PDA

View Full Version : Pre-9/11 Reports Led to New Alerts




MadMax
08-03-2004, 08:26 AM
Is this right?? If so...what the hell are we doing?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&u=/washpost/20040803/ts_washpost/a35466_2004aug2&printer=1
Pre-9/11 Acts Led To Alerts

1 hour, 16 minutes ago

By Dan Eggen and Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writers

Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and authorities are not sure whether the casing of the buildings has continued, numerous intelligence and law enforcement officials said yesterday.

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."


One piece of information on one building, which intelligence officials would not name, appears to have been updated in a computer file as late as January 2004, according to a senior intelligence official. But officials could not say yesterday whether that piece of data was the result of active surveillance by al Qaeda or came instead from information about the buildings that is publicly available.


Many administration officials stressed yesterday that even three-year-old intelligence, when coupled with other information about al Qaeda's plans to attack the United States, justified the massive security response in the three cities. Police and other security teams have been assigned to provide extra protection for the surveilled buildings, identified as the International Monetary Fund (news - web sites) and World Bank (news - web sites) headquarters in Washington; the New York Stock Exchange (news - web sites) and Citigroup Center in New York; and the Prudential Financial building in Newark.


Intelligence officials said that the remarkably detailed information about the surveillance -- which included logs of pedestrian traffic and notes on the types of explosives that might work best against each target -- was evaluated in light of general intelligence reports received this summer indicating that al Qaeda hopes to strike a U.S. target before the November presidential elections.


Several officials also said that much of the information compiled by terrorist operatives about the buildings in Washington, New York and Newark was obtained through the Internet or other "open sources" available to the general public, including some floor plans.


The characterization of the age of the intelligence yesterday cast a new light on Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge's announcement Sunday that the terrorism threat alert for the financial services sectors in the three cities had been raised. Ridge and other officials stressed Sunday the urgency of acting on the newly obtained information, but yesterday a range of officials made clear how dated much of the intelligence was.


One senior intelligence official said the information is still being evaluated.


A number of other buildings were mentioned in the seized computer files, but only in vague references, so officials decided not to issue alerts about them, an intelligence official said. They included the Bank of America building in San Francisco; the Nasdaq and American Stock Exchange buildings in New York, as well as two other sites in that city; and an undisclosed building in Washington and another in New Jersey.


"We chose not to release it because we decided they weren't anywhere near the same level of danger as the others," the official said.


President Bush (news - web sites) and Vice President Cheney said in separate appearances yesterday that the new alert underscores the continuing threat posed by al Qaeda. At a news conference announcing his proposed intelligence reforms, Bush said the alert shows "there's an enemy which hates what we stand for."


"It's serious business," Bush said. "I mean, we wouldn't be, you know, contacting authorities at the local level unless something was real."


Employees at announced targets in New York and New Jersey arrived at work yesterday with a mix of defiance and jitters. Some said they wanted to send a message that terrorists could not deter them from living their lives as usual. Others were visibly shaken by the presence of heavily armed police officers and new barricades.


At the New York Stock Exchange, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg rang the opening bell. Exchange chief executive John A. Thain and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (news, bio, voting record) (D-N.Y.) greeted arriving workers. "I wouldn't be surprised if attendance weren't higher today," Schumer said. "We are winning the war of nerves."


Much of the information about the targeted buildings is contained on a laptop computer and computer disks recovered during recent raids in Pakistan. A senior intelligence official said the cache also includes about 500 photographs, diagrams and drawings, some of them digital.


Two senior intelligence officials who briefed reporters on Sunday said the material showed al Qaeda operatives had cased the buildings both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks.


"I think the indications are that this has been a very longstanding effort on the part of al Qaeda," one official said Sunday, "that it dates from before 9/11, it continued after 9/11 and based on what it is that we are concerned about, we know about in terms of al Qaeda's plans and intentions that it probably continues even today."

Speaking about the five buildings, one official said, "I believe that since 9/11 they have been able to acquire additional information on these targets here in the United States, yes, I do."

Numerous officials said yesterday, however, that 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. One senior counterterrorism official said many of the documents include dates prior to Sept. 11, 2001, but there are no dates after that.

"Most of the information is very dated but you clearly have targets with enough specificity, and that pushed it over the edge," the counterterrorism official said. "You've got the Republican convention coming up, the Olympics, the elections. . . . I think there was a feeling that we should err on the side of caution even if it's not clear that anything is new."

One federal law enforcement source said his understanding from reviewing the reports was that the material predated Sept. 11 and included photos that can be obtained from brochures and some actual snapshots. There also were some interior diagrams that appear to be publicly available.

Other officials also stressed that, however long ago al Qaeda operatives compiled the surveillance details, the information was new to U.S. intelligence agencies and was almost unprecedented in the depth of its details. "All this stuff was fresh to us," one official said.

At the CIA (news - web sites)'s daily 5 p.m. counterterrorism meeting Thursday, the first information about the detailed al Qaeda surveillance of the five financial buildings was discussed among senior CIA, FBI (news - web sites) and military officials. They decided to launch a number of worldwide operations, including the deployment of increased law enforcement around the five buildings.

A senior intelligence official said translations of the computer documents and other intelligence started arriving on Friday. "We worked on it late, and through that night," he said. "We had very specific, credible information, and when we laid it in on the threat environment we're in," officials decided they had to announce it.

"It's not known whether the plot was active and ongoing," the official added. "It could have been planned for tomorrow, or it could have been scrapped. Maybe there were other iterations of it. In this environment, this was seen as pertinent information to get out to the public. There was discussion over the weekend, should we wait until Monday?"

Initially, top administration officials had decided to wait until yesterday to announce the alert, but more intelligence information was coming in -- both new translations of the documents, and analysis of other sources' statements -- that deepened their concern about the information, and persuaded them to move ahead swiftly. "There was a serious sense of urgency to get it out," the senior intelligence official said.

On Saturday, officials from the CIA, the FBI, the Homeland Security and Justice departments, the White House, and other agencies agreed with Ridge to recommend that the financial sectors in New York, Washington and North Jersey be placed on orange, or "high," alert. Ridge made the recommendation to Bush on Sunday morning, and Bush signed off on it at 10 a.m.

In a signal of how seriously the administration took the information, officials briefed senior media executives, including network anchors, before a Sunday news conference and briefing for reporters.

In New York yesterday, traffic backed up at tunnels and bridges into the city, Hercules and Atlas police teams toting rifles and machine guns checked vehicles, police helicopters crisscrossed the skies, and employees throughout the financial district stood in long security queues, showing their corporate identifications and bags to guards.

Around the NYSE in Lower Manhattan, rows of concrete and metal barricades were in place and side streets were blocked off.

In Newark, officials set up concrete barriers and police teams around the 24-story Prudential building, where about 1,000 employees work. "I'm a little nervous," analyst Tracy Swistak, 27, told the Associated Press. "But I'm confident Prudential's doing everything they can to ensure our safety."

mc mark
08-03-2004, 08:29 AM
If so...what the hell are we doing?

Why keeping the campaigns out of the headlines! That's what.

mc mark
08-03-2004, 08:33 AM
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20040803/lpo040802.gif

ron413
08-03-2004, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by mc mark
Why keeping the campaigns out of the headlines! That's what.

John Kerry looked at all the intelligence reports in a special briefing and agreed with the President on this raising of the Alert, the intelligence & its source, etc...

mc mark
08-03-2004, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by ron413
John Kerry looked at all the intelligence reports in a special briefing and agreed with the President on this raising of the Alert, the intelligence & its source, etc...

of course he did

basso
08-03-2004, 08:47 AM
you know, you really can't have it both ways. you can't criticise the government for not telling us what they know, then turn around and criticise them for telling us what they know. it's worth remembering that al queda was planning the attack on the WTC as far back as 1993. wouldn't it have been nice if someone, oh, say around 1998 or even august 2001, had connected the dots and realized what was going on so perhaps some preventive measures could have been taken? now they're connecting some of the dots and you're complaining. it's hard to take such criticism, and such critics, seriously

from the presidents daily brief (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/politics/11ITEX.html?ex=1091678400&en=49ef160ac6e4cfa8&ei=5070) of 8/6/2001:

"Although bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveilled our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997."

he got nailed by the left because he didn't forsee the attacks one month later. now, he's trying to warn about potential new attacks, and the left is tryi ng to nail him again for over-reacting, or politicising the WOT. well, which is it? you can't have it both ways, howard.

bigtexxx
08-03-2004, 08:50 AM
Right, Max, we should just ignore their detailed surveillance and all the sensitive information they've collected on the buildings. It's all worthless now, huh? :rolleyes:

Our law enforecement is out there trying their best to protect us, and the back-slapping liberals (including their recent converts) are out there second-guessing them. Give me a break.

mc mark
08-03-2004, 08:52 AM
"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."

MadMax
08-03-2004, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by bigtexxx
Right, Max, we should just ignore their detailed surveillance and all the sensitive information they've collected on the buildings. It's all worthless now, huh? :rolleyes:

Our law enforecement is out there trying their best to protect us, and the back-slapping liberals (including their recent converts) are out there second-guessing them. Give me a break.

wait...what???

i'm not saying you ignore surveillance. i'm not saying the information on the buildings is worthless.

i'm not telling neil frank to turn off his radar. i am telling the national weather service to avoid telling me there's a hurricane warning relevant to a storm that was in the gulf 3 years ago.

Cohen
08-03-2004, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by MadMax
...

i'm not telling neil frank to turn off his radar. i am telling the national weather service to avoid telling me there's a hurricane warning relevant to a storm that was in the gulf 3 years ago.


Actually, the analogy is worse.

The storm threat has lasted 3 years, but the forecaster doesn't tell you about it until he may lose his job.

aghast
08-03-2004, 09:51 AM
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35466-2004Aug2.html)

Pre-9/11 Acts Led To Alerts
Officials Not Sure Al Qaeda Continued To Spy on Buildings

By Dan Eggen and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 3, 2004; Page A01

Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and authorities are not sure whether the casing of the buildings has continued, numerous intelligence and law enforcement officials said yesterday.

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.
...

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

Reports That Led to Terror Alert Were Years Old, Officials Say
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID JOHNSTON

Published: August 3, 2004

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 -Much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas was three or four years old, intelligence and law enforcement officials said on Monday. They reported that they had not yet found concrete evidence that a terrorist plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way.
...
"Al Qaeda routinely comes up with ways to hit targets for years at a time, so it may not mean much that these buildings were first targeted more than three years ago,'' the official said.

I'll buy the second excerpted part of the NY Times piece. And I agree that this should have been publically announced; the more information we have in a democracy, the better off we are. But why on earth not give the context that this is long-established news, even if it is an ongoing threat? Why not give any context at all? And why have Ridge say that this is a result of current partnerships and GWB's leadership if, in fact, this evidence for concern predates both?

gwayneco
08-03-2004, 10:08 AM
The 9/11 plot was planned years in advance. The fact that this information is old does not necessarily mean it is useless.

aghast
08-03-2004, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by gwayneco
The 9/11 plot was planned years in advance. The fact that this information is old does not necessarily mean it is useless.

Exactly. I do not disagree.

That said, why not mention that this information is old in the press conference Sunday? Wouldn't that make a better-informed public? Wouldn't that also, while still emphasizing the importance of investigating the issue, help to temper the public's fears, especially in the NYC, DC and New Jersey areas?

That this information was not so elaborated upon only helps to foster such criticisms of it being politcally-timed and -motivated.

basso
08-03-2004, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by aghast
Exactly. I do not disagree.

That said, why not mention that this information is old in the press conference Sunday? Wouldn't that make a better-informed public? Wouldn't that also, while still emphasizing the importance of investigating the issue, help to temper the public's fears, especially in the NYC, DC and New Jersey areas?

That this information was not so elaborated upon only helps to foster such criticisms of it being politcally-timed and -motivated.
some of the info is old, not all.

mc mark
08-03-2004, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by basso
some of the info is old, not all.

Then tell us that!

Trader_Jorge
08-03-2004, 10:39 AM
I don't care if the information is 25 years old, the fact remains that terrorists have detailed surveillance information of buildings that *still exist in the same state when the information was gathered*. Max, you erroneously act as though the information is outdated -- it's not. The information could still be used to launch a devastating attack. This information, in combination with the terrorist-sensitive election time, means that the government *must* inform us of the threat. They did so.

Of course, there will always be detractors who are in this for political gain. Sadly, these people only make the security process that much more difficult for our anti-terror team. Max, I find your post very very offensive and a slap in the face to the people that are trying to protect you and the rest of the complainers. Your blatant "I'll shift to the left to gain more friends" campaign has just sunk to a new level.

MadMax
08-03-2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
I don't care if the information is 25 years old, the fact remains that terrorists have detailed surveillance information of buildings that *still exist in the same state when the information was gathered*. Max, you erroneously act as though the information is outdated -- it's not. The information could still be used to launch a devastating attack. This information, in combination with the terrorist-sensitive election time, means that the government *must* inform us of the threat. They did so.

Of course, there will always be detractors who are in this for political gain. Sadly, these people only make the security process that much more difficult for our anti-terror team. Max, I find your post very very offensive and a slap in the face to the people that are trying to protect you and the rest of the complainers. Your blatant "I'll shift to the left to gain more friends" campaign has just sunk to a new level.

you're funny, TJ. on one hand you pull the, "let's not get personal, Max." and you report anyone who looks at you funny. and then you throw a post like this out. brilliant. if i only i cared what you think about me, TJ...then maybe it would be worthwhile to spend your time with a post like this directed at me, personally. until then, it's a waste of your time. feel free to flame at your own expense.

again...i never, ever said that this information is of no value. never said it shouldn't be studied. but we broke in on sunday with an emergency style press conference...we shut down bridges, and, as i understand it, some train services into the finanical center. for information that is 3 years old. we've had this information for some time....and NOW there's a warning issued??? why?? if there's a logical explanation for it, fine....the administration should be sharing that.

mc mark
08-03-2004, 10:46 AM
Max see what happens when you start to question the junta?

MadMax
08-03-2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by mc mark
Max see what happens when you start to question the junta?

the problem is, i'd have to open up a can of "i care" to get into this. just not interested in doing that.

mc mark
08-03-2004, 10:51 AM
T_J and as hard as this may be for you to comprehend. People around here like Max regardless of his political leanings.

Trader_Jorge
08-03-2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by MadMax
again...i never, ever said that this information is of no value. never said it shouldn't be studied. but we broke in on sunday with an emergency style press conference...we shut down bridges, and, as i understand it, some train services into the finanical center. for information that is 3 years old. we've had this information for some time....and NOW there's a warning issued??? why?? if there's a logical explanation for it, fine....the administration should be sharing that.

Give me a break, while you never said it, you clearly implied that our intelligence agencies were not doing a good job when you said "what the hell are we doing?" Don't play semantics to try to wiggle your way out of that comment. I personally think you should edit it out -- it's very offensive to the people who have the difficult job of deciphering terrorist information.

What you are not grasping is that SOME of the information is 3 years old. Some isn't. Even the information that is 3 years old is NOT outdated. Terrorists cased the WTC for EIGHT YEARS -- let me repeat that -- EIGHT YEARS -- before destroying them. Now how smart do you think the naysayer would look in 2000 if they raised an alert based on 4 year old data regarding the WTC? Think about that, friend.

This is *relevant* data, some 3 years old, some much newer, in combination with the very sensitive timing with the upcoming elections, makes for a very volatile situation. Our agency did the right thing.

nyquil82
08-03-2004, 10:59 AM
I didn't mind the alerts yesterday, as they were specific, unlike the tookish ambiguous threat by ridge several weeks ago. The fact that they were partially old is important knowledge, which should have been mentioned, but not unimportant in the fact that they were still potentially targets.

I felt that people overreacted by believing the threat was imminent, and we are going to do this thing where security there will be high for a week and will be back to normal in two weeks, even though, apparently, the threat to those buildings this week was no different from two months ago or two months later.

I was turned off, however, by the politicizing rhetoric ending of the announcement, specifically, the (paraphrased) "we would not have this information were it not for Dubya's leadership and success in fighting the war on terror." which, according to the papers today, is impossible since we had that info before our war on terror. thank the CIA, ok, thank department of security, maybe, but the admin seriously needs to get some better speech writers, its like they have a bowl full of about 30 key phrases which they use in every speech.

Aside from that, specific warnings, that are purely informative in nature and purpose, do no harm, provided that the admin believes that the information is imperative enough that it would be doing more harm to the public by keeping the information secretive than by releasing it and creating a minor scare and impact on "business as usual".

Given the presentation of the announcement, i'll give it a C+/B-, on an A-F scale, A being 'extremely important and presented properly', and F being completely 'inappropriate, non informative and purely political.' Ridge's previous announcement would be a 'D+'.

Zion
08-03-2004, 11:03 AM
so if this information is three years old exactly when does it become outdated?

Didn't they try to blow up the Space Needle in Seattle and LAX a few years ago. Have we assumed they have given up on those plans, is it outdated, or when are we going to surround these buildings with armed guards and tanks?

Rocketman95
08-03-2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by basso
some of the info is old, not all.

Linked story says most, if not all. Do you have a link that say differently?

basso
08-03-2004, 11:06 AM
this from newsday:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usterr033916365aug03,0,2200894,print.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

--
More financial institutions than previously disclosed may be at risk of attack, and an al-Qaida operative has told British intelligence that the group’s target date is early September, intelligence sources said yesterday.

The operative, described as “credible” by British intelligence, told his debriefers that the attack would take place “60 days before the presidential election” on Nov. 2, according to a former senior National Security Council official. On Sept. 2 President George W. Bush is expected to address the Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden.

Counterterrorism officials are analyzing data from a computer seized in Pakistan last month to see if financial institutions in addition to the five disclosed Sunday are at risk of attack, U.S. officials said yesterday.

MadMax
08-03-2004, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
Give me a break, while you never said it, you clearly implied that our intelligence agencies were not doing a good job when you said "what the hell are we doing?" Don't play semantics to try to wiggle your way out of that comment. I personally think you should edit it out -- it's very offensive to the people who have the difficult job of deciphering terrorist information.


not at all what i said or meant. my concern is why are we acting so suddenly on information we've had for some time...specific threat information?

yeah...i'll edit it out, conquistador. let's take a poll...who here is offended by my question? i know you are, TJ. i'm not sure how you'll eat or sleep tonight. but i'm not sure that anyone else in the world is quite as offended as you are.

aghast
08-03-2004, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by basso
some of the info is old, not all.

So tell me that. Don't make me have to rely on investigative journalists and government leaks to find that out. Please explain basso, why not mention the nature of the intelligence in the Sunday press conference?

And why did Ridge say:
Chronicle transcript of Ridge's press conference (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2713552)
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...
thereby politicizing what should be an apolitical issue.

Whether it was politically-motivated or not, can't you see that the secrecy of the actual intelligence justifications for the Sunday press conferences, coupled with such political rhetoric, only helps to foster these suspicions?

Rocketman95
08-03-2004, 11:09 AM
Yeah, that has no place in a terror warning. At the very least, you should expect suspicion about the timing when you add that.

Rocket104
08-03-2004, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by aghast

Your signature is bad-ass. I hope people use it.

Did anyone see "The Daily Show" last night? Jon Stewart was brilliant as usual. Very relevant to the discussion of the politicization of this warning.

bnb
08-03-2004, 11:12 AM
am i missing something?

why all the suspicion about the timing?

i recognize the info is old (although the article says it was newly acquired) but why would Bush and Co gain by releasing it THIS weekend rather than a week or two down the road?

i'm tending to agree with Basso's damned if you do, damned if you don't comment.

Rocketman95
08-03-2004, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by bnb
am i missing something?

why all the suspicion about the timing?

i recognize the info is old (although the article says it was newly acquired) but why would Bush and Co gain by releasing it THIS weekend rather than a week or two down the road?

i'm tending to agree with Basso's damned if you do, damned if you don't comment.

Because the news outlets were talking about the Democrat's Convention? I honestly don't think that there's anything sinister about the timing, but they open themselves up for ridicule when they add in the comment about President Bush.

Is it safe to say that if something does happen, then we blame the President as well?

bnb
08-03-2004, 11:20 AM
i guess i saw it far enough away from the DNC. And i've come to expect the puffery that accompanies these announcements!

basso
08-03-2004, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Rocketman95
Is it safe to say that if something does happen, then we blame the President as well?

you could try blaming al queda....

aghast
08-03-2004, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by bnb
am i missing something?

why all the suspicion about the timing?

i recognize the info is old (although the article says it was newly acquired) but why would Bush and Co gain by releasing it THIS weekend rather than a week or two down the road?

i'm tending to agree with Basso's damned if you do, damned if you don't comment.

If you're a beggar, have an empty cup in your hand, and tell me to give you my wallet, I'm probably going to say no.

If you're a mugger, have a knife in your hand, and tell me to give you my wallet, I"m probably going to say yes.

Our society, any society, acts much differently when it is scared than when it is not. Look what happened to civil liberties when fear was caused by the threat of war: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, Wilson made public dissent illegal, FDR jailed Japanese Americans, McCarthyites enforced public blacklists. When disease is the impetus for fear, society almost breaks down: the 1918 flu prevents people from congregating and helping one another, a few letters filled with anthrax cause widespread paranoia about the postal service, SARS causes Asians to begin wearing comically ineffective masks.

Terrorism and the threat of WMD combines the worst of both worlds.

A truly Machiavellian (but maybe not a Mayberry Machiavellian) leader would certainly realize that, when polls show that the one thing the public trusts you with most, their own security, no longer is the predominant issue, reelection becomes a problem. A truly Machiavellian leader would thus attempt to remind the populace of how vulnerable they are. A truly Machiavellian leader would have no compunctions about manipulating threat levels under his control, because a truly Machiavellian leader knows that,
Principle is okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose.

That's the case for a dastardly, cunning government to propagandize the threat it faces. Whether or not one views the GWB administration as currently doing that, largely depends on how one views the administration. But to deny that there could be a political motivation in ginning up terrorist threat levels (most of the past yellow-to-orange level changes have had no publically-corroborated intelligence support) is to be politically unaware.

And, by the way, that quote isn't from Machiavelli's The Prince. It's from Dick Cheney, circa 1976.

bnb
08-03-2004, 11:49 AM
First off...i question whether the continual alerts really make that much difference. I mean...it comes off a bit like crying wolf -- do people even pay attention any more?

And i certainly see Bush's motivation in keeping the terror alert on high. I'm about as cynical as they come with regard to politicians.

But i see a huge inconsistency in criticizing this measure by the same people that criticized the pre 911 silence. And i didn't see any timing crunch this weekend. Had it occurred just before the DNC i'd be as suspicious as the rest -- but i didn't see the advantage of this weekend versus any other weekend before now and November.

And it think that anything that happens between now and November will be dismissed by many as just opportunism, and i'm not sure that's really fair.

(i happen to think that most of what Bush has done over the last four years has been opportunism --but that's my cynicism in play).

IROC it
08-03-2004, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by aghast
If you're a beggar...1976.

Nice post. ;)

About the crying wolf thing, bnb... I'll admit my first knowledge of this latest warning was Monday night reading this forum.

Maybe I'm already desensitized to it. :eek:

aghast
08-03-2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by bnb
First off...i question whether the continual alerts really make that much difference. I mean...it comes off a bit like crying wolf -- do people even pay attention any more?

And i certainly see Bush's motivation in keeping the terror alert on high. I'm about as cynical as they come with regard to politicians.

But i see a huge inconsistency in criticizing this measure by the same people that criticized the pre 911 silence. And i didn't see any timing crunch this weekend. Had it occurred just before the DNC i'd be as suspicious as the rest -- but i didn't see the advantage of this weekend versus any other weekend before now and November.

And it think that anything that happens between now and November will be dismissed by many as just opportunism, and i'm not sure that's really fair.

(i happen to think that most of what Bush has done over the last four years has been opportunism --but that's my cynicism in play).

Ok, I think I misread you. We are both, then, cynical. And it didn't help my cynicism one bit when Pakistan announced the week-earlier arrest of a mid-level al Qaeda leader during the convention, when previous partisan articles had appeared months before, citing Pakistani sources, that claimed the administration was/would pressure Pakistan to do just that very thing.

With regard to the timing, in the past this weekend would still have been considered part of the post-Democratic convention nominee's bump period. However, what I was trying to imply is that I don't think the timing has to correspond directly with the goings on of the opposition party/ deflating the administration's own bad political news to be able to question its motivation or political effectiveness. As far as public perception goes, it's merely important to periodically rattle the cages.

First off...i question whether the continual alerts really make that much difference. I mean...it comes off a bit like crying wolf -- do people even pay attention any more?

When they mentioned the Citigroup headquarters, my head kinda lifted up. I thought: Let's see, I walk by there ten-fifteen times a week... So for me, whether I can fight my tendency to believe it was crying wolf or not, it was definitely effective.

But i see a huge inconsistency in criticizing this measure by the same people that criticized the pre 911 silence.
I don't think it has to be an either/or, though. I want information, as much as possible, about every threat. In both instances, not enough information was released to the public. On Sunday, I wanted them to sit Colin Powell down and have him explain (as long as it wouldn't compromise ongoing investigations) exactly where the intelligence came from, exactly why they consider it credible. I wanted the press conference to play the tapes of the Arabs saying, "Are you sure they won't find it?" again. I wanted maps and satellite photos of the potential Ryder trucks involved.

Instead, we got cryptic clues which made what was announced all the more frightening. Without revealing further information about the source(s) of the intelligence, it made it seem as if this was completely new info, a completely imminent threat.

Before 9/11, next to nothing was told to the American public about the potential threats of terrorism. On Sunday, very little was told the American public about the potential threats of terrorism. This is not an inconsistency. The American public deserves more.

Full release. Openness in government. I wanted the same thing before 9/11. I want the same thing now.