July 02, 2007
”So incompetent as to be almost laughable”—That’s how former Scotland Yard investigator John O’Connor characterized the incredibly botched London bombings, in which 5 hapless “jihadists” were arrested (so far). Is this “Al Qaeda”? I think not. Yet to look at the amount of hysteria this incident has generated—at the offices of National Review alone—you’d think we’re on the brink of another 9/11. And, oh, by the way, we are on such a brink, according to the authorities, who are now saying that the Bin Laden gang is planning a “terror spectacular” this summer. Hey, what hapened to “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”?
Speaking of National Review, one of the above links goes to a piece by Michael Ledeen, whose disappointment that the bombers-who-couldn’t-blow-themselves-up are probably not from Al Qaeda is palpable:
“The theory that “it couldn”t have been al Qaeda and Iran because they”re too smart for this sort of buffoonery” doesn”t stand up. Al Qaeda is not the SAS, their fighters wouldn”t pass the physical, and they”d probably be rejected on the grounds that they”re not very good at thinking clearly under pressure and can”t adapt to changing circumstances.”
Uh, right: those “buffoons” who pulled off a simultaneous hijacking of three airliners, and then dive-bombed them into two high-profile targets—the World Trade Center and the friggin’ Pentagon”—wouldn’t pass the physical” and are incapable of “thinking clearly under pressure.” Isn’t it odd how these supposedly super-realistic “hawks” such as Senor Ledeen are trying to downplay the threat from Al Qaeda? Ideology does strange things to the brain …
