Chinese pet food scarier than these four

This one is straight from one of my favorite blogs on the Web: Philly's own Attytood. Take a few minutes and check out this very well-written piece. Here's two passages that I thought particularly poignant:

People who think that violence and bloodshed are an answer to anything are indeed a danger to a civil society, so unless the facts are radically different than what's been reported so far, we should have praise for law enforcement, including the NYPD and the FBI, for not letting this kind of nonsense get very far. It shows yet again that the law-enforcement approach to fighting this type of threat - so ridiculed when John Kerry dared even mention it in 2004 -- remains the one that in most cases works best. That said, the plot was not exactly the biggest thing going on the world right now.

Except at the CNN-sponsored presidential debate, where "liberal" moderator Wolf Blitzer would have us believe that the break-up of a half-witted scheme by these four losers was proof that all of Bush's terrorism policies are working, and shouldn't the Democrats fall in line. Here's how he put it to John Edwards (via Nexis):

BLITZER: Senator Edwards, let me let you clarify what you said the other day. You said the war on terror is a bumper sticker, not a plan.

With the news yesterday, this alleged plot at JFK which could have done, supposedly, horrendous damage and caused an incredible number of casualties, [emphasis in original] do you believe the U.S. is not at war with terrorists?

[Snip]

Look, what really happened at JFK was a hijacking. A chance for the potential next leaders of the United States to talk about a) real threats from bona fide terrorists, such as the unstable situation we've fostered in Pakistan and b) other issues that actually affect the day-to-day life of most Americans, like education, was hijacked by questions based around a local law-enforcement matter.

And, as Josh Marshall and others pointed out over the weekend, this is yet another time that implausible, half-baked and unfeasible plots have been trumpeted as high victories in the war in terror, including one plan to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch, the plot to "blow up the Sears Tower" by losers in Miami who probably couldn't find Chicago on a big road map, and our own inept Fort Dix crew. Not that it will happen, but I wish the media, from CNN to Fox to the AP to everyone in between, would go to the nearest window and yell: "All 'terrorism' is not created equal."

This is by far the most spot-on analysis of the news coverage about the JFK plot I've read.

To hear the authorities tell it, one could conclude that officials stopped another 9-11 just in the nick of time.

A quick sample of quotes:

• Between a news release and a news conference, this is what Roslynn R. Mauskopf, the United States attorney in Brooklyn, said about the case: "Had the plot been carried out, it could have resulted in unfathomable damage, deaths and destruction," and "The devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded are just unthinkable." (Also keep in mind that Mauskopf is a U.S. Attorney, and it's not well documented that U.S. attorneys in the Bush administration are as political as any U.S. attorneys in history. If they are not, they are fired.

• "Once again, would-be terrorists have put New York City in their cross hairs," said NYPD Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.

• "I believe I spoke the simple truth at the press conference: the ambitions were horrific, the capacities were very limited, but they kept trying. Their signature was their persistence," said Mark J. Mershon, assistant director in charge of the F.B.I.'s New York office.

It's hard to figure out who's most responsible for absurd fear-mongering - the media, or the three people above, from left to right - Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States attorney; Raymond W. Kelly, New York City police commissioner, center; and Mark J. Mershon, assistant F.B.I. director, right, following their news conference on Saturday.

It didn't matter which news network you tuned in to over the weekend - it was "hype the terror plot," 24-7.

Of course, according to The New York Times, Mauskopf's press release mentioned that the "public was never at risk" and told reporters that law enforcement "had stopped this plot long before it ever had a chance to be carried out," but news reports conveniently neglected to mention that fact.

Other sources painted a similar picture. "Capability low, intent very high," a law enforcement official said of the suspects, as quoted in the Times.

Other law enforcement officials and engineers dismissed the perception that the planned attack would have resulted in a catastrophic chain reaction so widely reported in the media, citing safeguards that would have stopped any explosions from spreading.

AP wrote this on Saturday: But while pipeline and security experts agreed that such an attack would have crippled America's economy, particularly the airline industry, they said it probably would not have led to significant loss of life as intended.

I'm sure glad to see that AP didn't overreact. I'm sure there are some experts out there who could back up the media's and the government's ridiculous claims about thousands dead, right? From Attytood:

Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline expert and president of Accufacts Inc., an energy consulting firm that focuses on pipelines and tank farms, said the force of explosion would depend on the amount of fuel under pressure, but it would not travel up and down the line.

"That doesn't mean wackos out there can't do damage and cause a fire, but those explosions and fires are going to be fairly restricted," he said.

Oh. Well, maybe another expert backs it up:

John W. Magaw, a former head of the Transportation Security Administration, told The Washington Post that such an attack 'may not cause a lot of deaths, but it would be spectacular and seen around world."

He said it "could cripple the airlines."

So, a fire at JFK's fuel facility could "cripple the airlines"?

Heaven help us.

So, the last two big terror-scares, to sum up - four pizza delivery guys who were going to attack Fort Dix, an army base full of armed soldiers; and four half-baked, wanna-be terrorists who had a pipe dream (pardon the pun) of attacking JFK's airline fuel pipeline, but they had no money, no detailed plans and no explosives.

In other words, these guys didn't know C-4 from Connect Four. By all accounts I've read, these bozos were as close to attacking JFK's pipeline as Jaws, our family cat. Sorry, little buddy - I'm collectin'.

Top photo by Peter Foley/European Pressphoto Agency via The New York Times

37 years ago - tragic evidence of what a corrupt government can do to dissenters

I missed the exact anniversary by a day, but 37 years ago yesterday, four students were killed and scores more wounded when National Guard soldiers opened fire on students at Kent State University who were protesting the U.S. military's invasion of Cambodia.

I'll confess, this particular anniversary of one of the greatest tragedies by our government against protesters may have gone unnoticed were it not for a few things, most notably new audio of the actual event released last week.

The audio tape revealed the strong probability that National Guard soldiers may have actually been ordered to fire. On Tuesday, AP reported a former Kent State student, Terry Strubbe, who lived in a dormitory overlooking the anti-war rally site, placed a microphone on a windowsill and recorded nearly 30 minutes of the event on reel-to-reel tape. He sent a copy of the tape to the FBI and kept a copy in a safe deposit box. The government copy has been archived at Yale University.

According to Alan Canfora, who was shot in the wrist that day, a voice can be heard on the tape yelling, "Right here! Get Set! Point! Fire!" before there is the 13-second volley of gunfire.

In the aftermath of the shootings (above, students run following the gunshots), President Nixon, who was often incensed at anti-war protesters, asked his White House Chief of Staff, H.R. Haldeman, to consider the Huston Plan, which would have increased the governments efforts to infiltrate "left-wing protest groups." Ironically, the plan was only stopped when, of all people, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover intervened.

This type of behavior isn't out of the question in present-day American, either. In 2005, The New York Times revealed the New York Police Department has been infiltrating protest groups since the September 11 terrorist attacks to monitor them.

Of course, the NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg counter that since September 11, "we live in a different world." I guess that different world now involves government infiltrating groups and organizations that don't tow the government line.

Not surprising, but until Bush leaves office, this is the government we are stuck with - doing virtually anything it wants, all in the name of The War on Terror. I'm not suggesting there could be another Kent State - I certainly hope not. But, it's not out of the question. The one thing that could potentially ignite such governmental activity against civilians would be stepped-up war protests on a very wide scale. Considering the Bush administration's obstinacy on war funding, that's not out of the question, either.

Of course, if the federal government were to reinstitute the draft, then all bets are off. I'll write more about a potential draft tomorrow, but for now, I'll end with this thought:

Even if this war continues just through the end of Bush's term (unlikely), I really don't see how our military can keep this up without a draft.