Attention Comrades. Please note that the Party line on the London bombing has shifted over the weekend. In the immediate aftermath, we were all encouraged to celebrate the attack as a useful concentrator of minds: it being thought that faddish attraction to such "causes" as global warming or African debt relief was beginning to distract the masses and reduce their level of fear political seriousness. Criticisms from various degraded cosmopolitan elements of our "flypaper" policy, however, have led the Party dialectically to promulgate a new line, in which the attack is to be denigrated as the work of rootless incompetents, insufficiently fatal to deserve the attention fawning "liberals" would give it:

Investigators now think that the attacks were carried out by homegrown extremists using low-tech explosive devices.

The attacks of 9/11/01 were highly sophisticated and killed thousands. The attacks of 3/11/04 in Madrid were somewhat less sophisticated and killed hundreds. The attacks of 7/705 appear to have been the work of amateurs and killed dozens.

Anyone see a pattern here?

And so much for the theory (contained in a recently leaked CIA “assessment”) that the battlefields of Iraq are turning out the most highly skilled terrorists ever (while our forces, presumably, learn nothing).

Cliff May, NRO Corner

You’ve got how many millions of people running through this transit system in rush hour in the United Kingdom, and what do we have? We have 33 dead and 150 seriously wounded. I wouldn’t call this a successful terror attack. I would say these guys missed the boat...It’s like I said, 40 people dead, 150 seriously wounded, 1,000 wounded out of over a million people in that transit tube. It’s not a successful terrorist attack, folks. They didn’t succeed in doing anything.

Rush Limbaugh

[Your correspondent apologizes for culling these quotes from the writing of a notorious enemy of the people, but time is of the essence here.]

Update your discourse accordingly. In particular, the following comments, from Opinion Journal, alleging the efficacy of less powerful bombings:

That al Qaeda's tactics have changed to smaller bombings is notable, though of little comfort. As in Madrid, the London explosions lacked the diabolical audacity of flying planes into the Pentagon. But as allied defenses against major targets have been strengthened, the terrorists are striking soft targets with bombs that are very hard to detect.

For bin Laden and al-Zarqawi, the relatively small bombs they set off in Iraq or London are a second-grade weapon. Their large-bore weapons in the terror war are modern electronic news technology and, ironically, open democratic societies.

are to be purged, as no longer operative, and their authors assigned for reeducation.

posted by michael  4:00:49 PM  
tell me about it []  trackback []

 

Scotty in a bad spot. This is kind of beautiful, from today's White House Press Briefing (aka the "Related to an Ongoing Investigation" Variations):

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, I’ve gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this ? Do you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we’re not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you’re going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you’ve decided not to talk. You’ve got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I’m well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation…

QUESTION: (inaudible) when it’s appropriate and when it’s inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you’ll let me finish.

QUESTION: No, you’re not finishing. You’re not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson’s wife. So don’t you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn’t he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you’re saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I’ve responded to the question.

QUESTION: You’re in a bad spot here, Scott… (LAUGHTER)

I'd say Scotty's pretty much figured that out by this point. Crooks and Liars has necessary links, including video—which is a must-see; the reek of awkwardness and pained discomfort coming from McClellan is really something to savor.

posted by michael  1:54:44 PM  
tell me about it []  trackback []