New questions about the UK bomb plot

Speaking of failures of the press, the New York Times is now (is anyone still paying attention?) pointing out some of the serious questions about the timing of the UK bomb plot arrests-- and by extension the draconian and often bizarre restrictions immediately placed on all flights.

While British investigators had hard evidence of several men talking about their desire to blow stuff up and kill people (not unlike the recent New York tunnel case), there doesn't seem to have been an active threat. They were obviously dangerous men, but the authorities were doing excellent work and in complete control of the situation.

Consider this statement:

Hours after the police arrested the 21 suspects, police and government officials in both countries said they had intended to carry out the deadliest terrorist attack since Sept. 11.

Not to make light of terrorist plots, but I'm sure there are plenty of extremists, potential terrorists, and delusional fools who aspire to such infamy. But "intended to" doesn't equal "ready, willing and able to." And a populace exhausted by constant-- and dubious-- terror threats, subjected to sudden and extreme changes in air travel rules only to learn that it was all for nothing is going to become increasingly difficult to protect when the inevitable terror attack does take place. It's the obvious and dangerous consequence of using terrorism as a political football.

Despite the charges, officials said they were still unsure of one critical question: whether any of the suspects was technically capable of assembling and detonating liquid explosives while airborne.

A chemist involved in that part of the inquiry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was sworn to confidentiality, said HMTD, which can be prepared by combining hydrogen peroxide with other chemicals, “in theory is dangerous,” but whether the suspects “had the brights to pull it off remains to be seen.”

While officials and experts familiar with the case say the investigation points to a serious and determined group of plotters, they add that questions about the immediacy and difficulty of the suspected bombing plot cast doubt on the accuracy of some of the public statements made at the time.

“In retrospect,’’ said Michael A. Sheehan, the former deputy commissioner of counterterrorism in the New York Police Department, “there may have been too much hyperventilating going on.”