Multiple blasts hit London's transport system.
Oh, hell, it's happening again. It's hard not to conclude, from the multiple simultaneous blasts, that al-Qaeda -- the real al-Qaeda, not the franchisee operating in Iraq -- is back, operating as usual, and never really lost the ability to do something this. If that's the case, so much for "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."
UPDATE: Michael ("Anonymous") Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris, is on NPR right now saying that this was almost certainly the work of al-Qaeda.
PRESIDENT EGOMANIAC? From Bush's statement at the G8 meeting an hour or so ago:
I was most impressed by the resolve of all the leaders in the room. Their resolve is as strong as my resolve.
Yeah, it's all about you, isn't it? You're the measure of all things, aren't you?
In comments, John from A Lie a Day reminds me not to be too hasty in ascribing this to the original al-Qaeda -- and, yes, the group claiming responsibility calls itself the "Secret Organization Group of al Qaeda of Jihad in Europe." Whoever is responsible, though, this is a more al-Qaeda-like attack than what we're seeing in Iraq, and it clearly required a lot of preparation and coordination. This is from the al-Qaeda playbook; the jihadists in Iraq share the philosophy, perhaps, but their methods seem to be their own -- Zarqawi seems like an independent operator who took on the al-Qaeda brand rather than a terrorist trying to extend the work of al-Qaeda itself.
This morning, Juan Cole linked a story about a poll conducted last month:
Adults in the United States believe launching military action in Iraq made their nation more secure, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 49 per cent of respondents believe the U.S. would be a more dangerous place the war had not been fought.
Good grief. I wonder what the results would be now.