Anorak News | Terror Plot?

Terror Plot?

by | 3rd, August 2004

‘IT is an indication of just how low the public’s trust in politicians has sunk that we can believe a full-scale terror alert is just a ruse to boost the President’s poll figures.

Britain’s counter terrorist unit counts down the minutes until lunch

But President Bush has done more than any other politician to earn this mistrust from the moment he ‘stole’ the 2000 US presidential election.

His stated belief that Iraq is in some way connected with the 9/11 attacks flew in the face not only of common sense but of all empirical evidence.

And his insistence (matched only by that of Tony Blair) that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq long after it became clear that there weren’t only helped to undermine the whole credibility of the war.

But it is not just fanciful members of the public – the kind who still believe the moon landing was staged in a remote part of the Arizona desert – who are sceptical about Bush’s motives in raising America’s state of alert to orange (high).

‘A Nation In Danger. Or A President In Peril?’ asks the Independent’s front-page headline.

And Howard Dean, former Democratic presidential candidate, told CNN that it was impossible to know how real the alert was.

‘I am concerned,’ he said, ‘that every time something happens that’s not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism.’

The alert comes after plans to launch attacks on America and Britain were discovered on a laptop computer belonging to an al-Qaeda suspect captured in Pakistan.

The Times says US companies in the City of London and elsewhere have been advised to tighten security, although no specific threat has been made against any company in the UK.

The United States remains al Qaeda’s prime target, with an attack expected in the run-up to November’s presidential election.

But what is hard to fathom is why an attack is generally seen as beneficial to President Bush’s re-election chances.

For the country to be attacked once under a president’s watch may be a misfortune; to be attacked a second time looks like carelessness.’

Posted: 3rd, August 2004 | In: Broadsheets Comment | TrackBack | Permalink