated ad nauseum over shots of frustrated travelers, crowds of people at Heathrow, airplanes on the tarmac, and so on. "Total chaos." We would be flying home on Saturday, so this was not welcome news. "Total chaos."

On Saturday, fortunately, our flight Berlin-London was not one of many that were cancelled due to the situation. As we had learned from BA's website, we could carry only our identification papers, money, keys, and prescription meds--everything else had to be checked, including my little travel guitar which, alas, was not in a hardshell case but only protected by its gigbag, lush though its padding is. "Ah, die arme Guitarre," a young German man said behind me. Yes, the poor guitar indeed. Oh well--it was the risk I took hauling it around. Better to be secure.

But something about the distinct hysteria of CNN compared to coverage of the BBC and the German networks was sticking in my throat. While I was happy to shed myself of all material possessions in the interest of airline safety, there was something fishy here. My wife didn't think so--so many people arrested, such a profound set of restrictions suddenly imposed on air travel, so many flight cancellations, etc., she felt this had to be something imminent and very real. Call me cynical at this point, but when a terrorist "attack" is uncovered following a really shitty week for the Bush administration--ally on war Joe Lieberman defeated in the Democratic primary in Connecticut and much criticism on failing to act early in the Lebanese situation plus Dick Cheney's accusations of al Qaeda sympathies for anti-Lieberman voters--it's become rather natural to consider a political rather than a security motive.

Well, surprise, surprise! From the London Times today, we find this interesting piece.

“This is the busiest airport in the world at the busiest time of year,” said Heathrow’s chief executive officer Tony Douglas. “To suggest we could continue as if nothing had happened is frankly ludicrous.” Except, actually, nothing had. Not at Heathrow, anyway. No suspected terrorists were apprehended at or on the way to the airport, no bomb-making material was found on airport land. It never is. Look at the clear plastic box on display at every security checkpoint. Nail files, scissors, corkscrews, pen knives. No guns or bombs. Shortly to be joined by paperback books, cuddly toys and a litre of Buxton’s finest. But still no bombs.

Today, Britain’s state of alert will be downgraded from “Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God” to “Is it me or is that bloke with the beard sweating a bit?” which means small hand luggage will be allowed, but no liquids. Water bottles being the new shoes — remember Richard Reid, when everyone was under attack from Hush Puppies? — it is absolutely vital that we do not take liquid refreshment on to planes. Trains, fine: because, of course, whoever would think of targeting the rail network in Britain? Not this year, anyway. Well, I’m certainly feeling safer.

Now this doesn't mean that there wasn't a terror plot unfolding. It's just that it hadn't really unfolded so far that the British wanted to spring the trap.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

So why did the British pull the trigger when they did? Here's an Australian take on what I wish I was seeing on US network news. Why isn't this making its way into our mainstream media outlets?

BRITISH and American authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on suspects in the alleged plot to bring down US-bound airliners, US reports suggest.

A senior British official told NBC News on Saturday that British police were planning to continue surveillance for at least another week as the suspects had not yet bought airline tickets and some did not even have passports.

In contrast to previous reports, the unidentified official told NBC an attack was not imminent, but the US pressured British police to move in. The source did say police believed one British-based suspect was ready to conduct a "dry run". British authorities had wanted to let him continue with part of the plan, but the US baulked, the report said.

Isn't it sad when kneejerk reactions like mine, which are admittedly biased by my disgust with this regime, keep turning out to be true?

Anyway, more on the trip later. Only problem--my notebooks are in London with all the other stuff--not a ballpoint pen, nor a notebook could be carried onboard. Still, kudos to British Airways. Now, if they just deliver that guitar in playable condition...