As Tom Ridge announces yet another terrorist alert for New York and LA, the money phrase in the statement is here:
“The threat potential remains through the Nov. 2 elections, Ridge said.”
What were the odds, I ask you?
Is it possible that there may be another terrorist attack? Sure. That’s pretty much the case in any country these days. I’m just wondering if other governments are working on keeping its citizenry as perpetually jumpy as this one is…and coinciding, by staggering coincidence, with Kerry’s bump from the DNC. I can’t help but wonder which concerns Bush more: Car bombs or Kerry’s slight increase in numbers.
I notice no one refuting Michael Moore’s claim that the terrorism alert status will never go down to green. Ever.
PAD
• 
I guess the administration decided that it was time to drive the DNC from peoples minds.
BOOGA-BOOGA! THE TERRORISTA ARE GONNA GETCHA!!
L.A.? I saw the alert level raised in NY, NJ and Washington DC.
But yes, it’s all part of the incredible vast right wing conspiracy to prevent people from these democrat voting areas from going to vote, thus putting the lock on GW’s second term!!!
Oh please.
As for Michael Moore’s comments, well yeah. As long as there are terrorists that want to destroy us, there will always be a terrorist alert level. Maybe soon Moore will predict the sun will actually rise everyday.
I dont know what this says about me…whether Im an idiot or I’m too smart…But the raising of the terror alert stirs absolutely no association to me with either Bush or Kerry. In fact, the only thing it does is piss me off that there was no terror alert on 9/10/2001, and makes me grateful that this alert reminds everyone that something COULD happen again. (the same way how no one could understand why we were so in the dark before 9/11…guess what…now you aren’t in the dark anymore)
Basically…if we have no terror alert, and we do get attacked, Bush is at fault. If we have a terror alert and we don’t get attacked…someone somewhere must be making this stuff up.
Mike
Oh for the love of God, if we get hit again and he doesn’t raise the alert you’d be all over him for not having done so. After all it’s not like these people are trying to kill us. but hey, I’m sure if we’d just dialogue with them they’d stop.
JV
As for Michael Moore’s comments, well yeah. As long as there are terrorists that want to destroy us, there will always be a terrorist alert level.
Um, Jeff…
Green IS one of the alert levels. It doesn’t mean there’s no danger, merely that it’s at a low level.
Taken logically, your statement implies that Ridge and the HS folks shouldn’t even have bothered mentioning the green level, since we’d never, ever, ever reach it.
You must enjoy fear as a way of life.
TWL
Mike, you understand perfectly. If there is an attack do you thionk for one moment any of the critics will pause to say, “Gee, I guess they weren’t making up everything.”? Nope, they’ll probably be too busy with variations of “I thought the war in Iraq was supposed to make us safer.” or some similar ilk. And if something should happen without any previous warning…Impeachment! Failure of imagination! Asleep at the wheel!
Kerry’s bumb from the DNC? Some bump. Bush may well lose this election but I don’t think Karl Rove is losing any sleep over today’s USA TODAY poll, which includes the following: “In the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, the Democratic ticket of Kerry and John Edwards trailed the Republican ticket of Bush and Ðìçk Cheney 50% to 46% among likely voters, with independent candidate Ralph Nader at 2%.
Before the convention, the two were essentially tied, with Kerry at 47%, Bush at 46%.”
A few more “bumps” like that and Kerry will be hailed as the next Barry Goldwater.
As for why nobody is disagreeing with Michael Moore’s brilliant deduction that we won’t be going down to green…um, it’s because we won’t be. Ever. Mike gets one right! Well, even a blind squirril finds the occasional nut. No president, democrat, republican, or Ralph Nader, will tell everyone that things are honky freaking dorey and risk having some nut with a basic knowledge of chemistry, access to over the counter oven cleaners, farm feetilizers and a good pool supply store blow up a trailer during rush hour.
Blame it on Bush if you like but don’t feel hurt if JFKerry does exactly the same thing. Exactly.
Given that Lever Blue mearely states: “Blue-Guarded; General Risk of Terrorist Attack
Be alert to suspicious activity and report it to proper authorities
Review stored disaster supplies and replace items that are outdated
Volunteer and take advantage of additional volunteer training opportunities”
I sort of have to wonder when Green ever WOULD be justified. Blue seems quite reasonable and at the risk of seeming like I enjoy fear as a way of life, I like being reasonable. Different strokes and all.
Kerry’s bumb from the DNC? Some bump.
Bill,
A single poll is meaningless, as I’m sure you already know. The USA Today results are interesting, but the MSNBC/Newsweek poll shows Kerry/Edwards with a four-point “bump” and a seven-point lead. Frankly, I think both USA Today and Newsweek are fairly useless rags, but I don’t think a single number is telling us much of anything, and I’m a bit surprised to see you using this one in two different threads as a bludgeon.
What’s more interesting to me is the state-by-state polls. They still show a tight race, but three different sites I’ve been checking of late (the LA Times, electoral-vote.com, and dcpoliticalreport.com) all show Kerry with a significant electoral lead. Obviously all of those polls are subject to change, but I’d take that as more informative than any single-number poll.
Lastly … I don’t doubt that Kerry’s bounce is going to be smaller than usual, and there’s a very obvious reason for it (even excluding the lack of network coverage of the convention). The percent of the electorate that’s still calling itself undecided or considering changing their mind is significantly smaller than it’s been in August of any election year in my lifetime. There are far fewer voters to get a bounce FROM.
TWL
Pft.
It’s politically motivated, IMO.
1. We’d have to be deaf, dumb and stupid at this point to fail to be aware that terrorism against our country is happening and is an ongoing problem. It’s like knowing fire is hot. It’s like knowing the air is there even if we can’t see it.
2. It’s that the terrorist threat is going to be a problem through election day. Why do the terrorists care about who we elect, or trying to disrupt the process? Why should they? Even if they do disrupt the process, it will make no difference. No matter who we put in office, old president or new, the agenda against the terrorists will remain essentially the same [though the approach to it may differ].
3. No, it will never go back down to green. Ever. But we don’t even need the colors anymore. We know. We know, alreaady.
I’m sure they’ll lower it down to Green….when we are the only country left on the face of the earth.
If they ever lower it to green in my lifetime (I’m 28 now, so they’ve plenty of time) I’ll treat myself to a trip to Australia.
Whether the Administration tries to use a terror alert to scare the populace isn’t worth worrying about, IMO–it won’t work. If there is an attack, successful or prevented, then the timing of the convention had nothing to do with the warning. it was just what happened. If there isn’t, then yours won’t be the only voice screaming that this was a smokescreen.
I’m more worried about the constant harping on the elections. As you put it a few weeks ago, that paranoia about election postponement is beginning to sound less unfounded. If they move it back so much as one day, IMAO, it’s time for the Next American Revolution. (Or, if you will, the Babylon 5 solution. Since Karl Rove is on record saying that he and the president think B5 is the best show on television…I suspect they’re cribbing ideas from the Clark administration.)
Then, there’s the story I heard about a few days ago, how the Florida Republican Party recently told Florida Republicans that the new electronic voting machines aren’t trustworthy…despite Jeb Bush insisting they are to the complaining Democrats and civil rights groups.
Whether the Administration tries to use a terror alert to scare the populace isn’t worth worrying about, IMO–it won’t work. If there is an attack, successful or prevented, then the timing of the convention had nothing to do with the warning. it was just what happened. If there isn’t, then yours won’t be the only voice screaming that this was a smokescreen.
I’m more worried about the constant harping on the elections. As you put it a few weeks ago, that paranoia about election postponement is beginning to sound less unfounded. If they move it back so much as one day, IMAO, it’s time for the Next American Revolution. (Or, if you will, the Babylon 5 solution. Since Karl Rove is on record saying that he and the president think B5 is the best show on television…I suspect they’re cribbing ideas from the Clark administration.)
Then, there’s the story I heard about a few days ago, how the Florida Republican Party recently told Florida Republicans that the new electronic voting machines aren’t trustworthy…despite Jeb Bush insisting they are to the complaining Democrats and civil rights groups.
I have ever belief that politics raised the alert. It’s a win win situation for Bush to have terrorism on the minds of the public. His strongest ratings in the polls come from the categories of dealing with the terrorist threat. In fact in most the polls I’ve seen it is the ONLY category he outranks Kerry in, but people will react faster to fear than they will respect.
Win/Win
Either the public sees Bush as in charge and strong or the public sees no terrorist action and the Bush administration can claim their efforts twarted the attack and saved lifes.
I am so sick of leadership by insinuation.
And again today I hear Bush talking about “real americans” as if those who campaign against him have somehow lost their birthright.
First it was a delay for the election. That didn’t go over well.
Loss in the polls increased after the DNC. People are seeing Kerry in a better light.
Let’s return to square one where we found out backbone and support. Fear. Hatred. Prejudice.
Yeah I think the entire thing is political.
I wonder if Homeland Security has actually figured out the pattern of these terrorist threats: judging from Tom Ridge’s completely unplanned and totally specific press conferences, they seem to come in just after the Democrats just happen to pull ahead in the polls. How else can you explain that the last major terrorist threat that warranted a press conference was just after Kerry announced Edwards as his running mate? Seriously though, these announcements are a win-win situation for Ridge and Company. If absolutely nothing happens, they can insist that it was the raised level of attention precipitated by their press conference that discouraged the attack. If (God forbid) there is another attack, they can say, ‘We told you so!’ I certainly don’t agree with everything Michael Moore had to say in his film, but he was spot-on when he pointed out the way the Bush administration keeps us in a perpetual state of fear. And I’m getting pretty sick of it.
so..they raised the threat level….I guess I’ll wear a sweater tomorrow.
Certainly the constant reminders of the color system and the threat of attack can potentially keep egg off the face of the administration, who has been reminding us, as utilized by “Ah ha, we told you 3 1/2 weeks ago that this could happen!” While the development of this system may or may not have been initiated with the best of intentions, its design has some problems from the very beginning.
As I’ve watched it play out, my two concerns are 1) the vague color system is raised while at the same time the government is telling people to continue living their lives the way that they otherwise would….. um, huh? 2) I have always wondered if this system was developed simply to desensitize us for the time that another attack actually does occur. Who really pays any attention to it anymore… really?
Tim,
As you say, I’m well aware that one poll is pretty much useless. Didn’t think that I was using it as “bludgeon” in either thread–I wouldn’t have even brought it up here if PAD hadn’t mentioned the Kerry “bump” as reason for this warning.
And I am on the record as one of the relatively few here that thinks that Kerry has a pretty good chance of winning, so it’s not like I just want to cherry pick polls.
That said, even the Zogby poll, which has been generally positive for the Kerry campaign showed a 0% bounce. Looking over the pre-convention coverage, most were expecting at least the usual 6-7% bounce. My point is just that if one is going to use the “bounce” as a reason to suspect presidential perfidy there should at least be some, you know, bounce.
I’ll go out on a limb and guess that the bounce from the Republican convention might be more substantial–the Democrats are as charged up as they can be but there is room for improvement on the Republican side, which is what conventions are good for.
But as we all know, all that matters is the electoral number and Kerry is doing quite well.
As for all this Terrorism Alert controversy…hmm, now there ARE democrats on the Intelligence Committee, right? They should demand to see the evidence of these alleged tips. If they exist, they should support the administration publicly. If they don’t exist they should call the dirty dogs on the carpet. Shouldn’t Hillary Clinton demand to know if her constituents are being bamboozled and living in unjustified fear?
Since I haven’t heard any calls for investigations into the timing of these alerts I have to wonder–are the Democrats falling down on the job or do they agree with the need for them? And do the critics of the alerts want to know which is true? It’s easy to raise suspicions–is there ANY way that these suspicions can be satisfied?
Can’t say I’m shocked over your cynicism over the terrorist threat level being raised. It’s par for the course. It’s the usual mistrust you constantly display and continually bellyache about. Sort of seems like a second profession.
And as for the people who like to remark that the Replubicans use “Fear, Hatred, Prejudice,” well, I see a lot of that coming out of the DNC these days. In fact, quite a lot of it.
I’m just tired of them raising the alert levels and making press releases with the words ” we don’t know where, we don’t know when but we know it’s going to happen. ” If they don’t know where and when then they should shut the fûçk up. If they do know where and when then maybe they should just stop the dámņ attack and stop freaking people out. It doesn’t do any good to inflict fear on the populous unless it’s for political gain. They should just do their jobs and be quiet about it unless there is an immediate danger and people need to take steps to avoid getting hurt and if this is the case then tell us WTF too do… not just this boogabooga you should be frightened crap. it’s getting old and a bit like the boy who cried OSAMA! bah.
Bill,
As you say, I’m well aware that one poll is pretty much useless. Didn’t think that I was using it as “bludgeon” in either thread–I wouldn’t have even brought it up here if PAD hadn’t mentioned the Kerry “bump” as reason for this warning.
Fair enough. “Bludgeon” may have been a bit strong; my apologies. When you brought it up in two different places over a short time period I had the impression you were giving it more weight than it was perhaps due.
And I am on the record as one of the relatively few here that thinks that Kerry has a pretty good chance of winning, so it’s not like I just want to cherry pick polls.
Didn’t say otherwise.
That said, even the Zogby poll, which has been generally positive for the Kerry campaign showed a 0% bounce. Looking over the pre-convention coverage, most were expecting at least the usual 6-7% bounce. My point is just that if one is going to use the “bounce” as a reason to suspect presidential perfidy there should at least be some, you know, bounce.
Well, again I’d have to ask — does the lack of a national bounce mean the lack of an electoral one? I mean, the popular-vote “horse race” only blipped a tiny bit when Kerry picked Edwards as a running mate, but that seems to be about the time Kerry picked up a significant electoral lead from what I’ve been seeing.
And again, I also think the lack of a large undecided faction is really significant. I doubt either side’s going to get any especially large bounce; the people just ain’t there.
BTW, as an aside — Zogby (whose polls tend to be fairly unbiased, IMO) also has an analysis of their most recent numbers. Worth a look.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=849
As for all this Terrorism Alert controversy…hmm, now there ARE democrats on the Intelligence Committee, right? They should demand to see the evidence of these alleged tips.
And if Congress were in session right now, I’d like to think they would. Funny how several of the alerts have come at a time when it’s logistically difficult for anyone to comment or question.
(I agree with you in principle, but not in this particular.)
Let’s also recall that when the administration HAS been questioned, they’ve typically continued to assert the same claims anyway. Witness Cheney’s “Probably” when asked if he had any extra information to support his insistence of a significant Saddam-Qaeda tie despite the 9/11 commission’s claim to the contrary.
TWL
Just for amusement value; the Top5 Comics List recently did the topic “Top Differences If Super-Heroes Ran the Government”. One item was something like “Color-coded terrorist threat level chart modified to use colors of Kryptonite”. Personally, I could get behind a, in order from least to most dangerous, Blue, White, Red, Gold, Green, Kryptonite chart. 🙂
Hey, I agree it’s a win-win situation… they can continue to raise the terror level to freaking chartreuse if they want to… doesn’t mean anything’s going to happen.
I can continually say “Baylor is going to win its next football game,” and sooner or later it will be true.
Is it politically motivated? Of course. Everything is politically motivated.
And if you were hand-picked by the POTUS for a job, you’d do whatever he wanted. Much like if a corporation held over $300 million in eschrow for you, you’d pump gas for them (to paraphrase Lewis Black).
Politically motivated? Yes. Timed well? Yes. Going to happen? Hope not. Dad’s going to be in NYC over the next five days. And most likely, they would do this when something big is going to happen. Like the RNC or the elections.
Travis
>
Do we want to know what happens when it reached Jewel?
Trying real hard to not be cynical but why am i not alarmed?Ridge comes out the closet raises the fear and anxiety flag with no real information(though he was a little specific this time)People panic ,talking heads on the news play it up,people become more paranoid and divided over the country’s security and nothing happens.We get it terrorists are out to get us ,you guys are on watch blah,blah.How about its just taken care on the lowestlevel possible and if and when you stop the attack you let us know???Well gotta watch Nip /tuck later
What happens when it reaches Jewel? All I can think of is that she’d have to go back to living in her van. . .
Before you dismiss this as just election cycle hype, read the following passages from the AP report:
Don’t let it get in the way of a good conspiracy, though.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/politics/02intel.html?ei=5006&en=191a653487a53251&ex=1092024000&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=
Captured Qaeda Figure Led Way to Information Behind Warning
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID ROHDE
ASHINGTON, Aug. 1 – The unannounced capture of a figure from Al Qaeda in Pakistan several weeks ago led the Central Intelligence Agency to the rich lode of information that prompted the terror alert on Sunday, according to senior American officials.
The figure, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, was described by a Pakistani intelligence official as a 25-year-old computer engineer, arrested July 13, who had used and helped to operate a secret Qaeda communications system where information was transferred via coded messages.
A senior United States official would not confirm or deny that Mr. Khan had been the Qaeda figure whose capture led to the information. But the official said “documentary evidence” found after the capture had demonstrated in extraordinary detail that Qaeda members had for years conducted sophisticated and extensive reconnaissance of the financial institutions cited in the warnings on Sunday.
One senior American intelligence official said the information was more detailed and precise than any he had seen during his 24-year career in intelligence work. A second senior American official said it had provided a new window into the methods, content and distribution of Qaeda communications.
“This, for us, is a potential treasure trove,” said a third senior American official, an intelligence expert, at a briefing for reporters on Sunday afternoon.
The documentary evidence, whose contents were reported urgently to Washington on Friday afternoon, immediately elevated the significance of other intelligence information gathered in recent weeks that had already been regarded as highly troubling, senior American intelligence officials said. Much of that information had come from Qaeda detainees in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as well as Pakistan, and some had also pointed to a possible attack on financial institutions, senior American intelligence officials said.
The American officials said the new evidence had been obtained only after the capture of the Qaeda figure. Among other things, they said, it demonstrated that Qaeda plotters had begun casing the buildings in New York, Newark and Washington even before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Among the questions the plotters sought to answer, senior American intelligence officials said, were how best to gain access to the targeted buildings; how many people might be at the sites at different hours and on different days of the week; whether a hijacked oil tanker truck could serve as an effective weapon; and how large an explosive device might be required to bring the buildings down.
The American officials would say only that the Qaeda figure whose capture had led to the discovery of the documentary evidence had been captured with the help of the C.I.A. Though Pakistan announced the arrest last week of a Qaeda member, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian wanted in connection with the bombings of American embassies in East Africa in 1998, the American officials suggested that he had not been the source of the new threat information.
An account provided by a Pakistani intelligence official made clear that the crucial capture in recent weeks had been that of Mr. Khan, who is also known as Abu Talha. The intelligence official provided information describing Mr. Khan as having assisted in evaluating potential American and Western targets for terrorist attacks, and as being representative of a “new Al Qaeda.”
The Pakistani official described Mr. Khan as a fluent English speaker who had told investigators that he had visited the United States, Britain, Germany and other countries. Mr. Khan was one of thousands of Pakistani militants who trained in Afghanistan under the Taliban in the 1990’s, the Pakistani official said.
If indeed Mr. Khan was the man whose arrest led the C.I.A. to new evidence, his role as a kind of clearinghouse of Qaeda communications, as described by the Pakistani intelligence official, could have made him a vital source of information. Since his arrest, Mr. Khan has described an elaborate communications system that involves the use of high and low technology, the Pakistani official said.
The question of how much to rely on information obtained from captured foes has always weighed on the intelligence business. In recent weeks, even as they cited accounts from some captured Qaeda members as the basis for new concerns about terrorism, American intelligence officials have acknowledged that another captured Qaeda figure, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, had recanted claims that Iraq had provided training in illicit weapons to Qaeda members.
Mr. Libi’s earlier claims had been the primary basis for assertions by President Bush and his top advisers that Iraq had provided training in “poisons and gases” to Qaeda members.
In explaining the decision to call a new terror alert, American officials would say only that the evidence obtained by the C.I.A. after the arrest of the Qaeda figure in Pakistan had provided a richer, more credible source of intelligence than could have been provided by any single individual. They declined to say whether the “documentary evidence” included physical documents or might also include electronic information stored on computers, like copies of e-mail communications.
The Qaeda communications system that Mr. Khan used and helped operate relied on Web sites and e-mail addresses in Turkey, Nigeria and the northwestern tribal areas of Pakistan, according to the information provided by a Pakistani intelligence official.
The official said Mr. Khan had told investigators that couriers carried handwritten messages or computer disks from senior Qaeda leaders hiding in isolated border areas to hard-line religious schools in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province.
Other couriers then ferried them to Mr. Khan on the other side of the country in the eastern city of Lahore, and the computer expert then posted the messages in code on Web sites or relayed them electronically, the Pakistani official said.
Mr. Khan had told investigators that most of Al Qaeda’s communications were now done through the Internet, the official said. After a message was sent and read by the recipient, the entire communication and related files were deleted to maintain secrecy, he said. Mr. Khan had told investigators that e-mail addresses were generally not used more than a few times.
The young computer engineer, who received a bachelor’s degree from a university in Karachi, is the unemployed son of an employee of Pakistan’s state airline and a college botany professor, the official said. Heavily built and 6 feet 2 inches tall, he speaks English with a British accent, and was arrested carrying a fake Pakistani identification card.
The Pakistani official said Mr. Khan told investigators that he had received 25 days of training at a militant camp in Afghanistan in June 1998. By the time Mr. Khan had risen to his current position, the official said, Qaeda figures had arranged his marriage and were paying him $170 a month for rent for his house in Lahore and $90 for expenses.
Mr. Khan was in contact with the brother of the Indonesian Qaeda leader Hambali, who was studying in a religious school in Karachi, and who was deported in December 2003. Mr. Khan has told interrogators that his Qaeda handler was a Pakistani he knew as Adil or Imran, who assigned him tasks related to computer work, Web design and managing the handler’s messages. His correspondents included a Saudi-based Yemeni, Egyptian and Palestinian nationals and Arabs in unknown locations, and someone described as the “in-charge” in the city of Khost in eastern Afghanistan.
Asked about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mr. Khan has told interrogators that even the top Qaeda commanders do not know, the Pakistani intelligence official said.
I’ve posted this here before but it bears repeating.
While you can question the timing of the announcement(s) all you want to, I’m afraid that it has gotten to the point where the terrorists have realized that they no longer really need to actually DO anything. All that is necessary for them to accomplish their “mission” nowadays is to just spread the rumor that they are planning something, then just sit back safe and snug in their little underground hidey-holes and laugh at us “silly” Americans while we worry.
Well may God, Allah or who/whatever they believe in have mercy on their souls.
I know that there are good and bad people in every race, and while I realize that not everyone of that nationality is a (potential) terrorist, you would think that the rest of their countrymen at the very least would be ashamed of their actions.
Some of those suicide bomb(er)s are killing their own people!
I guess all we civilians can do in the end is muster whatever faith one might have and pray that (someday) there will be a peaceful end to all this madness.
Just one man’s humble opinion…
You know, I actually should be glad that so many of you are so cynical about Bush that you are unwilling to even look at the fact that there may be a very clear reason the threat level was raised. Is it a very imperfect system that often is almost a “gut” reaction to intelligence? Of course. But there is a clear reason (whether you agree or not) for raising the threat level (just see the long post of a news story above).
This reminds me of my conservative friends noting the timing of Clinton’s lobing cruise missles while the Monicagate hearings were going on. I had honest questions, but I was also careful to consider the possibility Clinton was doing it for a good reason.
I suspect Bush will win, in part because (as my republican friends learned with Clinton) conspiracy theories only play well to the faithful (see above).
I am amazed at how blinded so many people are by their hatred for Bush. It prevents any honest looking of the problems the Bush administration may actually have.
Jim in Iowa
Jim, people are cynical about the threat level raises because:
1) They quite often seem to come out at times that are particularly useful politically. There’s the old saying “once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action”.
2) So far, they seem to almost be raising/lowering them at random (or see above). I’m still trying to figure out why, almost three years after 9/11, there’s been zero actual Al-Queida terrorist incidents in the US. Best explanations I’ve seen are that it’s now more useful for them to be doing these actions in the Middle East and Europe or that they take a long time to plan out and execute something significant. But, at any rate, so far a raised color alert hasn’t resulted in *either* of an actual terrorist act, or the capture of people about to carry out same. See boy who cried wolf.
So far, they seem to almost be raising/lowering them at random (or see above). I’m still trying to figure out why, almost three years after 9/11, there’s been zero actual Al-Queida terrorist incidents in the US. Best explanations I’ve seen are that it’s now more useful for them to be doing these actions in the Middle East and Europe or that they take a long time to plan out and execute something significant.
And/or Al-Queida is manipulating their traffic and info to see what reaction they get….
Howard Dean made the same accusation, and his fellow Democrats (other than the ones on this blog) responded thusly: “I don’t think anybody who has any fairness or is in their right mind would think the president or the secretary of homeland security would raise an alert level and scare people for political reasons,” Lieberman said. “That’s outrageous.” Or as Kerry’s campaign put it, “I don’t think Dean has the facts.” The facts are fairly important in this case, and they appear to be that the intelligence community has received, within the last three days preceding the announcement, information sufficiently credible and specific that they feel they’ve identified several Al Qaeda targets. I think that’s something the people in the targeted cities would kind of like to know. People who have access to the intelligence reported by Ridge seem to be concerned. People who have no access to intelligence (interpret that however you will) make comments about how convenient the press release is. Presumably any press release from the Department of Homeland Security between now and November would be equally “coincidental,” because there is no time between June and the general election in November that would not be close to some political event. “Isn’t it interesting that they’re releasing this information right before the DNC/right after the DNC/right before the RNC/ right after the RNC/right before the debates/ during the debates/after the debates/right before the election? Must be a scam.”
I’ve generally enjoyed arguments on this blog, but this one is intensely stupid. Should the Department of Homeland Security sit on this information–or any information they receive between now and November 2–to keep it from being politicized? Wouldn’t that, itself, be a political decision? I greatly admire PAD as a writer and I’ve gotten used to disagreeing with him politically, but this discussion is making Rush Limbaugh look smart and reasonable by comparison. If you think the information is true, then it’s foolish to argue that it shouldn’t be released. If you think the Administration is fabricating alerts then it’s hard to explain why Lieberman is backing them (this is the Joseph Lieberman who ran against the President four years ago, not exactly a traitor to the party) and why Kerry’s campaign is subtly calling Dean an idiot. Unless someone posting on this blog has information not known to anyone else in the free world, this thread is pathetic.
PAD wrote: “I notice no one refuting Michael Moore’s claim that the terrorism alert status will never go down to green. Ever.”
Well, Michael Moore is such a blowhard so just because he spews something doesn’t mean it warrants a response.
I was wondering who would be the first to say this:
“Basically…if we have no terror alert, and we do get attacked, Bush is at fault.”
And I’m perfectly happy to wait while you scroll through all the back postings to find a single one where I said that I felt Bush should be held responsible for 9/11. Go on. Take your time. Search real hard. Found all the ones where I said Bush should NOT be blamed? That I didn’t think he could have prevented it?
The purpose of terrorists is not just to blow stuff up. The purpose of terrorists is to keep people living in terror. Spreading “Keep on your toes” warnings on a semi-regular basis basically does the terrorists’ job for them.
And let’s just say that terrorists WERE planning to ram one of the three mentioned buildings with a car bomb. By making the information public, rather than being able to–say–lay a trap for them, we instead GIVE THEM A HEADS UP. To which the terrorists can turn to each other and say, “Okay, plan B: The Empire State Building it is.” Meanwhile Mayor Bloomberg, when asked how New Yorkers in the affected buildings should react to this, says, “Everyone should just go on about their business, live their lives normally.” How the hëll are they supposed to do that when every car backfiring is going to give them a coronary?
So since there’s no PRACTICAL advantage to nationally advertising this, one is naturally moved to consider the political advantage.
Oh, find any postings where I said Bush should have been blamed for 9/11? Well, keep looking. Now I DO find it curious that Clinton was forced to testify on the record about oral sex in the Oval Office where no one died, and Bush was allowed to testify off the record–and with Cheney there to help keep the story straight–about a situation where over 3000 died, but that’s another matter altogether…
PAD
PAD says:
“I was wondering who would be the first to say this:
“Basically…if we have no terror alert, and we do get attacked, Bush is at fault.”
And I’m perfectly happy to wait while you scroll through all the back postings to find a single one where I said that I felt Bush should be held responsible for 9/11. Go on. Take your time. Search real hard. Found all the ones where I said Bush should NOT be blamed? That I didn’t think he could have prevented it?”
I think you may be taking a very general statement (“Bush will be blamed”) and morphing it into a very personal one (“PAD will blame Bush.)
If you think that Bush will NOT be balmed by many for any subsequent attacks you are very naive. YOU, of course, are welcome to treat any incident with a fair eye but there are many who will, fairly or not, quickly cast blame.
” Now I DO find it curious that Clinton was forced to testify on the record about oral sex in the Oval Office where no one died, and Bush was allowed to testify off the record–and with Cheney there to help keep the story straight–about a situation where over 3000 died, but that’s another matter altogether…”
Why is it curious? Clinton had to testify in a civil suit due to sexual harrassment laws that he supported. He either committed out and out perjury or at the very least gave dishonest answers, which resulted in his having to testify about the aforementioned oral sex. I Don’t see the analogy with Bush/Cheney or am I letting facts stand in the way of a good sound bite?
“As long as there are terrorists that want to destroy us, there will always be a terrorist alert level.”
So why weren’t the public notified when there was a blip in Soviet military activity? It isn’t as though they didn’t want to destroy us, too. For that matter, sticking to terrorist actions, why weren’t there such alerts after the original World Trade Center attack in … ’92(?)? Or after the bombing of the Marine barracks, or the attack on the Cole, or … Guess we didn’t need them then.
David – They appear to be that the intelligence community has received, within the last three days preceding the announcement, information sufficiently credible and specific that they feel they’ve identified several Al Qaeda targets.
And we KNEW what the Soviet ICBM targets were for decades. You’ll note that, as that showed, just because something is a ‘target’ doesn’t mean it’ll actually get attacked.
I had the opportunity of participating in a political forum, at which this topic came up. The gist of the group’s consensus was basically:
It’s a sad commentary on the polarization of american society when an apparently valid concern is percieved as either
A> A well meaning alert issued under an inefficient system
B> A political ploy to ensure reelection
C> An attempt to shore up the political capital for a specific agency
…and so on.
The truly pathetic part is that we have so little faith in our leadership and process that we now second guess everything that comes out of Washington.
This May or May Not be a valid alert. There May or May Not be reasons for publicizing it. None of us here (unless someone here has top secret clearance and we don’t know about it) know anything about what is involved. Yet we feel compelled to try to fit it into what are rapidly becoming narrower and narrower world views.
—
Since I mentioned it, more from the same forum (paraphrased with permission)
There are no swing voters.
America has firmly divided into 3 camps. One who think Bush is the Devil and worships Kerry as the Messiah. One who thinks Bush is Heaven-Sent (in some cases literally) and think Kerry is The Snake in the Garden, and one other (more in a sec). The biblical references are deliberate, as the zeal over this has begun to approach levels formerly associated with religious debates.
The third group is often referred to as swing voters. We have a different name. Based on our findings, we call them the “Dear God what a crappy bunch of Candidate voters.”
Instead of asking the standard “If the election were held today, would you vote for…” question, we asked “How would you vote and why?”. And listened.
The actual voting was split 50/50, but what was truly interesting was that ALMOST EVERY PERSON expressed NO CONFIDENCE in ANY of the candidates for president and were basically voting for the one they DISLIKED the least. (Disclaimer, this was not a statiscally significant sample, everyone coming interviwed 2 or 3 random people before they came).
A sample answer: “I’m not sure who I am voting for. My choices are a lying idiot from Texas or a weak wuss from up North.” This is how the candidates to RUN THE COUNTRY are percieved by a good portion of the country.
What has this got to do with the item above? Simple. If you look at the discussions above, you can SEE this pattern. People immediately either defended the administration, vilified the administration, or declared the whole thing frivolous or silly. Very few people that I noticed actually posted a rational non-partisan response.
Folks, very possibly the most important election in our lifetimes will occur in 3 months. Try to look past the hype. While I tend to agree the current candidates are not exactly cream of the crop, we do have a choice to make. Whatever choice you make, make it out of respect for logic, ability, policy, not fear, hatred, or blind acceptance.
Bill Mulligan, you said “He either committed out and out perjury or at the very least gave dishonest answers”
and you don’t see the similiarities to Bush and Cheney who from the onset have used Iraq and 9-11 as interchangeably as most people use work and job. Bush and Cheney who swore there were WMD and used it as a basis to attack a country?
And speaking of skepticism: The intelligence work mangled with the WMD cause me to question everything that comes from white house intelligence sources.
If there were an actual threat, warning the terrorists that we know of their plans only causes them to go to plan B. While we lay in wait at targets we’ve actually named in the press, they move to the west coast and attack.
I question, however, the thought that Al Quaida will wait to attack on a holiday or important event like the conventions. That’s much too obvious. 9-11 had no significance until September of 2001. Their method of attack is not and has never been a frontal assault. When they attack again, and make no mistake, they will no matter who is president, they’ll perform the same style of attack as on September 11th. Unexpected and where we least expect it.
These men are prepared to die for their cause. Why would one spill his guts once he was captured? Even with pain inflicted. They see that as furthering their reward after death.
I work up the block from the Prudential Building in Newark. Traffic really sucked this morning, and I expect it will stay that way. Thanks, George the Second and his croonies for screwing up my commute!
There are many reasons why people don’t (or don’t want to) believe the terror alerts. Yes, some because of conspiracy theory’s, some because of partisanship. But I think the main reason people are skeptical is the administration’s history with terror alerts and/or honesty.
Look how often the terror alerts appear at the same time as something the administration wants off the front page.
* Kerry names Edwards as V.P. – terror alert.
* A convicted felon (former Admiral Poindexter) is named to head the TIPS program – terror alert.
There were many others, but I haven’t time today to look them up.
Let’s not forget the vaugeness of the warnings. They’re all almost identical. “We have new, solid information. But we don’t know where, we don’t know where, we don’t know how, and we don’t know who. but be afraid. Be very, very afraid.”
Also, remember a couple of weeks ago, Ashcroft released a terror warning, and neither Ridge or the head of the FBI knew what he was talking about?
And how about the arrests of “terrorists” which co-incide with a Kerry appearence? Like in Ohio where a man was arrested, Just before Kerry arrived, for planning to blow up a shopping mall.
Finally, this administration is not known in the least for telling the truth.
* Saddam & 9-11.
* Saddam * WMD’s.
* The cost of the Medicare bill.
* Bush fell off his bike because of rain.
And so many, many more.
Is it really a wonder that few people want to believe the administration’s ‘warnings’?
I love this comment and agree 100%: “If they don’t know where and when then they should shut the fûçk up. If they do know where and when then maybe they should just stop the dámņ attack and stop freaking people out. It doesn’t do any good to inflict fear on the populous unless it’s for political gain. They should just do their jobs and be quiet about it unless there is an immediate danger and people need to take steps to avoid getting hurt…”
I’m no security expert but I have to think that it is not practical to make these announcements if there was a real threat. Wouldn’t you want to operate in a clandestine manner instead of frightening the populace? Lest we forget the duct tape episode of 2003. I’m not denying that the U.S. is always a target. When have we not been in decades prior by enemy countries with nuclear missiles pointed at us? Should the gov’t have issues these announcements or “alerts” then to scare the populace if the wind surrounding them shifted from east to west?
Remember the expression “never yell fire in a crowded theater?” This is what this administration does constantly in an effort to keep the populace polarized. What if every time you went to said theater, Tom Ridge came on the screen and gave you the exact odds of a fire occuring in the building and said that we don’t know when or where but please sit and enjoy the show. Wouldn’t this be ridiculous? But the reality is that we know it could happen, the odds are with us, the fire exits are staring us in the face, and we enjoy the show. Why can’t this administration let people just enjoy their lives and not attempt to keep them frightened and polarized.
I don’t mind the sharing of intelligence among security personnel and obviously support it but what the hëll am I going to do about it but be scared to go to work! Besides the polarization, I think these alerts are a CYA (COVER YOUR ÃSS) maneuver so if God forbid something ever happened, they could say “we told you so.”
As a comedic aside to this, just to show you how this affects people. I’m in the elevator today with this dimwit who works with me and told her that I’m not really concerned overall, etc and don’t see much point in these alerts. She said that she appreciates them so she can plan better and listen to the fire alarms when they go off rather than ignore them like she usually does. Whew. You got her vote.
Ok folks…
This wasn’t just a casual, “they might hit us” concern. This was a very SPECIFIC threat. We knew the places, and a pretty good idea of the timing. The terrorists had researched the buildings, the security, how many people on staff, what type of weapons the guards have, escape routes, what type of explosives would melt the metal of the buildings, etc.
VERY SPECIFIC! GET IT?
Now, they needed to in this case:
a. mobilize the national guard, the police, and the FBI in the area.
b. close the holland tunnel.
c. Slow traffic, search cars, setup roadblocks, etc.
d. any number of other things which would be extremely OBVIOUS to anyone nearby, and would be all over the news.
So doing these things you are honestly saying they should have kept quiet? Tried to keep is a secret? I know you’re not stupid PAD, so I am assuming either you a. didn’t know all these facts before you posted, or b. you’re allowing your anti-bush zeal to overwhelm your better sense or c. you truly somehow believe these actions could be taken in secret, or that we should skip these actions, and try to “trap” these terrorists, and risk the lives of all the people at those 3 locations.
Can you let me know which of those assumtions is valid please?
Slightly off subject, but I almost live as close to the pentagon as a civillian can. If you ever hear about an attack on the Pentagon, I am probably dead. :p I tend to take these things a little more serious than most.
Jeff – “what was truly interesting was that ALMOST EVERY PERSON expressed NO CONFIDENCE in ANY of the candidates for president”
I wouldn’t say “interesting”, so much as “appalling”. I wish I could say Canada holds a higher ground at this, but no such luck. Voting for the least of the perceived evils has been the way to go here for a couple of decades, now.
Catori says:
“
Ahem.
Sorry.
Catori says:
“Bill Mulligan, you said “He either committed out and out perjury or at the very least gave dishonest answers”
and you don’t see the similiarities to Bush and Cheney who from the onset have used Iraq and 9-11 as interchangeably as most people use work and job. Bush and Cheney who swore there were WMD and used it as a basis to attack a country?”
Whatever similarities you may see, the big essential difference is that Bush did not lie, mislead, whatever while under oath during a trial. That may seem a small issue but it can be the diffenece between eating dinner at home or on Cell Block C.
And I’m not trying to start an argument over who said what lie and who said the worse lie, yadda yadda. I was merely pointing out just WHY Clinton had to testify on oral sex. If you lie under oath in a court of law, no matter WHAT the subject is, be prepared to have a second visit to your local grand jury. And saying “Hey, there are worse lies than what I said!” won’t get you far.
This election really boils down to a voter’s opinion of the Bush Doctrine. The 45% who are in Bush’s camp support preemptive strikes against terrorists and state sponsors – hit them so they don’t get a chance to hit us. The 45% in Kerry’s camp do not want preemption, they would rather use the pre-9/11 model of dealing with terrorism via law enforcement. The Bush Doctrine depends on having good intelligence and a commander-in-chief who will not abuse it. The “Kerry Doctrine” depends on having law enforcement able to deal with threats after they are on American soil. We already seen evidence and counter-evidence on both positions. So, what are we left with? A gut feeling about which one you prefer.
U.S. Constitution
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Article 2, Section 3:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union,
Bush lied in the state Of The Union address about Saddam & Nuclear weapons. Since he took an oath to carry out this duty faithfully, he did, in effect, lie under oath.
I think the problem issuing constant warning of terrorism is that it becomes a parable for the boy that cried wolf. Sooner or later a genuine threat to our liberty is going to pop up and we may very well have a tragic repeat of 9/11. If such a warning were to come up the vast majority of us will ignore because it was terrorism alert number one million and three. I pray to God I’m wrong but given the election results in Spain and the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by certain countries caving into threats it is likely in my view that something horrible could happen before the November elections.
Bush lied in the state Of The Union address about Saddam & Nuclear weapons. Since he took an oath to carry out this duty faithfully, he did, in effect, lie under oath.
The President said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
1. In June, the Financial Times, a respected international newspaper, reported that according to European intelligence agencies, Iraq was one of five countries that had negotiated with smugglers in Niger for the illegal purchase of uranium yellowcake.
2. Here’s another fact, this one from a recent book by a one-time US ambassador: In 1999, Saddam’s information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf approached an official of Niger to talk about expanding trade, an approach the official interpreted as a possible attempt to buy uranium. The author of the book? None other than Joseph Wilson — the man who accused the Bush administration last year of making up an Iraqi interest in uranium from Africa.
3. A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush