Did US Government Orchestrate attacks on London and Scotland to promote fear?

The Cherokee Jeep involved in the incident on fire in the terminal.
Picture: Complimentary(From Scotsman)

Is the Bush administration involved in the three terrorist attacks in London and Scotland ? (more on attacks NY Times)



Sound like a conspiracy theory?

Consider how the Bush administration finds it very hard to follow normal protocol when he wants something take wiretapping for example, or the un-approved preemptive strike on Iraq.

In warfare President Bush also does not play fair in his use of unregulated Mercenaries, and support of our opposition when it serves his (and Dick Cheney's) greater purpose.(Read more about these Mercenaries -Blackwater Corp. these post also have short video clips) e.

There are four suspicious things about these attacks:

1. They failed

Several experts and officials said the technology behind the foiled [London] bombings seemed to be amateurish. While the attackers apparently tried to detonate the bombs using cellphones, “they didn’t go off because there were not top-grade people putting them together,” the Western official said, speaking in return for anonymity because he was not authorized to brief reporters. (Wired online)

2. The New Prim Minister of Britain possibly was planning to pull out from the war on terror, now they are terrorized:



LONDON (AP) – New Prime Minister Gordon Brown appointed some critics of the Iraq war to his youthful circle of senior Cabinet ministers Thursday, underlining his ambition to heal rifts over the conflict and win back the support of disenchanted.

Brown has pledged to examine Britain’s role in Iraq – a subtle shift in language from his predecessor and perhaps his first diplomatic challenge in his relationship with the Bush administration, which considered Tony Blair its closest ally. (Skiskiyou)

3. The US is not raising its `terror Level'. Why?

The United States, however, is not raising its terror alert status, President Bush's spokesman and the Homeland Security secretary said. "There is no indication of any specific or credible threat to the United States - no change in the overall security level," Tony Snow told reporters in Maine.

The United States, however, is not raising its terror alert status, President Bush's spokesman and the Homeland Security secretary said. "There is no indication of any specific or credible threat to the United States - no change in the overall security level," Tony Snow told reporters in Maine. (Forbes online)


Lets thinks about this:

--> England is US's greatest ally on the war one terror (and presence in Iraq.) These attacks surprised England. It now seems that the `terrorist' are bringing the war to the occupying Nations. Since the new prime minister has said that he will be pulling out of Iraq soon, why not target the stubborn U.S. who may never leave.

--> Credible threat?

Let's look back on the President past opinions on credible threats: WASHINGTON, April 10 — The classified briefing that President Bush received 36 days before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks reported that the Gordon Brown terrorist network had maintained an active presence in the United States for years, was suspected of recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York and could be preparing for domestic hijackings. (New York Times)

And the when the attacks happened, and he was told, Bush stayed calm and insisted on finishing a children's story that he was reading for a kindergarten class. Maybe he knew already that three planes that were attacking our country were not a credible threat? (See documentary Loose Change here)

But if you KNOW it's not a credible threat, because your people staged it, then there would be no need to worry. Right?

--> To raise the `terror level' would probably call and end to the planned meeting with Putin so that Bush could get back with his security staff to discuss what they should do. But Bush's leisurely meeting with Putin will include some sailing, some nice dinners, some friendly talks on the porch. Can't interrupt that, can he? Not if he knows the attacks are no threat.

--> Good timing for the attacks.

First consider the first point- all three attempts were failures. No British or Scottish citizens were killed or injured. Property damage was low.

The fear level though increased dramatically within the English Government- perhaps a message to the new Prime Minister- that they have no choice but to stay in the battle until all of the enemy (terror) is killed.



And how convenient that Bush would be meeting with Russian leader Putin who has been angered at the Presidents suggestion that an missile-defense system placed in Europe was just for defense.

Bush said the missile-defense plan was meant to block possible attacks from Iran and other nations, but Putin said the systems would be on Russia's doorstep and could be converted into offensive weapons. (CNN)

Putin, who has been critical of the United States fiasco in Iraq is also offended by the Bush arrogance to suggest what Putin should be doing for Russia. A memorable dialog between the two:

During a press conference today at the G8 summit in Russia

BUSH: I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq, where there’s a free press and free religion. And I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia will do the same thing. I fully understand, however, that there will be a Russian-style democracy.

PUTIN: We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.

BUSH: Just wait.
(Think Progress)

Most experts don't expect much substantive progress to come from the Bush-Putin meetings. At best, the U.S. and Russia might agree to a joint study of missile-defense plans. (CBS NEWS)

Bush's calm after the three terrorist attacks on his closest alliance
- might be a strategic way for Bush to communicate to his Russian Counterpart: We are not afraid.


Jim Hoagland in an op-ed pice for the Washington Post yesterday entitled Corleone Diplomacy covers many interesting points (especially comparing US relations between China and Russia Worthwhile Read)"It would be comforting to think that this weekend's visit to Kennebunkport by Putin is President Bush's first important exercise in Godfather diplomacy. That is, Bush now recognizes Putin as foe, not soul mate, and follows Don Corleone's advice: "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer."

"Putin flaunts Russia's oil and gas power and uses intimidation as a basic foreign policy tool."



Bush faced with a possible crisis stays cool. Putin probably sees him as a fool, but also probably worries what Vice President Cheney is up to with this new terrorist event. Is it as an excuse for increased military buildup in Europe? Or is it an open threat that something like this could happen in Russia. We (or more precisely- Dick Cheney) are the puppet master. Play our game with us or we will play our game on you and your country.

Conspiracy theory?

I wouldn't put it past the Bush Administration- would you?


BOOK RECOMMENDATION:
A tragic Legacy


Leave a comment and tell me what you think.


What will be the legacy of President George Walker Bush? In this fascinating, timely book, Glenn Greenwald examines the Bush presidency and its long-term effect on the nation. What began on shaky, uncertain ground and was bolstered and propelled by tragedy, has ultimately faltered and failed on the back of the dichotomous worldview—good versus evil—that once served it so well. In A Tragic Legacy, Greenwald charts the rise and steep fall of the current administration, dissecting the rhetoric and revealing the faulty ideals upon which George W. Bush built his policies.

On September 12, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation and presented a very clear view of what was to come—a view that can be said to define his entire presidency: “This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil.” Based on his own Christian faith and backed by biblical allusions, Bush’s worldview was basic and binary—and everyone was forced to choose a side. Riding high on public support, Bush sailed through the early “War on Terror,” easily defining our enemies and clearly setting an agenda for defeating them.

But once the war became murkier—its target unclear, its combatants no longer seen in black-and-white—support for Bush and his policies dropped precipitously. Glenn Greenwald brilliantly reveals the reasons behind the collapse of Bush’s power and approval, and argues that his greatest weakness is the same rhetoric that once propelled him so far forward. Facing issues that could not be turned into simple good versus evil choices—the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, his plans for Social Security “reform,” and, most ironic, the failed Dubai ports deal—Bush faltered and fell. Now, Greenwald argues, Bush is trapped by his own choices, unable to break out of the mold that once served him so well, and indifferent to the consequences.

A tragic Legacy is the first true character study of one of the most controversial men ever to hold the office of president. Enlightening, powerful, and eye-opening, this is an in-depth look at the man whose incapability and cowboy logic have left America at risk.