-- Homeland Security chief to warn of possible al Qaeda attack to influence U.S. elections

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: Preyhunter

Originally posted by: conjur
The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
That ring any bells?

Sure it does, I've heard the story before.

That does not apply to how the anti-Bush crowd is contradicting itself on what it wants from this administration regarding unspecific terror threats.

There is no contradiction. The heart of the complaint is not about the number of warnings, it
is about the lack of effort on the part of the administration to provide specific information
in regard to terror threats. And I'm not even thinking about the public in that regard; the DOHS
doesn't even seem capable of coordinating its efforts with other Federal and local agencies
to provide better security against these potential threats.

If they have enough intel to claim that a threat exists, then they have enough intel to formulate
threat-assesments to give local agencies an idea of what to watch out for. This also solves the
problem if they (the DOHS) is afraid to give out information too specific, in fear that terrorists might
change thier plans accordingly. If you can better identify and protect against areas of opportunity
for attacks, then you start to provide an adequate defense against those attacks occuring.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Preyhunter

Originally posted by: conjur



That's why the last warning that was issued by Ashcroft was immediately countered by Ridge stating there was no new evidence? Remember that? Remember the multiple false alarms of raising the terror alert level with no real credible evidence of an impending attack?

No one takes the color levels seriously anymore. They are a JOKE and so is this administration!

You're bitching because they did raise the terror alert level and DealMonkey's bitching because they didn't raise the terror alert level.

Like I said...damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Right...because:

1) They raised the terror alert level before with NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF AN IMPENDING ATTACK

2) They are now issuing a warning again with NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF ANY TYPE OF ATTACK and aren't raising the terror alert level.

See the common theme?

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
A vote for Kerry is a Vote for Al Qaeda and France!

hey that's cool... you can vote for France now?
How do I vote for Germany and UK??

 

[CQuinn]

AFAIK they've never bothered to LOWER the alert level (to green) since it has been instated after 911_01.

At this point, it is tacit admission that the alert system doesn't work as well as the DOHS had hoped.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Preyhunter
First, the anti-Bush crowd screams and hollers because the administration hears unspecific chatter about possible terrorist attacks and doesn't make it public. Now, the anti-Bush crowd screams and hollers because the administration hears unspecific chatter about possible terrorist attacks and does make it public.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Maybe they should try doing it right.

Anyway, Ridge is full of sh!t. The US is not Spain. An Al-Queda attack before the elections would strengthen the Bush vote, not put Kerry in office. That any idiot should know that, and therefore Ridge should certainly know that, is only proof that this "non-specific" warning is in fact only the corrupt political manuverings of our Homeland Security chief.

Think about it, neocons. Do you really think that another attack on US soil will harm GW's chances in the election? Of course not. In America, people rally around their leaders in time of crisis. So why did Ridge just say that Al-Queda was planning an attack that "will have an impact on America's resolve" and yet he didn't raise any alert levels nor provide any specific information? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

If anything, it's all this wolf-calling and scaremongering for political purposes that makes me think this corrupt administration needs to go.

 

[LunarRay]

At what point does intellegence pass from non-credible to credible? Just what does 'He' mean when he uses that term. And, does it matter?
It seems to me the inability to gather intellegence related to Al Qaeda's activity renders any correlation between his statement and the likelyhood of an attack moot. We ought to have a color scheme indicating if we generated any intellegence or just how much and of what we generated what percent of it was credible. Hehehehhehe, intellegence that is not credible is funny to hear. (to me)

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CQuinn
AFAIK they've never bothered to LOWER the alert level (to green) since it has been instated after 911_01.

At this point, it is tacit admission that the alert system doesn't work as well as the DOHS had hoped.

In and of itself that doesn't necessarily imply the system is broken IMO (though I tend to agree with you that the system is pretty useless, at least to people not involved in military or law enforcement activities).

The idea, I think, is that since we are still engaged in military activities in 2 Middle-Eastern nations, and there is an ongoing threat of terrorism, it hasn't been appropriate to lower the threat condition to green since then. I know we have never lowered the military force-protection condition to Normal since 9/11, and most or all military installations have had 100% ID check for people entering for years (which was not the case pre-9/11).

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Vic

Think about it, neocons. Do you really think that another attack on US soil will harm GW's chances in the election? Of course not. In America, people rally around their leaders in time of crisis. So why did Ridge just say that Al-Queda was planning an attack that "will have an impact on America's resolve" and yet he didn't raise any alert levels nor provide any specific information? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

I agree, and I'll take it one step further, and argue that al Queda would rather see President Bush stay in office, to the extent they care. See my post above for more on this - I don't really want to quote myself.

 

[imported_froste211]

Got to keep the people in this country living in fear. Current administration needs the fear to get the votes, because accomplishments sure they hell won't get them far, as they have not accomplished anything, cept ruining this country.

It's a shame.

 

[tallest1]

Can someone of conservative standing explain how this 'news' is helpful for anyone? Maybe I should publish a news report that the Apocolypse is coming according to my source (an old bible) but I don't know when where or how.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
We really do need a fresh start on foreign policy, and Bush and his cowboy antics are getting old. Only a new foreign policy can truly stop some whacko terrorist from blowing himself in the middle of Time Square. You can build the biggest military, have the best defenses, and destroy all the Al-Qaeda links you want but at the end of the day there is no stopping a suicide bomber from going nuts and killing thousands of innocent people. You neocons think you can win this war with guns....

You really think a new foreign policy would make the terrorists rethink their actions??

Puhleaze.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: StormRider
I think most people have already made up their minds about who to vote for and no terrorists action will change it.

I like Bush as a person. Even though I voted for Gore, I wanted to see Bush be successful. Once the election is over, the person who won is my president and I support him.

However I will be voting for Kerry/Edwards mainly because I think we need a fresh start in foreign relations. I want better relations with France/Germany and the rest of Europe because I think the war against terrorism is too important to just go it alone. Bush has been horrible in this regard.

Also, why do people think a terrorist attack will help Bush? Some people think Bush has caused more hatred of the US in the world and therefore made it easier for al-Qaeda to recruit. So a terrorist attack will just make them vote for Kerry/Edwards more. And those who like Bush, will just want to vote for Bush more.

Thats a great attitude.. I've never seen anyone else say that before.

 

[T2T III]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Preyhunter

Originally posted by: conjur



That's why the last warning that was issued by Ashcroft was immediately countered by Ridge stating there was no new evidence? Remember that? Remember the multiple false alarms of raising the terror alert level with no real credible evidence of an impending attack?

No one takes the color levels seriously anymore. They are a JOKE and so is this administration!

You're bitching because they did raise the terror alert level and DealMonkey's bitching because they didn't raise the terror alert level.

Like I said...damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Right...because:

1) They raised the terror alert level before with NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF AN IMPENDING ATTACK

2) They are now issuing a warning again with NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF ANY TYPE OF ATTACK and aren't raising the terror alert level.

See the common theme?

Like they would share it with you if there was any credible evidence. And, there was nothing credible when some of the flights from London were cancelled a few months back?

 

[tallest1]

Edit: nevermind

 

[Preyhunter]

Originally posted by: DonVito
You're being deliberately opaque on this one, and failing to address the real issue - what possible benefit is there to these warnings, when they come as frequently as they do, and when they never provide any salient details (like the date, location, or mode of attack)?

Could the benefit be that, since the last status update, there continues to be evidence (i.e. chatter) of an attack being planned to occur before the presidential election? Could the lack of salient details be because either they don't know a date, location, or mode of attack, or that they aren't going to divulge that information for fear of losing the intel feed that they are tapping into? I'm not being deliberately opaque about anything.

I stand by my earlier statements. One, that these announcements are intended to keep us alert and aware as far as the general public goes. Two, that if an attack was attempted and thwarted by our anti-terrorist organizations based on "prior knowledge of the planned attack" that the anti-Bush crowd would be asking "Why weren't we told?" if these announcements were not being made.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Preyhunter

I stand by my earlier statements. One, that these announcements are intended to keep us alert and aware as far as the general public goes. Two, that if an attack was attempted and thwarted by our anti-terrorist organizations based on "prior knowledge of the planned attack" that the anti-Bush crowd would be asking "Why weren't we told?" if these announcements were not being made.

Do you sincerely believe these warning make anyone more "alert and aware" in any way? To me that assertion flies in the face of human nature and my own experience. How are we supposed to be more "alert and aware" if we have no idea what we are looking for, or where or when to look? I don't need an Orange Alert to know there's a problem if I see someone loading Stinger missles into a van in the parking lot of the airport Ramada Inn, but the warnings we get in reality are totally useless as far as I can see (particularly since we have been repeatedly warned in the past, only to have nothing happen).

I have never heard one person taking President Bush to task for failing to warn the public about not being warned about a terrorist act, especially not when the warnings are uniformly completely useless. I honestly can't imagine anyone being upset at the scenario you describe - the government routinely withholds info from the public, in the interest of public safety and national security.

If DOHS can tell us, "We anticipate an attack coming by sea, somewhere on the upper eastern seaboard, within the 5-day window prior to the 4th of July," or something similar, great, and the public should know. I fail to see any value whatsoever in a warning that "al Queda is planning some kind of attack against the US, sometime in the next six months," and if you can give me an explanation of why that's useful info, I'd be happy to hear it.

 

[sandorski]

Seeing as how plausible benefits for Al Queda to cause America to elect Bush or Kerry have been demonstrated, there are only 2 courses of action for the American voter to respond to a Terrorist attack:

1) Vote for Nader

2) don't Vote

Don't let Al Queda win!!!

 

[DealMonkey]

Well, this whole concept of a terrorist attack aimed at disrupting the democratic process brings me back to that old dilemna of: How do we interpret what an attack means so we can be assured not to "appease" the terrorists? I mean, an attack could mean they hate Bush and they want him out (in which case we should vote for Bush), or they could be aimed at forcing Americans to rally around the President because his war on terror is buying into their plans. In the latter case we should vote for Kerry (or Nader) since that is the opposite of what they want.

Oh brother.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, this whole concept of a terrorist attack aimed at disrupting the democratic process brings me back to that old dilemna of: How do we interpret what an attack means so we can be assured not to "appease" the terrorists? I mean, an attack could mean they hate Bush and they want him out (in which case we should vote for Bush), or they could be aimed at forcing Americans to rally around the President because his war on terror is buying into their plans. In the latter case we should vote for Kerry (or Nader) since that is the opposite of what they want.

Oh brother.

Exactly, there seems to be an expectation of it happening and a laying of a foundation so that event can be used in the campaign.

 

[DealMonkey]

Furthermore, should there be an attack prior to the elections, why in the world would Americans rally around the current administration? After all, should an attack occur, it will be the THIRD time they've failed us.

Once on 9/11.

Twice with the war in Iraq. Freeing Iraqis is great, but now that we know there was no threat and we've taken our eyes off the prize: OBL. Do I need to mention that OBL and al-Zawahiri are directing this upcoming attack?

And now, conceivably, we have a third failure on our government's part and we're supposed to rally around this administration?

Jesus Christ, I would think "3 strikes and you're out on your asses" would apply regardless of partisanship.

 

[arsbanned]

But but...It's Clinton's fault! The blowjob! Yeah!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: irwincur
At most there are about 1,000 insurgents in Falluja. Most tied to Al Sadr that never left when he agreed to the cease fire. Wow, that is the end of the world.


The only reason al Queda would attack would be for Spanish style election engineering. It is sad that people cannot see how bad terrorists want Kerry to get elected. This should scare everyone.

Link for that claim?

Yoo hoo?!?!

"Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastard!
Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!"

 

[NeoV]

wouldn't the fact that they hate us be a reason for attacking?

Galt - FU

A vote for Kerry is hardly a vote for AL-Q jack4ss.

 

[conjur]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37500-2004Jul8.html

Portland, Ore.: Hi Dan, love your column.

Do you have any disconnect between the dominant White House talking point "America is safer" and John McLaughlin saying "this is about as serious a threat environment as I have seen since 9/11?"

Seems like a pretty big disconnect.

Thanks!

Dan Froomkin: There is a disconnect, yes. I think it's something we will all be expending a certain amount of ink on in the coming months.