When Phony Terror Alerts Attack!

[Northgate]

In the "Pakistan Gets Serious Around Election Time" Category:

Last month TheNewRepublic (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904) reported that Pakistani officials were under pressure from the Bush administration to find some al-Qaeda bad guys before the election. What's more, a high-profile capture during the Democratic convention would be really great.

Sure enough, on the last day of the convention the Pakistanis announced they had captured an al-Qaeda terrorist who was one of the FBI's most wanted.

Then, on Monday, we learned that the heightened security alert in New York was due to information on a laptop computer that had been taken from a captured al-Qaeda terrorist after a 25-hour gun battle in mid-July — in Pakistan.

The Pakistanis sure as busy. I wonder why they couldn't do this in the summer of 2002. And the summer of 2003. Why did we wait until the summer of 2004 to put the screws on them?

And how many more miraculous captures of al-Qaeda operatives by the Pakistanis can we look forward to between now and November 2? The question kind of answers itself, doesn't it?

And in the "Blatant Politicization of Terror" Category...Tom Ridge, Sunday:

But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror, the reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan.

Finally, in the "Old Info is New Info When it's Politically Motivated" category:

Much of the information that led authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the NY and D.C. areas was 3 or 4 years old...

NYT Tuesday Page One Splash To Claim: Intelligence and law enforcement officials 'had not yet found concrete evidence that a terror plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way'...

WASH POST Page One: Alerts Stemmed from Pre-9/11 Acts /// 'There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new,' said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. 'Why did we go to this level?... I still don't know that'...

POST: 'Most of the information was compiled prior to the Sept. 11 attacks and that there are serious doubts about the age of other, undated files'...

New York Times (http://nytimes.com/2004/08/03/politics/03intel.html?hp)

HouChron (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2713552)

WaMonthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004441.php)

TheNewRepublic (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904)

[sammi jo]

More crying-wolf propaganda from this administration, to scare, coerce and manipulate the sheep into the gradual acceptance of a maximum security society, courtesy of BushCorp's greatest ally, the bearded one.

I see that Bush addressed the latest "terrorist" scare from the Rose Garden of the White House. "Here I am, Mr. Al Qaeda, bring it on". Look how Ridge and NYC business leaders addressed how to deal with "terrorism" by publicly holding their meeting in a so-called prime "target", CitiBank HQ on West 53rd St. in NYC and broadcasting allthe details all over the media!!! :wow: At the same time, they just opened the Statue of Liberty, another prime "target" to the public for the first time since 9-11, yet several main routes into Manhattan arenow locked down, causing traffic chaos.

Laurel and Hardy meets the Three Stooges.

[addabox]

The net result of which it's going to be damn hard to get people to take a real threat seriously at this point. You can only cry "wolf" so many times.

[Northgate]

"White House and Bush campaign officials have long said that the details [of White House counterterrorism proposals] matter far less than the pictures and sounds of Mr. Bush talking in any way about his campaign against terrorism, which polls show is still his strongest card against Mr. Kerry," writes Elizabeth Bumiller in the Times today.

Ain't it the truth!

But wouldn't it be nice if we had a press which would make some effort to point out instances where the 'details' utterly belie what the president says he's doing?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_01.php#003238

[Northgate]

Calpundit over at Washington Monthly has a different take on the intelligence. Me? I think that there is a reasonable possibility that AQ has an interest in a new strike sooner and not later, and the chatter around that probably is legitimate.

BUT i'm extremely doubtful that the old surveillance has anything to do with the legitimate new possibility; i think that they just dressed these up together....

Calpundit (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004444.php)

TERROR WARNINGS....I really don't know what to think about the New York terror alert (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35466-2004Aug2.html) this weekend that we now know was based on old information:

More than half a dozen government officials interviewed yesterday, who declined to be identified because classified information is involved, said that most, if not all, of the information about the buildings seized by authorities in a raid in Pakistan last week was about three years old, and possibly older.

"There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."

But then there's this in the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror3aug03,1,1458227.story?coll=la-home-headlines):

Several senior U.S. counterterrorism officials said that the surveillance, obtained in Pakistan and reviewed late last week by authorities in Washington, came amid a continuing stream of intelligence corroborating Al Qaeda's determination to launch strikes in the U.S.

....On Monday, [Homeland Security Secretary Tom] Ridge told NBC's "Today" show that on a scale of 1 to 10, the quality of the intelligence prompting the alert was "a 10".

....in a briefing, White House homeland security advisor Frances Townsend described the intelligence as coming not just from Khan but from "multiple reporting streams that came together in such a way to give us real grave concern."

After spending some time reading about the CIA's "multiple streams" of intelligence regarding uranium from Niger, I'm not as impressed by this as I might have been a year ago. Still, even though my trusting nature has taken a beating lately, for now it looks like this is probably the real deal, not just a politically motivated announcement designed to scare everyone into voting for George Bush (The Only Candidate Who's Tough on Terror™).

But trust is in short supply these days and mine could disappear in a blink. This is definitely a story worth following.

[Northgate]

One More Time

Ridge Today (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=3876):

"We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security."

Two Days Ago (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040801.html), August 1, 2004:

"But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the President's leadership in the war against terror. The reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan. Such operations and partnerships give us insight into the enemy so we can better target our defensive measures here and away from home."

Does anybody care that we as American citizens are being manipulated so egregiously? How many examples of direct manipulation of the terror alert level must we be shown before we GET IT?

Or are we all cool with what is so blatant?

[Aquatic]

Indeed. Who believes these alerts anymore? I'm 99% sure we won't see the next terrorist attack coming. It'll be right after we lower the "Terror level" or whatever it's called. And how the hell can people vote for this!? Did I mention I hate Bush? I can barely talk to Bush voters anymore I get so stressed out. I saw a minivan with a Bush sticker on it yesterday. I was like WTF mate! A Porsche I could at least understand. The Bush/Cheney 04 Minivan is just um, special.

[pfflam]

If indeed, any of these terror allerts have been politically motivated, than it is bad for all of us . . . crying wolve can get us eaten.

A question to ask is: who really would benefit politically from terror allerts?
Would it seem that BushCo is doing their job and 'let's not rock the boat'
or
does it make it seem like the job is not being done and 'why aren't we safer?'

and another thing: if in fact there is a terrror possibility that needs addressing than they better damn well get that allert ringing . . . . heads would roll real fast if something went off and no allert was raised and no fuss was made . . . maybe they are just generally expecting stuff and are watching their asses just in case . . .

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by sammi jo

Laurel and Hardy meets the Three Stooges. [/B] With the Keystone Cops under their vigilant command.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by Northgate
Does anybody care that we as American citizens are being manipulated so egregiously? How many examples of direct manipulation of the terror alert level must we be shown before we GET IT?

Or are we all cool with what is so blatant?

We're cool as long as we're Republican and it comes from "our team".
Yay Team!!!

[Scott]

It doesn't seem very phony to me.

Al Qaeda suspect reveals communication strategy (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/03/terror.threat/index.html)

Next you'll tell me that it's, "Just like that movie Brazil" or some other such nonsense.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Scott
It doesn't seem very phony to me.

Al Qaeda suspect reveals communication strategy (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/03/terror.threat/index.html)

Next you'll tell me that it's, "Just like that movie Brazil" or some other such nonsense.


Geez Scott! Have they been right about an attack yet?:rolleyes:


And why did they capture this guy just now?

I suppose you'll say it was just chance that it happened during the DNC?

My dad used have a saying : " This stinks to high heaven! "

[Towel]

Originally posted by jimmac
And why did they capture this guy just now?

I suppose you'll say it was just chance that it happened during the DNC? Different guys. The capture that fulfilled the Administration's request to overshadow the DNC was Ahmed Khalifan Ghailani. He's a "big name" terrorist who was been indicted in US court for involvement in the 1998 Africa bombings, and was arrested in Pakistan on July 25. They held off announcing his arrest until hours before Kerry's speech.

This other guy, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, was a total unknown when he was picked up on July 13. They're still not even sure that's his real name. It's supposedly his computer that is the source for the recent alerts.

[Scott]

Originally posted by jimmac
Geez Scott! Have they been right about an attack yet?:rolleyes:

I guess we don't know. They may not know. Maybe only the terrorist know. Do you want a bomb to go off or a plane to crash to feel better about it?


Originally posted by jimmac
And why did they capture this guy just now?

Why not now? The unibomber was out there for years before his brother turned him in.

Originally posted by jimmac
I suppose you'll say it was just chance that it happened during the DNC?

You're right! They should have let him go and captured him later so as not the upset Kerry.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by jimmac
My dad used have a saying : " This stinks to high heaven! "

Maybe we can just have a anti-Bush knee jerk reaction and not use the brains God (sorry if my religouse reference offends you) gave us.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Scott
I guess we don't know. They may not know. Maybe only the terrorist know. Do you want a bomb to go off or a plane to crash to feel better about it?




Why not now? The unibomber was out there for years before his brother turned him in.



You're right! They should have let him go and captured him later so as not the upset Kerry.:rolleyes:



Maybe we can just have a anti-Bush knee jerk reaction and not use the brains God (sorry if my religouse reference offends you) gave us.


See that's just the thing people are using the brains god gave them and this " Stinks to high heaven! ".

[PBG4 Dude]

Originally posted by Scott
Maybe we can just have a anti-Bush knee jerk reaction and not use the brains God (sorry if my religouse reference offends you) gave us.

Hate to break it to you Scott, but you're about the most knee-jerk reactionary I've seen here. Sometimes it's mind-boggling the stretches you go to to support our current President.

[Northgate]

It always amazes me how naive people can truly be. :no:

[PBG4 Dude]

Originally posted by Northgate
It always amazes me how naive people can truly be. :no:

Until a solid minority (100's of thousands) of people rise up and protest what our government is doing to us and other countries, they're going to keep doing it. It's like Americans as a people just don't care what our gov't is doing.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
Until a solid minority (100's of thousands) of people rise up and protest what our government is doing to us and other countries, they're going to keep doing it. It's like Americans as a people just don't care what our gov't is doing.

In a lot of ways that is what the Howard Dean movement was all about. But you have the media majority that ridicules, mocks and, ultimately, castrates any semblance of reform, outrage or criticism.

On top of that you have those citizens who are well aware of what their government is doing and they actively champion it, condone it and defend it.

And then there's the other 50 million....sleepwalkers.

[groverat]

I think you guys are reading Ridge's statement wrong. Yes, it is political, but not in favor of the president.

But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the President's leadership in the war against terror.

Just like Bush's leadership, the information is weak-to-nonexistant.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by groverat
I think you guys are reading Ridge's statement wrong. Yes, it is political, but not in favor of the president.



Just like Bush's leadership, the information is weak-to-nonexistant. :lol:

[Scott]

Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
Hate to break it to you Scott, but you're about the most knee-jerk reactionary I've seen here. Sometimes it's mind-boggling the stretches you go to to support our current President.

If by support you mean question every unsupproted claim anti-Bush people come up with then ... wait I lost it who's being a "knee-jerk reactionary" again?


It's clear this is all a Bush plot. The Pakistan ISS told me so. So it must be true.

[Scott]

Boy this keeps getting phonier and phonier all the time.

Sources: Al Qaeda may have made contact in U.S. recently (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/04/terror.threat/index.html)

It's obvious Bush made this up for political gain. Rather than his opponents using real terror threats for political gain.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Scott
Boy this keeps getting phonier and phonier all the time.

Sources: Al Qaeda may have made contact in U.S. recently (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/04/terror.threat/index.html)

It's obvious Bush made this up for political gain. Rather than his opponents using real terror threats for political gain.

You know, dude, it's not like people mistrust the Bush admin just for the hell it.

The run-up to Iraq? The subsequent rationalizations? The white-house leaks that cast a negative light on people who have criticized the president? The series of untrue pronouncements that "accidently" happen to favor Bush policy? The stone-walling and secrecy around virtually every phase of governance? The demonstrated willingness to use policy apparatus to punish enemies? Not to mention the plain old lies, such as Cheney's continued insistence that Saddam collaborated with al Qaeda, the parade of former administration members that go public with their horror at how, in the Bush-white-house, politics trump policy every time, and the frequent vast gap between what Bush says and what he does.

The question is, why the fuck wouldn't any sane person regard conveniently timed terror alerts (and there have been a lot of them) with some skepticism?
Everything these guys have done suggests that Karl Rove pretty much calls the shots, and that practically everything they do is done with an eye to Bush's reelection.

It's not our fault that's how they've chosen to govern, and that it has made many of us more than a little cynical about motives and reasons.

It is your fault, however, that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the obvious, and keep pretending that anybody who does is somehow seized with an irrational dislike of Bush.

See, the deal is, we're just paying attention.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by addabox
You know, dude, it's not like people mistrust the Bush admin just for the hell it.

The run-up to Iraq? The subsequent rationalizations? The white-house leaks that cast a negative light on people who have criticized the president? The series of untrue pronouncements that "accidently" happen to favor Bush policy? The stone-walling and secrecy around virtually every phase of governance? The demonstrated willingness to use policy apparatus to punish enemies? Not to mention the plain old lies, such as Cheney's continued insistence that Saddam collaborated with al Qaeda, the parade of former administration members that go public with their horror at how, in the Bush-white-house, politics trump policy every time, and the frequent vast gap between what Bush says and what he does.

The question is, why the fuck wouldn't any sane person regard conveniently timed terror alerts (and there have been a lot of them) with some skepticism?
Everything these guys have done suggests that Karl Rove pretty much calls the shots, and that practically everything they do is done with an eye to Bush's reelection.

It's not our fault that's how they've chosen to govern, and that it has made many of us more than a little cynical about motives and reasons.

It is your fault, however, that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the obvious, and keep pretending that anybody who does is somehow seized with an irrational dislike of Bush.

See, the deal is, we're just paying attention.

ZIIIING! Well said.

[Scott]

Paying attention to what?


Pakistan intel may be driving arrests (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/05/terror.wrap/index.html)

Al Qaeda suspect said to have cased financial buildings

Thursday, August 5, 2004 Posted: 10:58 PM EDT (0258 GMT)

(CNN) -- The arrests of more than a dozen terror suspects around the world this week may have been fueled by intelligence from Pakistan, and many of the suspects are alleged to have strong ties to al Qaeda.

One man arrested in a British roundup of al Qaeda suspects is believed to have been on the ground in New York in 2001 conducting reconnaissance of financial buildings identified recently as possible attack targets, a U.S. law enforcement source told CNN.

...

It's all a big fabrication by Bush! Just like that movie Rio.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Scott
If by support you mean question every unsupproted claim anti-Bush people come up with then ... wait I lost it who's being a "knee-jerk reactionary" again?


It's clear this is all a Bush plot. The Pakistan ISS told me so. So it must be true. You'll note that I didn't make a stink about its supposed falseness.

[Towel]

Originally posted by Scott
It's all a big fabrication by Bush! Just like that movie Rio. No one is saying it's all a fabrication. But we're skeptical of how the Administration reacted to this info. Tom Ridge held a no-notice Sunday press conference to announce a specific new threat, which was followed by a major mobilization of resources to defend against this apparently imminent, specific threat. The whole thing had (was scripted to have?) a sense of immediacy and crisis, and so grabbed headlines around the country.

In reality, it leaked out a few days later, the threat, while real, was no different this Monday than last Monday. It's a long-term threat, not unlike lots of other long-term threats we face. There's nothing immediate or critical about it. The only difference is that we now know about it. It's not like the financial district of NYC or downtown DC was undefended last week, or that no one thought Wall Street might be a target. But now we'll keep a closer eye on those places. However, even the local law enforcement feels they were duped into a needless (and very expensive) over-reaction. The whole things smacks of a scripted attempt to grab and hold the public's attention, perhaps to divert it from certain events of last week. Praising the President's leadership at the end of the press conference was just the icing on the cake.

How could any right-thinking American not be skeptical at this point? Not of al-Qaeda, or the threat they pose - but of how much our current leaders see an opportunity in that threat, and an opportunity for what?

[addabox]

Originally posted by Scott
Paying attention to what?


Pakistan intel may be driving arrests (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/05/terror.wrap/index.html)



It's all a big fabrication by Bush! Just like that movie Rio.

Um, Scott, paying attention to the fact that after a lengthy lull, just by coincidence, there is a sudden burst of activity on the WOT front, including the high value target in Pakistan that the New Republic predicted would be produced during the democratic convention (the Pakistani press conference was held at midnight, for god's sake, which "just happened" to coincided with the finish of Kerry's acceptance speech), the high security in New York (hey, did you know Laura Bush was in one of the heavily defended buildings signing autographs?), the arrests in England, 2 mosque leaders arrested in an Albany sting operation in connection with a plot to import shoulder fired missiles, a guy in Chicago, also caught in a sting operation, who just wanted to blow up a government building, the amazing reappearance of the anthrax case (remember anthrax?), and "renewed" vigor in the Pakistani hunt for al Qaeda.

Am I saying these are all made up? Of course not. I'm saying that the fact that this extraordinary burst of arrests and "new information" has taken place immediately after the democratic convention smacks of manipulating the timing of investigations/arrests/press conferences to push Kerry and the dems off the front pages.

Oh, it doesn't smack, it goddamn well shouts. As I said, given the track record of the Bushies, how else can anyone take this? They're not even trying to be subtle, cause they know there are plenty of people like you who will say: "great work, way to wage that war on terror, no, I don't think there is anything in the least surprising in the fact that there has been more activity on the intel/investigation/arrest front in the week since the democratic convention than in the previous 6 months. It's is just a coincidence, and people who think otherwise are clearly Bush haters that don't take the WOT seriously and may well secretly in their hearts support al Qaeda since they also hate America"

The galling thing is this shouldn't be a partisan complaint. Any American should be pissed off that the white house is willing to play politics with the WOT. Any American should be able to discern that politics are indeed being played.

I mean, look at that list again (and you know that this will continue, with more "key" arrests and scary new intel and orange alerts, right on through to November) and tell me with a straight face that it's all just a coincidence. Tell me the timing is a coincidence.

I think you must know that it's not, and you're glad they're doing it, because all that matters is "your" side winning.

At which point, you see, you are no longer a champion of the United States of America, but just of Bush and the republicans. You are actually pissing on the United States of America, because Bush and the republicans could give a rat's ass about the rule of law, justice, respecting the American people, or the constitution (except as a pretext for pandering to fundies).

So, Scott, I guess the question is, "why do you hate America?"

[Scott]

Yea it's all a grand conspiracy across three different continents.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Scott
Yea it's all a grand conspiracy across three different continents.
Way to answer a well-articulated post full of detailed specifics.

You look really good and you're definitely winning this argument.

[Scott]

Winning what augment? A conspiracy theory based on circumstantial evidence (if you can even call it that) and political bias.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I've never come across anyone prouder of his capacity to be bullshitted.

[Northgate]

From the Washington Note (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000014.html):

I received the following email from a trusted source, and while much of the note is speculative, it indicts the inaction about pre-9/11 intelligence even further:

"A little bird told me that the information on the Citibank Tower, the World Bank, etc. -- the stuff that Ridge trumpeted on Sunday -- also included info on the World Trade Center.

You might pause over that for a moment, because if that's true -- and who knows what to believe, other than nobody -- then that suggests, at least potentially, that the same data that has the feds blocking off streets and searching taxicabs in August 2004 left them blissfully uninterested in protecting the WTC in 2001. I mean, if one pauses to reflect on what's on the record -- that at least some of the info predates 9-11 by a good long time -- then it's hard to imagine that al-Qaeda was doing "casing" of Manhattan, DC, and Newark office buildings prior to 9-11 while NOT doing similar case-work on the much more prominent WTC.

And who knows? Maybe the Pentagon, White House, and Congress, too. To be sure, few took the threat of terror sufficiently seriously pre-9-11, but of course, few of us got briefing memos on 8/6/01 entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." But a few did.

So maybe we should stop worrying about reminding Americans to acquire duct tape and bottled water -- and consider the question of what ELSE the Homeland Re-Election Department might be concealing for obviously damage-control purposes."

If the recent intelligence about potential attacks on U.S. financial centers does predate 9/11, then should we feel good that we got away with several years of relatively smooth taxi cab rides to Capitol Hill? Or should we be dismayed that we should have had these inspection points and closed thoroughfares all along?

[Northgate]

http://i.timeinc.net/time/cartoons/20040806/8.jpg

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Northgate
http://i.timeinc.net/time/cartoons/20040806/8.jpg


:lol:

[bunge]

Looks like Bush fucked up (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/08/terror.wrap/index.html) again.

[tonton]

Originally posted by bunge
Looks like Bush fucked up (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/08/terror.wrap/index.html) again.

OMFG so releasing the details of this guy's arrest to drive the DNC off the front page was more important than what had been a successful intelligence operation?

How low can the GOP go? I have never, ever in my life seen such a lack of integrity.

[Scott]

So now the terror alerts are not phony? Make up your fucking minds already.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by Scott
So now the terror alerts are not phony? Make up your fucking minds already. What's phony is the timing. What made it necessary to raise alert levels and mobilize local law enforcement, this week, as opposed to last week, last month, or even last year, as is has been stated that much of the intelligence used was years old.

Try to pay fucking attention, already.

[Scott]

Oh okay so there can only be terror alerts when it's not politically suspicious in the eyes of the anti-Bush left. We'll see if Bin Laden et al will cooperate with that.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Scott
Oh okay so there can only be terror alerts when it's not politically suspicious in the eyes of the anti-Bush left. We'll see if Bin Laden et al will cooperate with that.

The problem is not that we don't believe there are any real terror threats.

The problem is not that "the left" is overly suspicious.

The problem is that the Bush white house has shown itself willing to play politics with the whole apparatus of terror, and has thereby made it harder to actually prevent terror. You need look no further than the outing of the Pakistani double agent asset, a man that might have actually aided in the capture of bin Laden and who is now useless.

Why? Because Bush didn't like the political fallout of yet another terror warning that seemed unfounded.

Get that? The Bush white house negated a possible route to bin Laden to take some political heat off.

See? It isn't on the "left" to be more credulous. It is on the Bush administration to be more credible. That can't happen when you have Tom Rush contradicting John Ashcroft, or terror alerts that always seem to come at times that Bush wants something off the front pages, or Katherine Harris wandering around just making shit up, or agents and assets being outed for expedient, political reasons.

Now you apparently think that none of that matters, that when the president says "jump" the only answer always and ever is "how high?". But oddly enough, I expect my government to be honest about the dangers facing this country and the measures being taken to protect it.

[Scott]

So you know that Bush or anyone else in the white house leaked that. Or are you just speculating? I wonder why someone would want to do that anyway.

Isn’t it playing politics with terror alerts to question the timing of them? No wonder someone wanted to leak some good info to prove you nay sayers wrong. So you blame Bush (with no proof) of something that you are infact doing right now.


When you point the finger at someone else ... you have three pointing back at yourself.

[FormerLurker]

From Bunge's link:

In background briefings with journalists last week, unnamed U.S. government officials said it was the capture of Khan that provided the information that led Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to announce a higher terror alert level.

I guess you're going to claim that the liberal-media CNN just made up those unnamed US government officials, Scott?

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Scott
So you know that Bush or anyone else in the white house leaked that. Or are you just speculating? I wonder why someone would want to do that anyway.

Isn’t it playing politics with terror alerts to question the timing of them? No wonder someone wanted to leak some good info to prove you nay sayers wrong. So you blame Bush (with no proof) of something that you are infact doing right now.


When you point the finger at someone else ... you have three pointing back at yourself. If the administration were grabbing pitchforks and burning torches everytime their ratings dropped, and it continued to happen, a person who points out that fact would not themselves be doing the same thing.

Calling it 'playing politics' means that the people pointing out the manipulations would be doing so only for the porposes of ratings manipulation . . . I think that if the admin is in fact using the alerts as a ratings tool, pointing out that fact is very very important and simpy happens to also have a political impact . .
and why wouldn't it?! shouldn't people care if the system that is designed for security is being manipulated for one parties gains rather than its intended purpose? Shouldn't people be suspicious of a party that is willing to do something so cynical?

BTW scott, that attempt at reversal is bad rhetorical slieght of hand, where everyone sees the coin. . .:no:

[7E7]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
What's phony is the timing. What made it necessary to raise alert levels and mobilize local law enforcement, this week, as opposed to last week, last month, or even last year, as is has been stated that much of the intelligence used was years old.

Try to pay fucking attention, already.

The information was RECENTLY UPDATED by Al Qaeda and that is why we got the alert now. Now who wasn't paying attention? Planning for such operations occurs years in advance and when this information is updated it is a strong indicator that the strike day is getting close. I don't see evidence backing a politically motivated terror alert on the part of the White House. Most of the flack is coming from the liberal bomb throwers like Howard Dean...

You guys with your amazing conspiracy theories are looking very silly. Try and find some actual evidence to support these ridiculous notions. Then perhaps the rational ones in this group will begin to take you seriously. You see, we are waiting for you guys to actually show us something. Just ranting about it and introducing shadowy theories no matter how eloquently written or how much they make sense to pinheads like yourselves just doesn't cut it. The 9/11 Commission and other Congressional hearings have cleared the Bush Administration of these bogus charges that he lied and/or misled this country into war with Iraq. Moving on to this new line of "phony terror alerts for political gain" is going to end the very same way. You see, you need proof that this is happening and you don't have it. That Kerry lied about aspects of his service in Vietnam and about his positions regarding Iraq is grounded in fact. And that my friends is the difference between these two men. We all know Kerry has lied about these things. All you guys on the left THINK Bush lied and the threshold proving that has not been met and is not supported by the facts.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by 7E7
The information was RECENTLY UPDATED by Al Qaeda and that is why we got the alert now. Now who wasn't paying attention? Planning for such operations occurs years in advance and when this information is updated it is a strong indicator that the strike day is getting close. I don't see evidence backing a politically motivated terror alert on the part of the White House. Most of the flack is coming from the liberal bomb throwers like Howard Dean...

You guys with your amazing conspiracy theories are looking very silly. Try and find some actual evidence to support these ridiculous notions. Then perhaps the rational ones in this group will begin to take you seriously. You see, we are waiting for you guys to actually show us something. Just ranting about it and introducing shadowy theories no matter how eloquently written or how much they make sense to pinheads like yourselves just doesn't cut it. The 9/11 Commission and other Congressional hearings have cleared the Bush Administration of these bogus charges that he lied and/or misled this country into war with Iraq. Moving on to this new line of "phony terror alerts for political gain" is going to end the very same way. You see, you need proof that this is happening and you don't have it. That Kerry lied about aspects of his service in Vietnam and about his positions regarding Iraq is grounded in fact. And that my friends is the difference between these two men. We all know Kerry has lied about these things. All you guys on the left THINK Bush lied and the threshold proving that has not been met and is not supported by the facts.


And this information comes through whom?

What's amazing is your gullibility.;)

As for Bush lying......

As Sherlock Holms said " When you remove all other possibilities whatever remains no matter how improbable must be the truth ".

We're pretty much there now.

[faust9]

I google searched this topic and found a cool graphical depiction...

http://img70.exs.cx/img70/9281/aproval_vs_alert_chart_NEW.gif

From: http://juliusblog.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_juliusblog_archive.html

Take however you want to.

[edit]

From the above site you can also find a link to this metadata site(or right here): http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/

[7E7]

Originally posted by jimmac
And this information comes through whom?

What's amazing is your gullibility.;)

As for Bush lying......

As Sherlock Holms said " When you remove all other possibilities whatever remains no matter how improbable must be the truth ".

We're pretty much there now.

Whatever you say...

And your suspicions that the information was not recently updated is supported by what exactly? Mere dislike of the Bush Administration does not qualify as evidence proving otherwise. I hate breaking that to you but...

I choose to believe this Administration when it comes to the war on terror because I have not seen anything that makes me doubt that they are not being straightforward and sincere. I don't think that is being gullible. All you guys on the left seem to have no problem believing guys like Kerry on everything even though his point of view and opinions on so many things seems to change by the day - and some of those positions he has are polar opposites to each other. How do you explain that? And you are very gullible if you believe what he did in Vietnam went down exactly the way he says it did...

[jimmac]

Originally posted by 7E7
Whatever you say...

And your suspicions that the information was not recently updated is supported by what exactly? Mere dislike of the Bush Administration does not qualify as evidence proving otherwise. I hate breaking that to you but...

I choose to believe this Administration when it comes to the war on terror because I have not seen anything that makes me doubt that they are not being straightforward and sincere. I don't think that is being gullible. All you guys on the left seem to have no problem believing guys like Kerry on everything even though his point of view and opinions on so many things seems to change by the day - and some of those positions he has are polar opposites to each other. How do you explain that? And you are very gullible if you believe what he did in Vietnam went down exactly the way he says it did...


I hate breaking it to you but this thread is about phony terror alerts and Bush. Defending Bush's position on this with comments about Kerry are non sequitur.

This isn't based on my dislike of Bush. It's based on the lack of positive evidence concerning his actions and therefore adds to my dislike.;)

[pfflam]

Originally posted by 7E7
Whatever you say...

And your suspicions that the information was not recently updated is supported by what exactly? Mere dislike of the Bush Administration does not qualify as evidence proving otherwise. I hate breaking that to you but...

I choose to believe this Administration when it comes to the war on terror because I have not seen anything that makes me doubt that they are not being straightforward and sincere. I don't think that is being gullible. All you guys on the left seem to have no problem believing guys like Kerry on everything even though his point of view and opinions on so many things seems to change by the day - and some of those positions he has are polar opposites to each other. How do you explain that? And you are very gullible if you believe what he did in Vietnam went down exactly the way he says it did... Not 'all you guys' around here are 'on the left'
its just that you are so blindly on the right that anyone who asks about Bush, and that means looking at information (such as the long litany of liabilities that is his record) beyond the usual RNC love fest sites that you probably occasion.

If you would you would have seen, and long ago, much info that would "make[] me doubt that they are not being straightforward and sincere."

You need to have someone tell you that the Emperors new cloths are lies.

I think that generally the terror allert thing is not such a big deal, as it might not actually be as good for the administration as the left seem to think . . .

however, the more digging that you do with regards to this recent alert, the more it comes out smelling fishy . . . and the clincher is the outing of their most important resource in AQ!!! probably their only resource in AQ!

I mean, how stupid can that be? . . . either that, or they have a boatload of AQ double agents that give them info . . .

come on, something stinks here, its so obvious!

[7E7]

Originally posted by jimmac
I hate breaking it to you but this thread is about phony terror alerts and Bush. Defending Bush's position on this with comments about Kerry are non sequitur.

This isn't based on my dislike of Bush. It's based on the lack of positive evidence concerning his actions and therefore adds to my dislike.;)

The bottom line is that you only suspect that the terror alert is phony. I choose to believe it because I have seen nothing out there that disproves it and that somehow makes me gullible? You accept as truth everything the Democrats and John Kerry say and somehow that doesn't make you just as gullible? Pretty much every accusation about the Bush Administration has been debunked OFFICIALLY through real and in-depth investigation and yet you guys persist in promoting the same, tired pack of lies with nothing more than the old reply that "it is all so obvious it has to be true" crap. Please tell me you have more actual evidence to back your position regarding this Administration. I am getting tired of waiting...

[jimmac]

Originally posted by 7E7
The bottom line is that you only suspect that the terror alert is phony. I choose to believe it because I have seen nothing out there that disproves it and that somehow makes me gullible? You accept as truth everything the Democrats and John Kerry say and somehow that doesn't make you just as gullible? Pretty much every accusation about the Bush Administration has been debunked OFFICIALLY through real and in-depth investigation and yet you guys persist in promoting the same, tired pack of lies with nothing more than the old reply that "it is all so obvious it has to be true" crap. Please tell me you have more actual evidence to back your position regarding this Administration. I am getting tired of waiting...

No I accept what seems to the most obvious explanation.

By the way if the evidence isn't conclusive as you say how can you be so sure what we're saying is a " pack of lies "?

Sorry but the circumstancial evidence surrounding this would be more than enough to cast suspicion of guilt with a normal person.

And it's not like we haven't caught a president lying before ( and I'm not just talking about Clinton ).

So in the end I don't always need to see absolute, in your face proof. Although I've never done it if I stick my hand in a lawnmower I'm pretty sure I know what will happen. Although I don't have absolute proof of that.