London fallout

The bombs exploded in London, but the repercussions are still rippling across Washington.

A surge in public concern about terrorism means a probable boost in support for President Bush and the war in Iraq.

  LA Times article

Which would be exactly the intention, now wouldn't it?

Gullible numbnuts.

Renewed fear of terrorist sleeper cells will probably spur increased support for tough law enforcement measures such as the Patriot Act, which is up for renewal.

The reporter is, of course, speculating. Why don't we see the angle: obviously the war on terror "over there" isn't doing anything to keep us from fighting it "over here" - people are fed up with Bush's failures?

And there's new enthusiasm in Congress for increased spending on domestic security, especially mass transit — an area in which legislators were cutting budgets three weeks ago.

Well, now that really is not a surprise. That Congress of ours has its finger on the pulse, eh?

"The bombings will give both Bush and [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair a boost," said Christopher Gelpi, a political scientist at Duke University who studies public opinion in times of war. "I think the attacks may help slow the ebbing of [public] support over Iraq, because the bombings make [Bush's] point about linking Iraq and terrorism."

How?!? Is there any evidence some Iraqis went to London to make the attack? Jesus Christ. I thought Duke had the smart people.

Bush wasted no time in citing the London attack to support his central argument for U.S. military operations in Iraq. In his weekly radio address Saturday, the president said the bombings were part of a single terrorist offensive that included the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon as well as this year's attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Of course he didn't waste any time, but I'd expect better from a Duke professor. Lump the Iraqi resistance with the London bombers and the terrorists who attacked on 9/11. And take it to Syria and Iran as well. Because we all know that the overwhelming majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudis!

"We are now waging a global war on terror, from the mountains of Afghanistan … to the plains of Iraq," Bush said. "We will stay on the offense, fighting the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them at home."

Jesus Christ on a bicycle! He can still say that and expect people to buy it after London was attacked? Look out England. We may have to fight them on your land to keep from having to "face them at home."

And if that absurd tactic should actually work, then I'd suggest you have nothing left between you and the conclusion that BushCo is in fact in charge of the terrorist attacks.

War on terrorism has largely been Bush's main focus since Sept. 11, and when the public has been attentive to the issue he has benefited politically. Polls have found that most Americans believe Bush has done a good job in battling terrorism, even though increasing majorities disapprove of his handling of other issues, such as Iraq and the economy.

If that's true, then there is either an even greater disconnect in the American mind, or BushCo is totally out to lunch on the issue of public opinion, because that statement indicates that Americans separate the war on terror from the war in Iraq.

Oh. Maybe that's why the renewed 'war on terror=war on Iraq' language that had been essentially dropped in recent months in favor of the 'war on Iraq is to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqis' angle - an angle that wasn't working because of the political situation in Iraq getting worse by the day. How very helpful the London attacks were in getting us back again to another reason for invading Iraq, Mr. Duke professor.

Christ. We're living in a bad cartoon.

"This changes the dynamic on the Patriot Act," said Norman J. Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, referring to the post-9/11 law that gave federal agencies new powers to investigate suspected terrorist activities. "It strengthens the argument that diluting the Patriot Act would weaken our ability to infiltrate sleeper cells."

How eactly? I hope that these "experts" cited in this article actually had further comments to show the links they're making in these statements. Did England not have enough PATRIOT act ability to stop the attacks? Is that what he's saying? Did they only have the amount of high-handed government power over its citizens that we had before the PATRIOT act, and since we now have the PA, we're preventing the same type of attack? Do we have some evidence, if that's the claim?

What we are being given here are simply knee-jerk fear reactions. Unfortunately, that's how Congress works, too.

The law is up for renewal this year, and several of its provisions have been controversial. And the administration has supported a measure that would broaden the FBI's ability to subpoena records and documents in national security cases without permission from a judge.

But Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have said some provisions should be kept subject to periodic review. And last month, an unusual coalition of conservatives and liberals in the House voted to limit the FBI's power under the law to seize library and bookstore records.

[...]

The Supreme Court has already limited the Bush administration's powers in fighting terrorism, ruling against the president and granting detainees access to lawyers and legal process. In one such ruling, O'Connor rebuked the administration directly: "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

[...]

"This might help Gonzales should Bush nominate him," said one Republican operative who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of deliberations over Bush's choice. Democrats might hesitate to "attack [Gonzales] too severely" on those issues now, he said.

All more good reasons for the London attacks.

Indeed, anyone who hopes to move policies in a new direction because of the bombings should move fast, pollsters say. The effect of a single event on public opinion — even a major terrorist attack — is usually temporary.

"People are worried about terrorism, but the edge comes off their concern as time passes," said Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center.

Act fast, or keep the attacks coming.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Previous posts on the attacks.