When Phony Terror Alerts Attack! - Page 2

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.

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.

Isnt 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.

From Bunge's link:


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

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. . .

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.

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



From: http://juliusblog.blogspot.com/2004_...g_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/

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.

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!

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.