Dr. Mohammed: Take two car bombs and call me in the morning
Two failed terrorist plots in the U.K. -- back-to-back. No wonder Democrats are so gung-ho on "liberating" those sweet little darlings at Guantanamo -- al-Qaeda needs backup. To their credit, liberals haven't called for a ban on Jeeps, Mercedes, gas canisters, nails nor cell phones. Even more surprising, idiot Sen. Richard Lugar did not call on Gordon Brown to withdraw from London and Glasgow.
Focusing on what matters, Sen. Pat Leahy responded to the bomb plots by demanding more paperwork on the nine fired attorneys. Voters profoundly give a hoot about those nine losers. "Lame duck" Bush responded to Leahy by commuting "Scooter" Libby's sentence -- and wishing Leahy a Merry Fitzmas! I wish Leahy would follow Cheney's suggestion.
As happened after the recent foiled attempt to blow up JFK, the press's reaction to the London and Glasgow "incidents" was to spend hours and hours making sure the plots were not the work of nuns from the local Sisters of St. Joseph, while denying as long as possible that Muslim fanatics were involved. Couldn't be those nice people having a Religion of Peace. Wouldn't wanna drag Allah through the mud. Then, finally, suspicion turned to the real culprits -- Bush and Blair.
If I get this straight, homicidal Islamic maniacs wanted to blow up a nightclub in London and an airport in Glasgow because Tony Blair is now Mideast envoy, or because Tony Blair is becoming Catholic, or because Rushdie was Knighted, or because English schools teach the Holocaust, or because girls go to school in Afghanistan, or because Iraq has a constitution -- all this despite growing evidence Islamic terrorism is mainly caused by . . . Islamic terrorists.
ABC News quickly followed up by claiming on its Web site that it had bombshell information that Bush officials had "received intelligence reports two weeks ago warning of terror attacks in Glasgow" and other places, targeting "'airport infrastructure and aircraft," but that "the warnings apparently never reached officials in Scotland . . ." Obviously, Bush knew ahead of time. He had to know at least two weeks ahead of time in order to buy the nails, the gas canisters, have "Scooter" Libby rig the Mercedes and the Jeep and hire the Islamist chaps willing to die for Bush -- like the guy shouting "Allah! Allah!" with his body ablaze. The burning Bushie and his fellow traveler were trying to blow up hundreds of "school children departing Glasgow for summer holiday," (WSJ, 7/2). Yes, if only we opened a 'dialogue' with these people and asked them to stop. It's so critical to winning the fight!
Applying their superb instincts, liberals in the media kept calling the London and Glasgow plotters "homegrown", even after evidence emerged that only one of them was born in the U.K. and that the homegrowners were actually lovely "guest workers" imported primarily from the Middle East -- most of them 'guest working' as well-paid 'doctors', which oddly (once again) didn't fit the liberals' cherished profile of terrorists as "poor" and "impoverished" and "alienated", a situation which only could be "fixed" by raising taxes on the "rich". Exactly -- these nuts douse themselves in gasoline and set themselves alight because they're unhappy with current marginal tax rates. Riiiiight.
So now libbies complain hysterically that the car bomb is the "new weapon" of choice for terrorists because of Bush's war in Iraq, where there are car bombs. There was a 'car' bomb in the first World Trade Center bombing. There was a 'car' bomb in the Oklahoma City bombing. There were 'car' bombs in the '83 Beirut bombing, the '96 Khobar Tower bombing, the '98 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. In 1920, a horse-drawn wagon was used by terrorists -- clearly inspired by Bush's war in Iraq -- to bomb Wall Street. The IRA also used car bombs. Yes, the car bomb is the "new" weapon of choice because of Iraq.
On the other hand, the AP reported Monday that an al-Qaeda car bomb blew up at an ancient temple in Yemen, killing 9 people -- almost all of them Spanish tourists. Must be Spain's massive troop presence in Iraq.
Liberals have spent so much time and energy making excuses for terrorists they wouldn't know a "terrorist" if he smuggled an explosive device into a news studio and detonated it on live TV! Oh wait -- that was Keith Olbermann's head (after the "Scooter" Libby announcement).
To liberals, "terrorist" means someone who works for Fox News.
To normal Americans, terrorists try to blow up nightclubs packed mostly with women (as in the London plot) and blow up airports packed with school children on summer vacation (as in the Glasgow plot). I'm waiting patiently for that Washington Post headline, Women and Children targeted -- I'll let you know as soon as I see it.
It's interesting that by Monday night, "experts" were claiming the London-Glasgow plots were just the warm-up acts, and the chap who set himself ablaze would probably agree. But -- buy into the 'warm-up' theory and you buy into the goofy theory (beloved at the New York Times) that knocking off 5,000+ al-Qaeda heavies since 9/11 hasn't put the teensiest crimp on capabilities nor forced the al-Qaeda Human Resources Department bigshots to deal with mounting labor shortages for non-Iraq operations, made worse because the shortages are of 'workers' willing to do the 'scut work', given the high attrition rates in Iraq. Of the 8 bagged in the U.K. terror probe so far, 7 are doctors -- the A-listers of the al-Qaeda health care service.
When the creme de la creme of the Jihad-set (Islamist docs in this case) are having to carry out the menial, run-of-the-mill bombs-for-virgins operations -- usually the grunt work of Wahhabi chumps -- it speaks of labor problems and the extent to which al-Qaeda's been degraded operationally. But you go to Jihad with the docs you have.
The typical cell has a master bomb-maker but the docs seem to have rigged the stuff up themselves, which is why none of the bombs went off as intended. In the Glasgow gig, the docs -- the same little Gandhis behind the London plot -- knew the cops were hot on their trail so ramming their Jeep Cherokee into airport bollards looks more like a random, panicky last minute thing rather than Jihad Plan A. As for recruitment, it's hard to see how foiled attacks will be much help. Some of the smart-set yuk-yuk about amateur hour, but what they're actually seeing is how even the best organized and funded group of Muslim fanatics is no match for the Great Satan. Years of warmonger Bush's flypaper strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan has forced the little darlings into a life of cave-hopping and being on-the-lam -- so sad!
Again, it's hard to argue with the raw numbers: 7 out of 10 al-Qaeda honchos have been killed or captured. (We'll nab the rest of them next year when they address the Democrat convention.)
Stateside, the closest thing we've seen to an attack against the United States is a Michael Moore movie. The point of all this isn't, 'don't worry, threat's over' -- rather it's, 'hit the snooze and it'll be more than two skyscrapers next time'. Even in the best of times for al-Qaeda -- the Clinton years -- 9/11 was six years in the planning.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
