U.K. Plot Thwarted / U.S. Puts Itself On Code Red

Sorry, the only Code Red I like is a flavor of Mountain Dew.

Anyway, here's the big news this morning... British police thwarted a terrorist plot which they said was to involve using carry-on luggage as explosives on planes. They have also arrested a number of suspects. Security at airports today is at the highest level ever in response. I spoke with an online friend this morning who was set to come back to the U.S. this week from the U.K. and this is definitely causing concern.

Beyond recognizing this as an important news story, and a job well done for Scotland Yard and the British authorities, I am not as concerned about it as some will likely be (keep an eye on Michelle Malkin's blog today for the most hysterical coverage). What more can be said? When we the citizens respond to terrorism (read: not the government, whose job it is to respond and prepare), we validate it. I think people are beginning to understand that again.

I am concerned, however, with potential political appropriation of this here in the U.S. of A. With polls showing that Americans now support Democrats over Republicans on the issue of terrorism 46% to 38%, and with the usual GOP war on terror talking points making a comeback in the post-Lieberman fallout, one would have to be naive to believe that this won't be used by the White House and Republican leaders as some sort of electoral tool against the Democrats, liberals, or other political boogeymen in the next few days to distract from their innumerous political problems (and also re-justify everything from the Iraq debacle to warrantless wiretapping).

Already, we hear familiar rhetoric from the administration. Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said this morning that the plot is 'suggestive' of Al Qaeda involvement. Do they have proof? Maybe, but they've cried wolf so many times, one would have to be stupid to not be a little suspicious.

Now, there's no doubt this was a legitimate plot. It's clear that the British authorities are worried about this and are taking precautions. My concern isn't with that aspect of the story; it's solely with how U.S. politicians will rhetorically use it to continue the line of dialogue they started in the wake of the Lamont victory and the polls that back up the Democratic party positions.

John at Americablog just put a good post up sharing these same concerns I had. He cites numerous other cases- Jose Padilla, the recent Miami group- that were touted as major Al Qaeda plots and turned out to be much less than advertised. I agree we need to ask questions and learn more.

John also does not believe this raising of the domestic terror alert is entirely a coincidence given recent political developments. I think it probably is a coincidence, though a bit of a convenient one for the White House. Such suspicion is understandable given the numerous, oddly-timed Homeland Security press conferences and alerts between 2002 and the 2004 presidential race which, upon further inspection, were not what they were made out to be. Even Tom Ridge later admitted politics influenced such decisions. Keith Olbermann even did a top-notch, in-depth report on this- 'The Nexus of Politics and Terror'- last October, which cited over a dozen of the top examples.

In conclusion, is that what it seems? Very likely. But it'd be stupid/lazy not to ask questions.

I'll happily rescind my cynicism and apologize if the Republicans prove me wrong today.

UPDATE: So far, I'm being proved wrong here. The President did briefly speak on this story (terrorists want to blow up our freedom, etc, you know the rest), of course. Josh Marshall shares his two cents on all of this. Harry Shearer wants to see a greater focus on the empirical rather than rhetorical.

UPDATE #2: No apology's forthcoming; my cynicism has been borne out. Glenn Greenwald has all the humorous details on what the usual suspects are saying today about the terror-sympathizing libs who want you to die. And guess who joined the Republicans in this chorus? 'Independent' Joe Lieberman. Expect more.

Finally, doesn't much of this prove wrong the President's actions and policies in combating terrorism (particularly his 'fight them over there' idiocy)? I think so. Solid international police work > misguided military quagmires. Our (struggling) mission in Afghanistan being a necessary exception, of course. I think we had a presidential candidate who tried to explain that once... Oh, and as with Canada's recent success, it must be noted that British officials uncovered this without flouting civil liberties, treaties, or government oversight. How odd.