Mixed messages

The Bush Administration announced that US intelligence and law enforcement agencies thwarted a "dirty bomb" attack on the US. However, I'm confused. President Bush said:

I can tell you that we have a man detained who is a threat to the country, and that thanks to the vigilance of our intelligence-gathering and law enforcement, he is now off the streets, where he should be.

The defense department's resident hawk, Paul Wolfowitz, said:

He did indicate some knowledge of the Washington, D.C., area but I want to emphasize again it was not an actual plan.

So, not only does Bush not mention anything about a dirty bomb plot, but Wolfowitz actually stresses that there is no plan. So, at best we have someone, who perhaps consorted with known terrorist, that has "some knowledge" of the DC area. If he truly is a threat, then bravo. But given the known facts, does his capture really merit the victorious headlines today?

Yahoo (AP): "U.S. Says It Thwarts Al Qaeda Dirty Bomb Attack"

Washington Post: "U.S. Citizen Detained In 'Dirty Bomb' Plot"

New York Times: " U.S. Arrests American Accused of Planning 'Dirty Bomb' Attack"

And so on. So, while the headlines trumpet the disruption of the bomb plan, Wolfowitz says "I want to emphasize again it was not an actual plan."

What gives? How can the US arrest someone from planning an attack when there is no actual plan? Just another attempt by the Bush Administration to divert attention from explosive hearings on Capitol Hill?

Posted June 10, 2002 12:49 PM | Comments (1)