Terrorism? What’s That?

Leading lefty blogger John Aravosis, eagerly welcomed by “mainstream” Demcoratic politicians, has decided that today’s announcement of a plot to murder a few planeloads full of people is just political propaganda.

Lest we forget, Aravosis launched his blog to Democratic fame by accusing several White House staffers of bringing in gay escorts.

Am I exaggerating his opinion on today’s arrests and alert? You decide:

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.

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.

I honestly don’t have the time or inclination to county the deliberate mistruths in these two paragraphs. The only thing here that is true is that Aravosis doesn’t believe that terrorism is any big deal at all.

His message: Go back to sleep. Vote for Ned Lamont.

Let’s go back and ask the same question commentor Joe D asked on one of my earlier threads.

Why does every republican blame Democrats for being “soft” on fighting terrorists?

Gee, I don’t know Joe D. Why don’t you tell me?

UPDATE: First, the loony left. Now the MSM.

Yeah well said because a lot of people here are going to be asking the question, not only today but in the days to come, if, if the administration has known about this potential plot what was the hold up in getting the word out, especially domestically? Now right now they’re saying, Ann, that there’s no expectation that there will be domestic arrests related to this particular terror plot but still it does beg the question how long ago did they know of this and why are we just hearing about it right now.

That would be an on-air quote from an NBC correspondent, on national television.

As Ace says:

Notice the eagerness to toss out suggestions of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that Bush is propagandizing/staging/timing events, and yet the unwillingness of the MSM to report on substantiated propagandizing/staging by Hezbollah and its own foreign-stringer employees.

Can any media-apologist offer up a “neutral, objective” rule of journalism to explain these differing standards?

No, Ace, I don’t think you’re going to hear one that doesn’t cause you to spew Val-U-Rite vodka from your nose.

And look! Ned Lamont’s pet blogger, Jane Hamsher has proclaimed “The national security issue boogeyman is dead, dead, dead”.

Got that? The national security bogeyman – that fictitious old thing that George Bush cooked up to scare up rubes into voting for him – is dead.

Back to sleep everyone. No one’s trying to kill us. Nosiree Bob.

No related posts.

Category: Fighting the Islamists, Moonbat Nonsense