US & UK Authorities had BIG ARGUMENT About Timing of Bust...

[elehhhhna]

MSNBC @ 3:30 CDT. Guess who wanted to hurry it up, and who wanted to develop more evidence so the convictions would STICK? Go ahead, guess.

[Cha]

1. HaHa, too bad about the

timing, shitfaces!

[Bobbie47]

2. saw a report earlier about this

why was I not surprised?

[elehhhhna]

3. It's become so predictable. My Reep neighbors aren't even falling

for it.

[bobbolink]

20. Welcome to DU!!

:toast:

That's a very good name you have... :hi: :thumbsup: :hi:

[NVMojo]

4. this move by the British courts must be connected to this ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2453038

[uppityperson]

5. I was wrong.

I said something the last couple days that Mr.bush helped by keeping his mouth shut. I was wrong. What an arrogant egomaniac.

[EFerrari]

11. I'm beginning to believe that they really are as stupid

out of control and unaccountable as they seem to me.

:scared:

Maybe I should get one of those bumperstickers Skinner posted about the other day -- about not believing everything you think.

But, damn.

[Peace Patriot]

6. I figured it was all about Lamont. Is that what this means? The Bush

junta wanted to rush it out, to bump Lamont off the front page and out of the news altogether. (MY local shit-rag did just that. They are a bellweaher for Rovian news manipulation strategy.)

[scarletwoman]

17. Not JUST Lamont. It bumped Lebanon off the top, too.

The public was starting to get a little twitchy about all those dead Lebanese babies -- uncontrolled outbreaks of empathy for Arabs is highly dangerous to the preferred us vs. them narrative of the Hegemon.

The masses are now too busy being being subjected the latest psyop (OMG!!! We could have all DIED!!!) from the Terror administration to worry about Lebanon at the moment. In addition, the bushies now have their shiny new UN resolution to wave about, allowing the masses to gratefully let Lebanon drop from their minds without feeling too guilty about it.

Besides, OMG!!! We could have all DIED!!!

sw

[elehhhhna]

18. ...and the 9/11 Commission news... and our 2,601 dead in Iraq...

[scarletwoman]

19. Oh yeah. All that too. The bushie/corporate media message machine is

a wonder to behold, is it not?

sw

[leftchick]

35. well it was either the terra or shark attacks

and there have not been any this summer so push the TERRA> Ya can't pay the sharks. :eyes:

[converted_democrat]

24. I feel the same way about.. n/t

[sweetheart]

23. yep, the UK is a joke

like a yoyo to jerk around for laughs.
Up and down.

[Texasgal]

7. Link?

[DireStrike]

8. Don't worry, the strawman team is coming.

They will quickly resolve this topic by joking about how the terrorists were all hired by rove.

[Ilsa]

9. Here's the link on MSNBC site:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/

NBC: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests
British believed attack wasn’t imminent, wanted to continue surveillance

By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers, and the NBC News Investigative Unit
NBC News
Updated: 5 minutes ago

LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.

snip

The source did say, however, that police believe one U.K.-based suspect was ready to conduct a "dry run." British authorities had wanted to let him go forward with part of the plan, but the Americans balked.

[elehhhhna]

10. "...some did not even have passports" THAT's Imminent? WTF?

[madmusic]

12. An Inconvenient Immanence. n/t

[mom cat]

32. Does a "dry run" mean that it would have been without "liquids"?

[robinlynne]

13. recommended. thanks for the link.

[BooScout]

14. Anyone still convinced that Tony isn't a lapdog?

:-(

[elehhhhna]

15. Tony's on the verge of being tossed OUT...this was supposed to

help him. I think Butch & Blear have misunderestimated their publics.

[BooScout]

16. No he's not.....

Believe me....i wish he was but truely he isn't.

[Beelzebud]

21. But I'm a "tin-foil hatter" for calling it BS.

How many times do some people have to be LIED to before they start becoming skeptical about every piece of BULLSHIT put in front of them?

[elehhhhna]

22. It sounded like the Miami karate club bust to me,

with wings.

[Beelzebud]

25. Exactly.

[eridani]

30. Probably more serious than that, but definitely--

--NOT IMMINENT!

[malaise]

26. Bush and Blair will never

fool me. They are both pathological, opportunistic liars. Anytime all of MSM are on script within an hour of 'breaking news' and nerves, I smell more bullshit. This is more bullshit.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. Don't be so quick ......

The report says that after the US got involved, the **timing** was the debate. There is no doubt that Rove got involved in how to stage manage this 'event'. What is not in dispute is the underlying case .... as developed and managed by Scotland Yard with little from our side.

The dispute was: timing and seriousness/imminance.

[elehhhhna]

37. Ya think Cheney's snarky, grinning comments on "More terrorism"

pushed the bust up? Wouldn't shock me.

[Straight Shooter]

27. Some didn't have passports? OMG.

This going to fly like a lead balloon in the courts.

Remember when bush revealed the laptop computer with info on terrorists, and bungled a Brit intelligence operation? This was at another time when he was sinking in the polls.

I just knew there was something hinky about this, in some form or another, because the timing of revealing the "foiled plot" was just too ...... opportunistic, shall we say, for bush and his gang.

Can you even begin to imagine how angry you would be if you thought someone you loved came within a hair's breadth of dying a horrid death, only to discovery that -- whoops! -- not even close, not really. I do believe the threat of terrorism is real enough, but the Brits would never allow a LIHOP.

[Tansy_Gold]

29. This is the kind of bs that stinks the most, because it isn't

just the bs of the headlines, it's the really stinking manure that hangs around and smells for weeks.

The more often this happens, the more people are going to become sceptical. Each time, a few more "believers" peel off the roll and join the sceptics, the LIHOPers, the MIHOPers. Sure, some of us were there from the beginning, from BEFORE the 2000 election even, but as time has gone by, more and more are beginning to see the bs for what it really is -- bs.

And that increasing reluctance -- rapidly becoming refusal -- to trust anyone with any ties to The Administration (or even to the government) leads to increasing vulnerability in the event of a REAL threat, or a real attack.

It's the classic boy crying wolf, or in this case the booosh crying terra. Eventually no one believes him.

Am I suggesting we trust these bozos? Fuck, no, of course not. If anything, I trust them less and less (which means I'm way into negative numbers on the trust level, because I NEVER trusted them). Am I suggesting we meekly surrender our rights every time they demand it? Again, fuck, no. Because surrendering doesn't make us one tiny bit safer from any threat, real or perceived or just plain fabricated.

Boyfriend and I had a long discussion about this yesterday. I tried to get across to him the notion that the veracity of the threat from this UK "conspiracy" doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we are "safer" under the current administration.

1. Threat or no threat, we are not safer because the measures to ensure our safety have never been put into place. As only one example, the whole concept of using non-detectable liquid explosives has been around since at least 1995, but nothing's been done about it, and even the "no liquids on the plane" bullshit does not eliminate the threat of something planted in unscrutinized checked luggage. But all of a sudden, in August 2006, bizarre security measures are rushed into place because of a possible plot, by people who don't even have passports. THIS MAKES NO SENSE, none whatsoever, not even if the threat is REAL.

2. The increasing secretiveness of the administration prohibits any meaningful examination of the validity of the claims of possible imminent attacks. The more people are required to accept these claims on blind faith -- yes, even those benighted Americans who have more "faith" than anyone else in the western world -- and then see them turn out to be untrue, the less likely they are to take needed security measures when a real threat looms. In other words, the next administration is going to have a helluva mess. Indeed, if the Dems take back one or the other of the houses of congress in January, the general housecleaning is going to occupy a lot of time, energy, and money, and it is going to have to overcome considerable resistance on the part of the general population.

3. Internal and external distrust of Americans is reaching gridlock proportions. The "true believers" are ever more entrenched in their ideology. I know a few of them, and I'm sure all the rest of you do, too. Most of the diehards I know are becoming more and more belligerent, more and more rigid, as they resist the pull of reality. At least some of the moderates who are beginning to see the light are very angry. They're pissed that they were lied to for so long, were taken advantage of, were suckered and used and abused. We on the left, needless to say, have been angry for a long time. So we have this internal animosity that's been fermenting for almost six years.

But we also have the distrust so many Americans have of anyone who's "different," meaning not only domestic others but obviously all those others from other countries. Stack that on top of the fear and loathing they have for us, their distrust of our "leadership," their loathing of our official (as opposed to individual) arrogance, and jeeeeesus, it's a fuckin' mess.

4. It all goes back to the insanity of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. If Saddam DID have WMDs, why were we sending our troops into that kind of situation? Bad choice based on the evidence. If he DIDN'T have WMDs, why were we sending our national reputation into that kind of situation? Bad choice based on the evidence. Either way, any person with any sense at all had to understand that the booosh administration was LYING. It didn't matter what they were lying about; it just mattered that they didn't tell the truth.

So they've shovelled bs on bs on bs, and now it's come to this.

It has NEVER been about the safety of the public. NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER. When enough people wake up to this, there's going to be hell to pay.

I think I'll go out and get drunk.


Tansy Gold

[elehhhhna]

31. BUT: No charges brought, and a 90 - day extension on holding them? Hmmm:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2453348

[mom cat]

33. Gee. Lets see now. 90 days ... Just after the November election.

Nothing to see here. Just move along.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. The 90 day extension wouldn't apply to these suspects

The Scotsman article says:

The 90-day proposal - rejected following a humiliating rebellion by Labour MPs last November - is expected to form the centrepiece of further anti-terror powers to be included in the Queen's Speech this autumn.

It's future legislation that Blair is trying to bring back, now he thinks the fear level has been ratcheted up. If they couldn't start debating the bill until October when Parliament reconvenes, the present suspects would have long had the 28 days after which they have to be charged or released.

[elehhhhna]

38. thx, muriel. Obivously didn't catch that.

[Rex]

34. And just which one believes in guilty until proven innocent?

It will be interesting to see what the UK comes up with.