Credible vs Realistic

George Bush proudly announced yesterday that they had foiled a 2002 plot to hijack an airliner with a shoe bomb and fly it into Library Tower in Los Angeles. Whether or not this threats were credible, I don't know, but it certainly wasn't realistic.

What I'm talking about is the fact that neither of the two terrorists attacks that the Bush administration claims to have stopped ever had any realistic shot at succeeding. They may have been credible, as credibility in this case speaks merely to intent and to a lessor degree, ability, but not to whether or not the plot would work. I could be serious as hell about hatching a plot to topple the Empire State Building by crashing my car into it. (I'm not) The fact of the matter is that no matter what rate of speed I manage to get my big SUV up to, it's not going to be enough to bring down the building.

The foiled LA attack falls into this credible, but not realistic category. This plan was never going to work, not in a post 9/11 world. Even if they got into the cockpit, no pilot is going to cede control of their plane without a fight to the death, and I'm pretty sure some of the passengers might have a thing or two to say about it as well. They may have gone ahead and blown up the plane, which definitely would be bad, but Library Tower was never in any danger. That's probably why the mayor was never notified of the threat.

The other threat that the Bushies claim to have foiled involved a guy who was planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch. I'm pretty sure the police would show up long before he could have done any real damage.

I wonder if Bush can demonstrate any realistic threat that we have thwarted.