I first ran across John Aravosis’ take on the British terror arrests via Conn Carroll in yesterday’s Blogometer. Carroll quoted Aravosis asking:
[I]sn’t it queer that the emergency [red alert on U.S. airlines] is declared within a day of Republican party leader Ken Mehlman launching an all-out offensive against Democrats following Joe Lieberman’s loss in Connecticut, an offensive in which Mehlman, the White House and Republican operatives are claiming that Democrats no longer care about national security or the war on terror.
Aravosis frames the events of the last 48 hours as the White House surreptitiously moving against against a) the Democratic party, and b) American business travelers. That Bush is using Lieberman’s defeat against Democrats, and second, that he’s imposing stifling aviation rules without justification. (Aravosis’ judgment on the credibility of the Scotland Yard-scotched terror plot has evolved, which I’ll get to a bit later.)
Look, I agree the color-coded system is capricious and unhelpful to the public, and if the no-water on airplanes policy persists past a few weeks, I’ll join him in decrying that (I would also endorse the notion that the shoe-checks have outlived their usefulness, though they were useful at first). But in dysfunctional government policy and hardball politics he sees actual malice. Take this post, filed early yesterday afternoon:
In today’s NY Times, Dick Cheney warned that the Lieberman loss would embolden “Al Qaeda types.” It is reasonable to assume that Cheney, like Bush, knew about the unfolding scandal in Great Britain. Think about this for a minute. It shows how evil the Bush/Cheney team really is. Knowing that this story was about to break, Cheney invoked Al Qaeda in purely political terms.
Cheney and Aravosis are actually making the same mistake on purpose, and both for political reasons. They both purport to believe that “al Qaeda types” are even following the primary defeat of a hawkish opposition party member, so they can politicize the war, for dovishness and calculation.
But what ground rules would Aravosis put on Cheney’s discussion of foreign policy matters? Only if he promises not to mention Democrats? Not within 15 days of an election? Aravosis isn’t criticizing the substance of Cheney’s remarks, but instead that he made any remarks at all.
And I don’t have time to check and see if Aravosis has criticized Bush for calling terrorists “evil,” but if thinking strategically about approaching elections is “evil,” then I don’t know what you’d call Jack Abramoff.
Flash forward to this morning, where Aravosis starts walking back from his verdict on the terror arrests yesterday: That the threat was not legitimate, and the U.S./British reaction was wildly overblown. Conservative bloggers seized on his coments — see Stephen Bainbridge and Pejman Yousefzadeh, plus George Gooding with a bigger picture view — identifying it as more evidence that the left-wing blogosphere is unserious about terrorism, as charged. Carroll put a “tin-foil hat” on him; earlier this week, Jacob Weisberg made a similar argument, saying Ned Lamont’s supporters “appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously.”
And Aravosis even wrote it like he knew he was mistaking bad timing as a conspiracy:
Do I sound as if I don’t believe this alert? Why, yes, that would be correct. I just don’t believe it. Read the article. They say the plot had an “Al Qaeda footprint.” Ooh, are you scared yet? What that really means is that they found NO evidence whatsoever that the plot had anything to do at all with Al Qaeda, but the plot simply made them think “gosh, this is something Al Qaeda would do.” That’s what a footprint means. Nice, but no cigar.
That’s increasingly untenable, as more information comes out and more arrests are made. Today Aravosis writes:
Intelligence successes are generally more effective when they remain private, but of course if a threat still exists, and can be minimized through public disclosure, that’s a legitimate reason for exposure. Still, considering the past (and present) political use of terror threats, I think skepticism about timing and motives is understandable. They boy who cried wolf writ large.
Well, that’s better. Still, he doesn’t really address his previous exculpation of previous U.S. terrorism arrests:
Were these guys totally innocent? Probably not. But there’s no reason to believe they were any more Osama’s right-hand than Jose Padilla, the famed dirty-bomber who I think is now only being charged with jay-walking or something. Then there were the famous six Muslim-American guys in New York state, supposedly operating their own al Qaeda cell. Not so much. Or how about the Al Qaeda cell in Florida trying to blow up the Sears Tower? Oh that’s right, they were just some demented friends squatting in a warehouse and “thinking” about it. And then there’s the famous plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge - with a single blow torch.
Padilla didn’t get very far as a prospective terrorist, but the legal battle surrounding him has been about how to handle al Qaeda arrestees, not about whether he committed conspiracy to commit jaywalking. In the case of the Buffalo Six, all six were convicted of providing material support to al Qaeda, and one was later killed by a U.S. Hellfire missile in Yemen. He identifies correctly the Miami case as one where there really was no case, and I’ll grant him that. Hey, I’ll even throw in Joel Hinrichs, the Sooner Boomer, the suicidal Oklahoma sudent who detonated himself outside Memorial Stadium during a football game in 2005, of whom conservative bloggers fanned many erroneous rumors. But as for the Brooklyn Bridge, I’m not sure where “a single blow torch” comes from, but Iyman Faris knew Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and he too was convicted.
Besides, there’s no proof that the 7/7 suicide bombers received practical support from Osama bin Laden either, but they were deadly nonetheless.
It’s more problematic that he doesn’t mention Richard Reid [Update: Spelling corrected; see this comment] or Lockerbie. Maybe terrorists haven’t had much luck with blowtorches or crop dusters, but for Aravosis to leave out all previous terrorist attacks involving planes in favor of other, lesser examples of terrorist attempt or intent, while blithely dismissing those and mangling the facts, sure, it’s fair to say that John Aravosis, for one, is not very serious about terrorism.
I will at least allow that he is serious about his opposition to Bush because he disagrees strenuously with his national security policy. I just don’t think Aravosis has any idea what to replace it with, and he’s not above sticking to bad conclusions that make Republicans out to sound as bad as possible.
P.S. Jim Treacher asks: “Why do the beverages hate us?” Along with other clever lines that would’ve made a good header to this post. [Update: He's now hosting a poll asking: What do we call this un-quenching imbroglio?]
P.P.S. Greetings, Instapundit readers! Is there a better Instalanche than a pre-lunch time link before the professor heads to class (I presume) for three hours? Nay, I believe there is not. Well, maybe on a Monday.
This has been my standing complaint with pretty much 90% of those to my left on this issue: the inability to coherently state what policies they want enacted. Instead they mostly content themselves with carping and with spinning everything in the most negative possible light.
Which you can do to anybody on anything. I can find things to criticize in your last trip to the grocery store if you just give me your receipt–you spent too much, you brought the wrong brand, you didn’t buy enough, you bought too much… it’s a child’s game, really. Where’s the substance? Where are the firm principles you stand by that you can articulate, and based on those make predictable (dare I even say falsifiable?) assertions?
One point of view or the other apparently has to be true. Either there is a serious terrorist threat or their isn’t. I don’t see how there could be a semi-serious threat. I remember the hysteria when a handful of abortion clinics were bombed and it sounded like the Christian Right was preparing to kill all the liberals.
Given only a dichotomous choice, I’ll go with the better safe than sorry alternative of serious terrorist threat. If you accept that, then the argument is merely over practices to detect, prevent, and respond to acts of terror. That’s a useful debate I think, but evidently the American Left is unprepared to make it. They choose the no real terrorist threat. If they’re wrong, who takes responsibility?
Jorg, they will blame George Bush. But many times I have seen the whole “you are more likely to die from a lightning strike, than a terrorist strike”, well fine, once we can control the weather I want that to stop happening. Well, we can put some controls on the terrorists. Watch the money, watch people from this country calling known terrorist phone numbers, and interrogate the ones we have.
Yet all of the above, have been made examples of the Administration being evil. Really, so if I call Osama on his cell, the US government has no reason to listen in? Please, heck, maybe we know they have to go through channels to get the number listened too. So I just use one of the 600 cell phones Mohhammed bought, and throw it away after the use. Now the government can get a warrnt, but oops, never going to use that phone again. That warrant is no longer worth the paper it is printed on.
Next time I call Osama, I use a different phone, again the feds get the warrant, but I have already thrown that phone away as well. Again, it gets tapped and oops, no more calls are made on that phone.
So the liberals bitch about it. And now the above scenario can be used to thwart the Feds ability to catch me.
So they do not want people watching the money. So I get 3k cash put into my account each week from my handler, on the watch list, but hey they can not look at my money coming in.
They do not take it serious, if they listened to some Democrats, Terrorism would be a more likely way to die than lightning strikes. And then what would they say, George Bush is not serious about protecting us.
Anyway, since 2002, I have not voted for a democrat, I do not even look at the Dems running anymore. I used to select who I thought was the best person for the job, but no longer. At least until the WOT is over.
You and so many other people just fail to understand the mindset. It’s perfectly simple: if we just get out of Iraq and handcuff Israel, they won’t hate us anymore and terrorism will stop. The “anti-war” crowd simply does not believe that any Muslim that attacks the US could possibly do so for reasons other than these.
Don’t mention to them that 9/11 was planned before Bush 43 was elected. Don’t bother to bring up all the many public statements by Islamo-fascists that the US, and by extension the West, must be destroyed for reasons that go back long before the Republican Party even existed. They won’t listen. The minds are closed. To them, we are the problem, not the death cult that has grown under the influence of Paleo-Islam, and is only encouraged by what they see and hear from certain media outlets. That’s why Dean doesn’t hear a practical, believable, alternative plan. They really don’t think they need one the way he would define it.
I think what he is saying is that public knowledge of real terrorism threats hurts the Democratic Party.
Well, duh.
“…e doesn’t mention Richard Reed…”
This hits real close to home: you mean Richard Reid. I don’t need the unnecessary aggravation.
Cordially…
A couple of weeks ago a guy using the shoe bomb tactic killed a bunch of people in a mosque.
I’m not sure I understand why it is that shoe-checks have outlived their usefulness. Seems to me that once a thing is invented it’s rather hard to uninvent it.
And I’m saying that knowing that I hate the entry process, shoes or not.
As of yesterday afternoon, Kos had not made a single post about the arrests. If that is the way the Democratic party is moving, count me out.
So which elected office does John Aravosis hold? Or Kos for that matter? I must have missed those elections.
Piggy:
Kos holds the elected position of Democratic nominee for the US Senate from Connecticut.
(by proxy)
Based on that last, I designate Piggy as at least half unserious.
Piggy,
That was pretty disingenuous; Kos just helped defeat a 3 term incumbent in the CT primary. Don’t you remember doing the Snoopy happy dance all night?
Also, many of the above comments apply to Congressional Dems (their lack support in the GWOT).
You did miss the election, and you missed the near total absence of elected Dems proposing meaningful tactics on the GWOT. Would it kill the Dems to be ahead of the Repubs on any issue of National Security? Well, it will kill some of us if they don’t.
As well as the point.
I can speak from my experience as a former liberal, having voted Fritz in ‘84. In that life, contradictions were not only common but also pretty cool. To be conflicted, you see, was to live the true life, rootless and searching. All the best artists were conflicted about SOMETHING. To have and hold dear a firm belief or worldview was to be a square: Falwellian and oh-so-middle class. Thus I proffer that the present confusion re foreign policy on The Left is not accidental. Less Iraq, they say, more Homeland Security…but none of these civil rights violations, no…spend more money on port security…but wait, we want open borders from here to Argentina…you CAN’T say something concrete about ANYTHING or you will have your hip credentials ripped from your uniform like Chuck Connors in Branded. The horror, the horror…