Bombs in London - aftermath

I'm late in getting back to this but I didn't want to let it pass unremarked. I've been taking some flack for my post on the London Bombings. Don at Fiatblog finds my "theory" over the top, saying it,

...could potentially get everybody's hair in a really big frizz - the left, that he would put such an extreme idea out there, and the right, that the liberal loonies are now officially outside the solar system.

...The possibility exists, but those in charge are rational enough to realize that the implementation of a plan like that would be counterproductive to achieving their objectives.

He tempers his criticism however by offering that it could have been "allowed to happen."

Ol Cranky of The Disenchanted Forest posits the "terrorists want us to stay and used the attack to solidy our resolve." That theory has promise and occurred to me as well. I also think the terrorists want us to stay but the timing is suspect. I mean why waste the resources at a time when the world already thinks you're winning, to convince them it's true? It's not like withdrawal was imminent. And it does of course contradict the White House rhetoric that the terrorists are trying to drive us out of Iraq.

Anything is possible and I didn't originally post my thoughts so much as theory, but rather as my honest reaction to the news. However, I'm willing to defend it as such and the first line of any investigation is: Who benefits most by the crime? Whoever did it and for whatever reason, it's difficult to deny that it has had an effect that Blair and Bush desire and does not advance the terrorist's motives if one accepts the conventional wisdom.

I offer as evidence, Exhibit A - the latest poll from Britain. And Exhibit B - Socal Pundit's explanation.

By striking Britain at a time when popularity for the War in Iraq is at its lowest, the terrorists of Al Qaeda may have made a huge tactical mistake. ...The ones that will be swayed by today's attacks are the ones that have simply taken someone else's word that Bush and Blair are liars.

The attacks this morning are going to force many to re-examine that position. And once they do, a plethora of information exists which once read will convince anyone (that is not a left-wing moon bat) that Islamofacism and not The War On Terror is at fault for terrorism.

Exactly the point. It makes no strategic sense for the terrorists to have bombed at this moment in time.

Jeanette, (who may also be marie) of Right Left Story doesn't find my theory so farfetched and anyone who knew Gary Webb and lived through the Iran-Contra years would not find it beyond rational possibility that the CIA could be involved. But never mind that. Take those three letters out of the equation and the logic of the theory starts to sound more palatable doesn't it?

Robert, who chose to remain anonymous, says, "It must be a pitiful and bitter thing to be you." He's half right. I'm not bitter, not as long as I can fight for my definition of freedom, but it is pitiable that I can believe my government is capable of such calculated and cruel acts. I wish I had one that wouldn't put me through that.