Ever since 9/11 and the passage of the Patriotic Act—the same Patriot Act that blotted away much of the U.S. Constitution and our civil liberties along with it—and darted through Congress without so much as a whimper—ever since then I have been suspicious of any announced "terrorism threats." Remember the Shoe Bomber? The New York subway bombing threat of last summer? What about the many times the Department of Homeland Security has raised the advisory status to Yellow, for "significant risk of terrorist attacks," or to Orange, for "high risk" without any information as to why? Do these elevated risk periods ever coincide with flagging support for Bush at home (we are reasonable certain he is resoundingly hated abroad).
Here's what Craig Crawford wrote in Public Eye,
"Most memorable was the time last summer when we heard warnings of terror attacks on the East Coast – announced just as the Democrats wrapped up their national convention in Boston and sent presidential nominee John Kerry on the road for what they hoped would be a high-profile launch of his general election campaign.
"It later turned out that the terror alert that overshadowed Kerry’s launch was based on outdated intelligence, raising suspicion that it was done for political reasons and had little to do with public safety."
Crawford also points out how Tom Ridge, the first Director of Homeland Security grumbled about the White House "micro-managing the alert system."
Call me a wretched cynic, but when I heard about the foiled UK "terrorist plot" this morning, my first thought was, oh, Bush worked with Blair (everyone knows they are in each other's pants anyway) to manufacture a scare. Convenient way to get rid of enemies, I imagined, without having to answer any questions about it. Bush has a long and gloriously uncontested track record of besmirching or otherwise removing his enemies. You can read more about that in Sen. John Conyers recent, The Constitution in Crisis (see Chapter 4, Coverups and Retribution, or at least read over the Summary pages, which list the egregious violations of Federal law succinctly, such as,
"Federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals, for example, demoting Bunnatine Greenhouse, the chief contracting officer at the Army Corps of Engineers, because she exposed contracting abuses involving Halliburton.
"Federal requirements concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence, for example, failing to enforce the executive order requiring disciplining those who leak classified information, whether intentional or not."
Also of note, if you are interested in this Fascist swing of the U.S Government and want a scholarly take on it, check out Seattle journalist David Neiwert's brilliant, The Rise of Pseudo Fascism. You will be shocked and scared. And will no longer look with innocence on the announcement of yet another "terrorist plot" and the subsequent rounding up of the guilty parties, er, suspects.
While you are looking into The New Fascism, or Pseudo Fascism, as Neiwert terms it, don't forget to Google the connection between George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, and Nazi Germany, and more directly Adolph Hitler. I shiver to think of it, but a large chunk of our current president's family fortune came as a result of the deals made between our current president's grandfather and Hitler. Bush profitted directly from the Holocaust. Why is the Bush family not sued for this? Why isn't there mainstream media coverage of the hideous connection? And what does this slimey money acquisition say about the Bush family's propensity to influence-peddle and make deals with the devil?
Back to the alerts, I want to know why there is not more questioning by the mainstream media (which, then again, has been a factor ever since the 2000 election)? How do we know alert shifting is not politically motivated? We know nothing about the details of who was taken in the arrest of 21 that occured last night in London. Will we ever?