This is a great fuckin’ country. Where else can a man not be able to point to a country on a map, and a year later get to lead the attack against it? Bite off a little more than you can chew, Duhbya? Asshole puckered up nice and tight? Good.
Now the dickheads in Duhbya’s administration are telling us another attack is going to happen on US soil, and soon.
Where? When?
Either they are lying by telling us they don’t know when or where it will happen, or they are lying about there even being a threat at all. You’re pretty fuckin’ stupid if you believe the government knows of an imminent attack on US citizens and is just going to sit back and wait for CNN to break in with a news flash. I’m afraid this is a feeble attempt to frieghten the public into continued support of a war that is poorly planned and has no exit strategy.
I’d rather put up with blow jobs in the oval office.
Seeing I’m one of the more freakin’ liberals around here, I do not ascribe the warning to politics.
They’re trying to keep on top of a dicey situation. And it’s hard. You pick up intelligence, and try to filter it and do the right thing. They evidently think that there is the possibility. They are doing the right thing, IMHO.
Rather have a false alarm than an after-the-fact accusation party about why we didn’t hear about it sooner.
OK - I’ll be the first to bite. Can you provide us with some links to statements that another attack is “imminent”?
The fact that the tabloid media are reporting statements which have been made about the “likelihood” of further attacks as if those attacks are a certainty and that in the public mind such reports on cnn et al imply “bin Laden’s going to strike again” doesn’t make it factual.
Government representatives saying “there’s a strong likelihood of further attacks” is just smart politics. Sooner or later, there will be another attack, whether or not that attack is in any way connected with the events of September 11, bin Laden, or Al-Quaeda. By stating the obvious, they protect themselves from any accusations of a cover-up.
Not a lot “new” is happening right now, and unfortunately that means a lot of the media is representing speculation as fact in order to maintain their share of the market. There are plenty of people who can be blamed for that, but I’m afraid Dubbya is far less responsible for the scare-mongering going on right now than the owners of the tabloid media.
How do you figure that?
You don’t allow for the possibility that they have been told “Something is clearly about to happen, the atmosphere is charged with expectation, but I’m not privvy to the inner workings of the group”.
The FBI watches a lot of things that the rest of us know nothing about. You can’t arrest a group of people for seeming excited, but you can warn the population to be careful because people who are seem dubious appear excited for no good reason.
Last time these warnings were issued, the explanation given was that certain people who were being observed were behaving in a manner both extraordinary and in character with their behaviour leading up to the September 11 attacks. No information was supplied to the FBI about what form the attacks would take or where they would happen, but some people seemed keyed up, and conversations were overheard where they made remarks that seemed odd at the time but had a more sinister significance after 9-11.
Real or not, the “sky is falling” routine is geting old. Either give us some specifics, or warn law enforcemnt through the usual (non-public) channels. Scaring the piss out of people without giving them any specifics is counter-productive.
The indications may be real, but holding a press conference to announce “We have a real, confirmed, non-specific warning!” is stupid, and does, to my centrist mind, smack of an agenda, even if it’s only a “CYA” agenda.
You know, I don’t like Bush. I didn’t vote for Bush. In a million, billion, trillion years I will never vote for Bush in 2004; continuing war or no. But this sort of crap makes me physically ill.
There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons to dislike the Bush administration, but please leave the mindless conspiracy theories at home. Do I support the war? Not really. I’m afraid we reached the point on September 11th where, like it or not, military action is neccessary. I would personally be much happier if a diplomatic solution could present itself, and I am not a fan of the “no negotiations” policy of the administration. However, saying that I still believe that to do nothing following the attacks on September 11th would be an insult to the Constitution (“Life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness”) and a blasphemy to the memory of the dead.
Will the groups that we have targeted strike back? Yes. Again, I don’t see how anyone could expect otherwise.
Is that the fault of the administration? No.
Would Clinton or Gore or Bradley or McCain or shudder Nader have handled things differently? I sincerely doubt it. (With the possible exception of Nader who I believe, for reasons which are not relevant to this discussion, to be a Space Alien.)
Uh, maybe I’m missing something here, but the information was released at a press conference held by the Attorney General. It’s not like it was an anonymous leak to CNN.
OTOH, this latest scare is coming out of the mouths of the same people who, when faced with criticism over Bush’s detaours on Sept. 11, claimed for several days that there was clear evidence of a plan to bring down Air Force One, then later admitted that there was no evidence of such a plot.
Anyhow, what are we supposed to do? Sit at home for the next week with the covers pulled up over our heads?
No, the two possibilites you present are not the only ones. It’s very possible that we intercepted a satellite cellphone call from a person in the caves of Afghanistan, saying, “Very well - all is in readiness for the attack on the American infidels on November 1st. Allah Akhbar.”
Unfortunately, information like that puts the government in a no-win position, at least according to you. If they warn law enforcement, but make no public announcement, the media will pick up on it anyway, and there will be loud cries about the public’s right to know. Even if they successfully keep the warning from the public, and an attack happens, some people will claim that the Bush administration knew of the attacks but chose, for political reasons, not to warn the public. Indeed, claims like that have been made - though not credibly - with respect to the 9/11 attacks.
If you have evidence, E72521, that the government has no credible information sources from which to garner this latest warning, let’s hear them.
If you don’t, then what evidence do you have to support your claim? Indeed, your claim is already weakend by your inclusion of a False Dilemna.
Perhaps because I live in an island nation, my take on this is quite different, but I don’t see a whole lot of point in issuing warnings which reveal what is imminent unless doing so allows your population to in some way protect themselves.
If my country is going to be nuked in 10 minutes, I’d just as sooner not know about it via cnn.
I’m sure that prior to “Enduring Freedom” being launched, there were many rumours floating around Afghanistan about an impending US-led attack on their soil; perhaps the Taliban even came out publicly and made loud statements that it was a certainty to happen. Yet with largely closed borders (and thus little hope of retreat from the approaching threat), I suspect the majority of the Afghanistan population simply suffered more fear and anguish by knowing about a threat against which they could do nothing than if the start of military action had taken them totally by surprise.
The majority of Australians couldn’t get out of this country quickly even if we knew with absolute certainly that a catastrophic situation was about to hit us. I suspect the same is true of most Americans - fleeing your nation at little or no notice simply isn’t an option, no matter how credible the threat.
I think the media has much to answer for right now, and I can only hope that people from all sides of politics will hold them responsible for the fear they have created in order to earn the ratings/circulation war.
I don’t think you could inform 18,000 law enforcement agencies of a “credible threat” and not then have the public know anyway. People will then ask “Why weren’t we told?”
I don’t think that Ashcroft or anyone else in the Bush administration is being deliberately deceptive, but fucking-a, today I thought Ashcroft was a step away from saying “We are at war with Oceania”. All this stuff is starting sound like that to me, actually.
Well, no. The news report I just heard at lunchtime (I’m in Oz remember) said that the FBI were asking all law-enforcement and military to be especially vigilant.
That much is clear. I consider this also asks ordinary people to go about their business as usual, but show patience in the face of delays because of security checks, vigilance in alertness for breaches of security (eg, unattended bags) and readiness to loudly oppose suspect activities.
It’s living life on a different footing, which is what we have to do now. Even here in Australia.
It’s posted in another thread somewhere (and I’ll find that thread as soon as I get back from the shop), but the US has always been quite open about expecting allegiances to change during what is going to be a very long campaign.
I live in the Oceanic region and I’ve always thought that the divisions which already exist in this region (and there are many) are going to be exacerbated by this campaign. There are a number of nations who are currently either neutral or ostensibly pro-Enduring Freedom which I cannot see remaining over the duration of any longterm campaign. Australia certainly that we faced the likelihood of pissing off some of our closest neighbours when we committed to this. So did New Zealand. But I’ve yet to hear any statement from the US which even sounds like a “war on Oceania” - trust me, if I’d heard a statement like that I’d be all over my local politicians who are facing an election in less than two weeks.
It’s kinda simple. You periodically issue press releases to the effect of “We continue to recieve credible threats of terrorist activity, but have no specific information on targets or dates. Law enforcement is being kept aware of developments as appropriate”. That pretty much covers the “you never told us” angle, without keeping the populace at a fever-pitch of fear.
You don’t go about doing dog-n-pony shows over “We’ve got nothing useful to tell you” unless you want to do the terrorist’s job for them. You keep it low-key, until you’ve got something concrete to say. At this rate, when they finally do have something specific to say, no one’s gonna listen.
Of course, in that situation there is nothing you can do, but I think that by making this current threat common knowledge, they hope that vigilant citizens may just be able to thwart another attack. We frequently see odd things happening around us, and ignore them because they’re none of our business. If the country is in danger, we can’t afford to keep ignoring suspicious behaviour, and the actions of one alert person could save thousands.
Also, in the event that they do pull off a second attack, the public would be furious to know they hadn’t been alerted to the possibility. I think they believe it is better to make the people alert than to lull them into a false sense of comfort. It’s hard for the average American to realise they’re at war because life continues as normal, but they are at war, and with an enemy that doesn’t wear a uniform and shoot at soldiers. The enemy are living in America, pretending to be ordinary Americans and when they attack, they attack civilians. Only vigilance can be used to overcome these cowards because they won’t stand and fight fair.
The problem, cazzle, is that they’ve already gone this route four or five times before. The only difference this time, that I can see, is that Tom Ridge finally got a chance to stand in front of the mic. He didn’t say anything that wasn’t already said the last few times. They’re rapidly burning out their credibility on useless warnings.
Your preferred press release is basically what was originally said on CNN and now comprises the press release. Is your objection the fact that by using TV it becomes a dog-n-pony show?
Other posters have pointed out the benefits of heving the public extra vigilant. If any agency had concrete knowledge of the terrorist’s plans they wouldn’t need to warn the public, they would simply avert the plan. Imagine what would have happened on the morning of 9/11 if the FBI knew what was going to happen and which planes were involved. There would have been no deaths and 19 terrorists would now be incarcerated.
Oh man, I should have explained that better. I was making a 1984 reference. Specifically how the Big Brother, or whatever it was that was the government in that book would constantly talk about warring actions and changing alliances and that sort of thing when nothing was actually happening. The analogy being that when you get statements so vague as the one we got from Ashcroft today one questions whether anything is happening at all.
Good question. Quite frankly, it would help if the FBI knew the answer.
I live in Boston, and therefore, I do not fear Osama. What’s he going to do, get a bunch of supporters to storm Fenway park with “Go Yankees” pennants?