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 Some isn't. Even the information that is 3 years old is NOT outdated.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.
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+'.
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?
this from newsday: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...94,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.
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.
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: 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?
Yeah, that has no place in a terror warning. At the very least, you should expect suspicion about the timing when you add that.
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.
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?
i guess i saw it far enough away from the DNC. And i've come to expect the puffery that accompanies these announcements!
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, 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.
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).
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.
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. 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. 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.
