MSNBC's Keith Olbermann updated his top 10 list of occasions that the Bush Administration has gained political benefits around the same time that the public's fear of terrorism was at a peak. Olbermann describes it as "The Nexus of Politics and Terror."
Great, great segment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30ligvuLKCs


Taking these reports into account, one can hopefully begin to question authority. Most of it has sounded like and is increasingly a crock of shit in my eyes.

I figure this recent article is particularly pertinent to the above post, involving the latest supposed terrorism plot breakup. http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2 ... ror_p.html

August 14, 2006
The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?

I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.

So this, I believe, is the true story.

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.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.

The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.

We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.

For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up those who deviated from the Party line.

We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in letting them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would have done with the IRA.

In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.

Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.

i like Keith, never thought i'd like a Keith, but he fell between the cracks

Welcome to the world of autocorrelation in politics. Read the above for the latest developements.

Hopefully he balances out Ann Coulter, who also, regrettably, got her degree from Cornell University.

Autocorrelation?
When the grounds/evidence for many of these alleged terrorist scares turn out to be known well in advance or turn out to be bogus in the first place, the real motives behind all the warnings become highly suspect. I wouldn't call that questioning "autocorrelation", but rational inquiry. As Keith says, it's time for some serious questions to be asked.

Don't trivialize this discussion with some "autocorrelation" charge. Give us a break. Watch the clip before you comment on it - it's 10 minutes long so you couldn't have finished it already.

I don't recall saying that questions should never be asked or that political motives don't exist in the GWOT. I was only pointing one of the numerous logical fallacies in Mr. Craig's writing.

for example:

"Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. "

First, let’s ignore Mr. Craig's amazing ability to read the minds of world leaders and their desire to masacre their citizens. This sentence gives away the game by presuming that Bush and Blair want another 9/11, a fact the rest of his argument relies on, and a fact he gives no support for other than their bad poll numbers. Terror arrests boost poll numbers. Bush and Blair have bad poll numbers. Therefore the terror arrest was timed to improve poll numbers. Correlation does not imply causation.

"We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool."

This sentence is another example, by deliberately misquoting Reid and using a straw man to exaggerate his statements, he creates an alternate meaning for Reid's position with regards to the reduction of personal liberties bu UK law enforcement.

Craig then again presumes his theory of pure political motivation is true and claims there could be 'could be no clearer evidence', IOW dismissing any argument about motivation against this theory... by asserting that no evidence (for or against his point) supersedes this assumption based on his already shaky assumptions.

"Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harassment of Muslims on an appalling scale."

Is it? Or is it evidence of the judicial system functioning properly by dismissing allegations against those for whom there was enough evidence for an arrest but not enough for a charge? The real issue here is the selective presentation of facts. Mr. Craig presents statistics and claims harassment against Muslims, even more specifically British Muslims. His failure to put this into context of all arrests on anti-terror charges (regardless of religion or nationality) should, reasonably, call into question his charges of harassment.

Feel free to be persuaded by his ideas, I cannot judge their fundamental merit. He neglected to mention other evidence against them, such as the NSA work. Again, that doesn't prove him wrong.

I am just "very, very sceptical" of his presentation in this writing.



Unfortunately, we have competent sys-admins here so things like youtube, myspace, friendster, etc are blocked. Though I could point out the use of the words "read the above", which would imply the article and not the video.

Thanks for the video, very informative and well done. In defense of the administration (ugh) there were plenty, plenty more times when they could have been using "terror threats" other than the ones that Olberman named. Of course that isn't saying much. I'm sure plenty of times they were undoubtedly used solely for political gain and were completely disingenuous.

Is this Oberman's list?


1- May 18, 2002:
Memos about CIA knowlege about 9/11 plot

Two days after, DHS issues warnings of attacks against railroads nationwide and against New York City landmarks...

2- June 6, 2002:
9/11 flight school whistleblower testifies

Four days later, months-old arrest of Jose Padilla is announced as 'just-foiled terrorist plot'

3- Februrary 5-7 2003:
Colin Powell WMD presentation at UN + Anti-war protests

DHS raises threat level to Orange.

4- July 23-27, 2003:
False claims that Iraq purchased Uranium from Niger + 9/11 Congressional report + Abu Graib

Homeland Security issues warnings of terrorist attempts to use airplanes for suicide attacks.

5- Dec 17, 2003
Commission chair says 9/11 was preventable + Illegal detention of Jose Padilla (2) + Weapons inspector resigns , found no WMDs in Iraq

DHS raises threat level to Orange.

6- March 30, 2004
second weapons inspector "Still no WMDs in Iraq" + Civilian contractors publically executed in Fallujah

DHS warning about Fertiliser/Fuel bombs on buses and trains

7- May 16, 2004
Colin Powell interview almost derailed when he admits the Iraq presentation to UN was inaccurate and misleading + more Abu Graib pictures ( including the famous Lyndie Englund thumbs-up) + Wedding bombing in Iraq

Another plot against US 'discovered'

8- July 6, 2004
Kerry / Edwards democratic ticket announced

DHS warns of information about al Qaeda attacks during the summer or autumn.

9- July 29, 2004
Democratic Party convention

DHS raises threat level to Orange.

10- October 10, 2005
Karl Rove to testify about Valerie Plame CIA leak.

New York officials disclose a bomb threat to the city‘s subway system. Later it is revealed that the informant was fictitious

Thanks for your reply broken iris. You make many important points. Why can't everyone make an air-tight argument all the time? It's annoying when Craig, for instance, doesn't put the conviction of only 12% of British Muslims arrested under terrorist law into a greater perspective (that is not to say what side of the argument that greater perspective would have given more weight to). My replies to you were wrongly addressed more at the video, while you were going over the article. Yes, you have good sys-ops.

And yes, I picked up on his spelling of "sceptical" as well. Don't know if that's British or what but it's not how I learned to spell it.

And yes again, at a quick glance I do believe that is Olbermann's list.

Rouge,

I don't fundamentally disagree with either Mr. Craig's essay or the video clip. I believe that there is a high likelihood the terror alert system has been used to distract from the administrations many, many, oh-so many failings. Obviously, no arguments are always airtight. Look at my posts for many examples of bad or illogical arguments ( ). I just think that if you are someone of Craig or Oberman's status, you had better make damn sure your allegations are good before announcing them to the world.

In another thread I jokingly said that the British terror arrests were to distract from the Israeli land invasion of Lebanon..... they were conveniently timed for that UN resolution calling for Hezbollah's disarming.

Keith Olberman

He has the ratings of an infomercial.

the entire msnbc network has awful ratings -- that doesn't, however, make their opinions less worthy. also consider they have the top news web site -- beating out cnn and fox news by a wide margin.

Bush will never do anything to please you folks.

Who gives a shit. Your ratings around here are pretty low.

Touche.

I, however, do not make this a living. Olberman, on the other hand, does make it his living. His ratings are in the toilet.

Again, ratings have no bearing on truth. Popularity has no bearing on truth. I can come up with about a dozen cases where the majority of Americans are flat out wrong in their beliefs about something.

Nice video. I think there have been plenty of occasions when you could see something like this going on, especially after last week's airliner events, but it's nice to see the pattern laid out there like that.

Wow I'm totally shocked.

It really is nice to be one of the people who can already look back at the madness of the past few years and say, "I never bought any of it."

i was...a...college.......republican.

freshman year of college man. what did i know? i was all for war.