Thursday, August 10, 2006

Conspiracy or Coincidence? You Be The Judge. Subtitle - A Very Interesting Answer To A Very Interesting Question

I know the blogisphere was percolating all over the place with conspiracy theory regarding the terrorists round up earlier Thursday the coincidence that it diverted media attention from the Lieberman/Lamont situation. Here's an interesting question in today's press gaggle with Tony the Snow job.
Q Did you all know that this was going to break today, yesterday, when there was this massive response to the Connecticut primary, discussion of terrorism, al Qaeda?
Notice Tony's fuzziness in his reply regarding the timing of it all:
MR. SNOW: I don't want to get into operational details. This was not -- however, it was not explicit -- let me put it this way, I don't want to encourage that line of thought. I don't think it's fully accurate, but I also don't want -- I know it's frustrating, but we really don't want to get too much into who knew what, where, when.
Why is that Tony? Why is that?

Incidentially, there's a good question resting within a statement that Tony makes later in the press gaggle that I think folk in the blogisphere might like to wrestle with:
Q You said there is going to be some inconvenience to travelers. There were some complaints this morning that all liquids and gels might be going a little overboard on this. Do you guys have any comment on that?

MR. SNOW: You can't go overboard when you're trying to protect lives.
Let's ask this directly: Is there a point when the government goes too far in trying to protect lives? Discuss.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

IQ test, life in the bubblewrap

''You can't go overboard when you're trying to protect lives.''

Of course you can. Remember the Tylenol scare? Now we have that impossible-to-open packaging. Next time you're shopping, think about how you would go about repeating the deed given the current level of packaging security.

Security, as any security expert will tell you, is a 'show.' It's designed to make a prospective attacker think about attacking a weaker target. Or at a weaker point. Security per se doesn't prevent attacks, it only changes their nature.

E. g: Columbine. No level of security can protect you from attacks by people who are supposed to be on site. Armed National Guard in the subway. A uniform, an M-16 lookalike and hostile intent?

We are not led by chess players. Our 'security' is in the hands of people who don't think one move ahead.