« Necessary Conditions for Invoking The Infield Fly Rule | Main | Never Mind About The Other 48 »


April 23, 2009 | Permalink


I found an article from the LA times dated 8-8-2005 about the L.A. plot. There are some interesting bits in there such as:

"(authotities) said that, at best, the alleged plot was something that had been discussed but never put into action. By the time anybody knew about it, the threat – if there had been one – had passed, federal counter-terrorism officials said Friday."


"To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous," said one senior FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with departmental guidelines.

Tragically, however, a plane DID crash into some buildings in San Diego during Bush's presidency, killing a man's wife, mother-in-law, and two baby daughters.

And even though the pilot made "a series of errors", two of which in my opinion were extremely negligent and appalling for someone "close to finishing his training", he will be allowed to keep flying.


Posted by: tpulley | Apr 23, 2009 6:01:55 AM

"A Few Questions", eh? I guess that's a new way to spin torture.

Posted by: thomasblair | Apr 23, 2009 7:24:57 AM

So next time maybe we should just let 'em blow up the city, eh?

Posted by: Tom McMahon | Apr 23, 2009 8:05:12 AM

What do you mean? We did let them blow up the city. Multiple cities, even. Let's see... Baghdad, Fallujah, Mosul, Basrah, Kirkuk, Najaf...

Iran couldn't have asked for a better present!

Posted by: tpulley | Apr 23, 2009 10:57:59 AM

LA Cheers --> Next LA Plot Succeeds --> LA Destroyed --> Mecca Destroyed --> NYC Destroyed --> North Korea Destroyed --> DC Destroyed --> Peking Destoryed --> Chicago Destroyed --> Moscow Destroyed --> World Destroyed --> Any Questions?

Posted by: vanderleun | Apr 23, 2009 1:47:40 PM

Sorry, but it looks like torture didn't save LA:


You might want to issue a retraction on this infographic.

Posted by: Brian Puccio | Apr 23, 2009 2:15:21 PM

Yeah vanderleun, I have a question or two...

To all those of you daydreaming about terrarists destroying U.S. cities, how is it that you've forgotten about a U.S. city that actually was destroyed during the Bush presidency? In that case, the impending threat was much more real, visible, and predictable. Is it any less significant because Osama Bin Laden wasn't responsible for it?

Posted by: tpulley | Apr 23, 2009 2:36:23 PM

I don't recall ever seeing that Bush administration memo which predicted that muslim extremists were going to fly airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on the morning of September 11. Can you please publish a link to that memo which makes the impending 9-11 attack real, visible and predictable? All the declassified memos I've seen described a theoretical, hidden and unpredictable attack.

I work in L.A. and it bugs me that the very organization who is charged with the responsibility of providing for the common defense of our country is choosing to put the battlefield for the war on terror right back on U.S. soil. America was attacked on U.S. soil under the Bush presidency, and he immediately moved the battle to the enemy's territory. But yellow-bellied liberal idiots demanded from day one that we keep the battle here. Bring the troops home now, they said. Let Bagdhad and Mosul and Kabul be safe; let's keep the threat right here at home where it belongs. We Americans are such awful terrible people for having money and power, we deserve whatever horror those poor misunderstood peace-loving muslim extremists want to rain down upon our vile heads.

Congratulations, cowards. You got the president who will make Bagdhad safe for gangs with rocket launchers. You got the president who will withdraw troops from the terrorist training camps. You got the president who will bring the troops home, and their war with them. Nice job.

I don't work near downtown L.A., and for that I'm glad, because the president you chose will be tested, and rather than learning from the military defeats suffered by the last administration, will repeat them as expeditiously as possible. It will probably take five or six more such attacks before liberals start to believe that there is a credible threat to American citizens. But for God's sake, don't take off the blinders before then!

Posted by: Peter | Apr 23, 2009 9:20:10 PM

Keep up the good work. It is amazing the responses you get. You have obviously hit a nerve -- it appears some protest too much.

Posted by: Bruce Oksol | Apr 23, 2009 10:19:40 PM

RadLibs inhabit a world of their own imagination fueled by an absurd emotion of unplacatable disatisfaction. The morality they impose is not by them obeyed, it is a formula that presupposes a justice that replaces facts with hopes about the way things ought to be were those who preexisted the arrival of this morality on earth not on earth. Hence, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn's make-their-minds-right brainwash camps in Arizona. Hence, the suspension of disbelief regarding B. Hussein Obama's true allegiances regarding Soros and King Fahd in spite of the FACTS that he was born in Kenya - - - Oh, THIS IS MAD! To have to refute radical AlinskianIsm on a daily basis while the clouds stretch away over ancient mountains split by downrays of cool spotfree Sunne.

Posted by: HorizonScanner | Apr 24, 2009 9:23:08 AM

@peter - I was talking about New Orleans. And here's the memo about the upcoming 9/11 attacks from August 6, 2001:

Granted, it was only titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" and only refers to a possible hijacking.

I'm sure he would have liked to call in and notify everyone ahead of time, but I think may have been some language-barrier problems.

And if Bin Laden was between Pakistan/Afghanistan, and the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, then why did the war go to Iraq? I probably wouldn't take it very well if a foreign country's professional military illegally invaded/occupied mine and blew the crap out it while politically destabilizing everything, creating a fresh landscape for terrorism to form anew.

Don't mistake me, I don't blame our nation's military for any of this, and I sincerely appreciate their sacrifice, dedication, and valor. If I had to point at a singular person responsible for misusing them, it would most likely be Rumsfeld.

@horizonscanner - can I have some of what you're smoking?

Posted by: tpulley | Apr 24, 2009 4:38:47 PM

By that reasoning, why did we make it a priority to defeat Germany first when it was Japan who bombed Pearl Harbor?

Posted by: Tom McMahon | Apr 24, 2009 7:15:21 PM

I've seen that memo. Once again, I ask you to point out where in that memo (or any other) the time, place and manner of attack are identified. I'm not finding it.

Okay, you brought up New Orleans, so let's talk about New Orleans. How, precisely, was George W. Bush responsible for Hurricane Katrina? You may be misinformed about the extent of power granted to the president by our constitution; he is commander in chief of the military, can veto legislation, and can nominate Supreme Court justices. Control of meteorological phenomena, however, is not granted by the Constitution. I guess that's one of those powers reserved by the states.

Equating the devastation in New Orleans to a planned terrorist attack is ridiculous. Katrina wasn't an attack; it was a natural catastrophe. Terrorists don't plan attacks by hurricane, so the comparison to a series of terrorist attacks is at best irrelevant, and at worst dishonors the people of New Orleans by using their misery for a political argument.

Posted by: Peter | Apr 25, 2009 12:15:49 AM

Not to mention that the Federal government can NOT declare a disaster until they are asked to do so by the state government--which Louisiana dawdled on. Not to mention that Ray "Chocolate" Nagin is a corrupt, incompetent fool who, amongst other shortcomings, exacerbated the situation by not forcing evacuation when there was still time.

Posted by: Sparticus | Apr 25, 2009 12:33:03 AM

Tom, that is an excellent point. And I'll call myself out for begging the question that Iraq was irrelevant to the war on terror. I will buy the argument that it was an oppressive regime, and that the people are better off for having Saddham removed. To acknowledge the bleeding-heart-liberal argument, I boil that down to: mistakes were made, shit happened, let's deal with the present.

Now to answer the question, I would say Germany posed an imminent threat to West Europe, without whom the US would be disadvantaged to properly conduct war with Japan. That's my best educated guess, but I could be wrong. My take is that the US was leaning toward heavier involvement in European war prior to Pearl Harbor, and that allowed rapid deployment while Pacific warfare strategy was being made. That could be an interesting discussion, and I'm always in to learn more ww2 history.

@peter - you're right. that was memo was pretty vague. Plus, as then-secretary Rice testified, they had gotten so many of those that they had quit standing out by that point.

Also, you'll notice that at no time have I equated the Katrina disaster to a planned terrorist attack. If you want to get pedantic like I do, I'll submit that I have implied a connection. I was just bringing up the fact that a city was destroyed, and asking how is that different. You're absolutely right about Kathleen Blanco completely failing in all meanings of the word, but to me it looked like some people at the top who could have had SOME influence and taken action just kind of shrugged their shoulders and went, (paraphrasing) "well that kinda sucked I guess".

By the way, as a Louisiana native (technically), I'm thrilled to have Mr. Jindal for gov, and he's a refreshing change. For the longest time, LA politics required inherent corruption just to make the machine run (and connect with business). My mom has a business award photo with Edwin Edwards even!

Yeah, Nagin's a fool. I'll say the man has charisma, and that's a good thing to have in new orleans. And how about that William Jefferson!?

Posted by: tpulley | Apr 26, 2009 7:20:19 AM

Hurricane Katrina might have been a natural disaster on the Mississippi gulf coast and in some Louisiana communities, but let's not forget that it was a man-made disaster in New Orleans. New Orleans flooded due to the failure of the levees that the federal government improperly designed and inadequately maintained.

Posted by: CajunMan | Apr 28, 2009 4:19:27 PM

New Orleans was the result of the stupidity of people living below sea level.

Posted by: Jonny | Apr 29, 2009 8:58:01 AM

> "A Few Questions", eh? I guess that's a new way to spin torture.

Here's the torture being "spun":

"OOOHHH. Looky looky! A Caterpillar!!! OOOOHhhh, better talk, or we might let it lick your face!!"


I think I know who's doing the spinning, and it ain't the Right.

> What do you mean? We did let them blow up the city. Multiple cities, even. Let's see... Baghdad, Fallujah, Mosul, Basrah, Kirkuk, Najaf... Iran couldn't have asked for a better present!

You know, showing that you're an ignorant fool really, really doesn't help your cause much.

Within 90 days of the lifting of sanctions, Saddam would have been able to make anthrax or botulin toxins in industrial quantities. Within 180 days, he would have been able to make the other of those two in industrial quanitities. This is the OPEN ASSESSMENT of Hans Blix -- hardly a shill for the Bush Admin.

Now, given the amount of money Saddam was tossing around (enough to make Enron look like the chintziest of pikers), it is an entirely rational statement that:
1) Saddam would have had the sanctions lifted 3,4, even *5* years ago. He would have had botulin and anthrax six months after that, and a very large available supply, what, six months after that.

Now, given that he OPENLY rewarded the 911 hijackers' families, operated THREE of the world's SIX then-known terrorist training camps (including one which had a fully intact airframe for training in airplane takeovers... geee, I wonder who MIGHT have taken advantage of that!!?), had used nerve gas on his own people, as well as on Iran during the Iran-Iraq war -- given ALL THAT information, how much trouble do you think he would have had with the notion of making such biotoxins available for terrorist usage, underneath the table, so he had sufficient plausible deniability?

In contrast, given the other two states in question --

NoKo -- while it has weapons, it also has China sitting there. The threat of having to deal with it directly has been adequate to this point to have China acting to keep the Gargoyle in substantial check -- at one point they summoned him to Beijing, apparently to make it VERY clear that he needed to STFU.

I'd like to see more action, but it's one of the clear and obvious reasons why attacking NoKo, which does represent the most obvious, undeniable up-front problem, isn't politically smart. If there is a military that we don't want to test ourselves against, it would be China's. We would probably win, but I don't think the results would be happy for either side. And operating our military on the border with China, well, we know (or should, if you're ignorant of it) what happened the *last* time we did that.

Iran -- Well, since they STILL don't have any weapons of substance, while Saddam (see discussion above) would CLEARLY HAVE HAD THEEM BY NOW, the assessment -- "Iraq is more immediate than Iran" is blatantly self-evident.

So, all around, the notion, implicit in your comment, that we should have attacked Iran instead of Iraq (or, more ridiculous still, should not have attacked either), is specious, foolish, and all around blatantly wrong.

P.S., since I'm sure some idiot comment about how "long" it's taken is about to pop up, I'll point out: The WAR was over with "Mission Accomplished", some 90-180 days from its start. The activities SINCE then have not been a war but a pacification action.

And if you actually bother to look at how long we were in charge in Japan, you'd find out that it was until 1951, almost *gasp!* SIX YEARS after the war "ended".

In Europe, we ceded some control to the western Bloc of Germany in 1949, 4 years later, but did not cede full control over Germany --OR AUSTRIA-- (for the most part) until 1955, almost a full TEN years after the end of the war. Further, Germany did NOT possess all the sovereignty of a state until the unification removed ALL the strictures placed against it, in *1991*.

Oh, and the Korean War was over in 195*3*.

You might note we *still* have quite a few troops there.

In short, the time in Iraq has been neither atypical, unreasonable, nor surprising to anyone with ANY actual grasp of HISTORY.

Funny how things the Left constantly takes blatantly out of context manage to look really, really stupid when someone takes the time to actually PLACE them back into context, innit?

Posted by: Obloodyhell | May 2, 2009 8:00:27 AM

> the impending threat was much more real, visible, and predictable. Is it any less significant because Osama Bin Laden wasn't responsible for it?

What, you mean the fact that the engineers had been predicting for several *decades* that the pumps that kept New Orleans dry would fail if the city ever took a direct hit from a Cat 4 hurricane? (This from a *1999* article in American Heritage of Invention and Technology).

I think you're right!!

WHY THE HELL DIDN'T - - - CLINTON - - - ***DO*** something about this instead of getting BLOWJOBS from his INTERN?

Why did he ignore such a glaringly *obvious* problem for EIGHT YEARS, leaving it instead for a Preesident preoccupied with dealing with the worst terrorist attack on US soil -- *ever*.


You... Big... Dummy...

Posted by: Obloodyhell | May 2, 2009 8:06:19 AM

> I don't work near downtown L.A.,

Peter, given that LA is probably #3 or #4 on the list of most likely nuke targets (mainly because it's hard to say which is easier to hit -- LA or Miami), behind NYC and DC, I would suggest that anywhere in the viscinity of LA is hardly as safe as you might want it to be.

Posted by: Obloodyhell | May 2, 2009 8:10:35 AM

> And if Bin Laden was between Pakistan/Afghanistan, and the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, then why did the war go to Iraq?

I believe I made a very clear case for that above. Unless you post a substantial and adequate fisking of why that assessment is incorrect, can we assume that you will NEVER EVER ASK this now self-evidently stupid question EVER AGAIN -- here or elsewhere? Can we assume that, instead, you will act to remember those facts, and directly work to correct those around you who also hold to this blatantly foolish notion that attacking Iraq was a bad idea?

Somehow I seriously doubt it.

Posted by: Obloodyhell | May 2, 2009 8:14:46 AM

> and can nominate Supreme Court justices.

Not actually. He can't do this when he's got a bunch of Republican Wimps backing him, and a lot of Democrats threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue if they don't get what they want.

You might have noticed the massive backlog of unfilled judgeships as a result of Democratic breath-holding threats.

Posted by: Obloodyhell | May 2, 2009 8:17:56 AM

> Ray "Chocolate" Nagin is a corrupt, incompetent fool who, amongst other shortcomings, exacerbated the situation by not forcing evacuation when there was still time.

And then not using the means at hand to do so even when it was the thing to do. There are arial photos of a school bus parking lot FILLED with buses, all high and dry, within walking distance of the Superdome.

I believe if you go over and look at past posts from No Oil For Pacifists you will find more than adequate data -- all of it documented with links to reliable sources -- on which to place the blame for virtually EVERYTHING bad, which can be attributed to HUMAN error, at the feet of Nagan and that idiot Governor. There is or was (dunno if it's still active, if not, I have kept a copy) of the NOPD not only NOT stopping people from looting the Wal-Mart, but pushing around a cart of their own. And we aren't talking about "looting needed foodstuffs and essentials", either, nosirree -- this is people stealing TVs and stereos and shoes and clothes. Flat out THEFT.

There were certainly people in NO who didn't deserve whatever happened there, but I think there were quite a few that did.

Posted by: Obloodyhell | May 2, 2009 8:49:25 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.