Glenn Greenwald is Wondering if the Latest Intel Warning is Political Theater

I'm inclined to agree with him:

Pointing to the recent revelations by leaker Edward Snowden that he has reported, Greenwald explains, "Here we are in the midst of one of the most intense debates and sustained debates that we’ve had in a very long time in this country over the dangers of excess surveillance, and suddenly, an administration that has spent two years claiming that it has decimated al-Qaeda decides that there is this massive threat that involves the closing of embassies and consulates around the world. ... The controversy is over the fact that they are sweeping up billions and billions of emails and telephone calls every single day from people around the world and in the United States who have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism."

I would go further, and suggest that politics has been a primary driver.

Why else would we see something as absurd as exploding pants, and by that I mean exploding clothing, not an underwear bomb:

The panic over an alleged al Qaeda plot went into overdrive Monday night, when ABC News reported that terrorists in Yemen were experimenting with a new and virtually undetectable bomb-making technique: dipping their clothes into liquid explosive that then dries and can be ignited.

The cries of doom began almost immediately after the story went online. But people shouldn't have been so quick to scream. A clothing bomb would almost certainly never work, explosive experts tell Foreign Policy.

………

But given that none of his devices have worked as intended, should Americans be panicking? One explosives expert tells Foreign Policy that while this alleged blouse-bomb may sound terrifying, and remind us of something out of an action flick, it is very risky for the bomber. A device consisting of explosives-dipped clothing, the expert said, is certainly plausible. Cotton is a carbon, and if you add fuel to it, you can create an explosion. But once the attacker starts moving, the clothes will flex, causing heat, shock, friction, and static -- all things that make a bomb go boom. "In my opinion, you'll have a highly unstable bomb that doesn't have enough power to kill someone within five feet of it," the expert said.

At the Aspen Security Forum, Pistole called [Chief Al Qaeda bomb maker Ibrahim al-]Asiri "our greatest threat," and said, "All the intel folks know that is a clear-and-present danger." If that's true, perhaps we can take some shred of comfort: Unless Asiri, or anyone else, can come up with a device that actually kills more people than just the bomber, these plots are likely to remain aspirational. They may be the stuff of really good movies, but not very effective terror attacks.

I would argue that the US state security apparatus routinely exaggerates threats any time their prerogatives are threatened by scrutiny.