Damn, ain’t nothing like a sizzling good thread, flavored with calumny, hyperbole, and good ol’ fashion partisan sarcasm! Now, as the OP.
So, where’s the attack? The time for maximum impact would clearly have been just after the bombing started. But no. Is it possible that OBL (may he simmer in Hell in a pool of bacon fat, piss be on him) has shot his bolt? That he doesn’t have a plan B?
Now, I am assuming that the anthrax scare in Florida is the result of an unconnected criminal endeavor (I suspect Bat Boy).
I think the FBI/CIA is covering their butt. Attack, we warned you, no attack, we’re doing a great job. They have no clue as to what the Al-Q is up to. They are top heavy with cold-war relics promoted for thier knowledge of Russia, Bulgaria, etc. Remember when they mentioned the trouble they were having translating intercepts due to a lack of speakers of Farsi and Pushtu? Hell, theres 10,000 of them driving cab in NYC!
Stoking the flames of national hysteria serves no ones purpose but thier own.
Ok. That’s a pretty serious accusation to make, suggesting that the U.S. Government is manufacturing evidence, or disseminating false information concerning the public’s safety simply to cover their ass.
That’s calling into question their integrity and professionalism on a pretty basic level as well as suggesting a rather large conspiracy as it would entail cooperation among both agencies (who have a notorious rivalry,) among a great many agents.
Out of all the people that need to be involved in such a conspiracy, has somebody leaked information that this is the case?
In other words, do you have any evidence to base this accusation on, or is it just your general gut feeling?
Not manufacturing evidence, as they’ve presented no evidence. It’s still in the realm of “best estimate” and “credibly believe”. Those kinds of warning can be given all day long without breaking any laws. NIPC did it for years, and never did anything “wrong” even though thery were never right, either. Remember the “Hacker Riot” that was supposed to wipe out The World As We Know It?
Yes, it is.
No, it isn’t. This kind of scare-mongering requires nothing more than a cood copy editor, a venal office-holder (a la Micheal Vatis), and a credulous media.
It’s certainly my gut feeling right now. Scare-mongering on this level can also be called “spin”, and is a tool for shaping public opinion, and driving events to suit an agenda, such as:
Increased budgets for law enforcement agencies (not necessarily a bad thing, and it will happen).
Increased latitude of action for law enforcemnt agencies (very likely to happen, considering current legislation).
Decreased oversight on law enforcement (also very likely).
Do you really thing that those in power are thinking clearly? There has already been a resolution to mandate that the CIA resume “banned” tactics that were never banned in the first place. Remember that these are politicians, not statesmen (well mostly not), and are no more special than the average boob on the street, save that they won a popularity contest. They are entirely capable of being lead by the polls when self-serving officials start the heavy spin.
Bin Laden, Stalin, and Hitler could never be elected President of the United States of America for one simple reason. None of them were born in the USA. I can see some of the others listed actually being elected.
The FBI and the CIA have plenty to gain from being alarmist. Their funding has been greatly reduced since the end of the Cold War. If they maintain that there is a constant “clear and present danger”, they can get their budget increased by a sizable amount. If they maintain that terrorists are everywhere and attacks are imminent, they may gain enough support for Congress to pass laws giving them more power and eliminating restrictions on their activities.
Scylla, you are doing it ** AGAIN. ** You make things up, distort, re-word, ignore and take apart what I say, put it back together into a form that you are in the mood to argue with, and claim that’s my position, then goad and taunt me into defending it.
And the above example proves it. What I actually did was express an opinion and explain that the topic was not my strong suit, ask for information to show me why the opinion was wrong, got information showing me how it could be wrong, could be right, and declared, as I had in the beginning of the thread, *that I was not qualified to argue it, so I was not going to try. *
How that mutates into me arguing the validity of my opinion based on ignorance is something only you can fathom, since it is your invention.
You also are choosing to deconstruct and reconstruct (and selectively ignore) things I’ve said in this thread.
I’ll say it again: I’m not interested in your games, and I’m not interested in being your punching bag. You want to make up stuff to argue with and assign it to someone, get yourself a sock.
Dammit, Tranquillis! Not only answered before I could but did it better! I am left with only two words as regards the FBI’s professionalism and integrity: Richard Jewell.
(He’s that poor SOB that the FBI damn near publicly lynched for the Olympic bombing years ago, then had to admit that he had nothing to do with it. After, of course, they had totally ruined his life.)
This is Great Debates. You’ve said some things. I disagree. We debate.
Despite your attempts at revisionism I almost always quote directly or reply point to point.
Here you’ve replied to Sam Stone to indicate that George Bush is the worst “conceivable” person you could imagine as President and that you did not mean that to be inflammatory rhetoric, it was really what you felt, and that more, other people even agreed with you (note that I’m not quoting directly here, because I have just a post or two ago.)
If you’re unhappy about being put on the spot over such statements, then maybe you shouldn’t make them, but you can hardly blame me for taking issue with such statements.
I’m attacking your arguments, not you. Please bear that in mind.
A fair analysis. However, I think calling the CIA and FBI alarmist to protect their own interests without evidence to suggest that that is actually the case, is a dangerous and unwise standpoint.
First, I would choose to have confidence in the FBI/CIA in this until they proved to me that that didn’t make sense. Motivation alone does not warrant an accusation.
Secondly, false alarm, it may be. Ignoring it would be foolish. Everytime the fire alarm goes off in this building I operate as if there were a fire, even though I know it’s probably a false alarm.
Tell people it’s a false alarm, and you can get them killed. You need to know, not guess.
elucidator, however other’s use it, when I use it in that phrasing, it’s gesture of respect. Scylla
Having watched Freeh and Vatis in action for a number of years, I’ll respectfully disagree. I think you have many vaild points, but calling it as I see it isn’t, IMO, foolish. It’s necessary, I believe, or I’d not be doing it. I’m generally a slightly right-of-center conservative, but I’m conservative about many things, including believing an agancy that has fallen or hard times and questionable tactics will have changed it’s stripes over-night. The Director may clean things up, but hasn’t had time to do so, IMO, and now, for the last month I’ve heard official speculation and alarmism replacing solid facts. As stated earlier in this thread, running about yelling “the sky is falling” is counter-productive, dangerous, and aids the terrorists in their mission of spreading fear. Yes, the sky may indeed be falling, but the “it’s gonna happen in a few days” warning has been repeated every few days, with no result. Of course we expect the sky to fall, but until we know where, and when, keeping the whole populace at a fever-pitch of anticipation is flat-out stupid. These officials are not stupid persons, so why else might they be scaring the populace…?
No, but past behavior and current motive certainly make for a strong suspect. I suspect them. I may be wrong. I’d be pleased to be wrong, but I won’t let my hopes cloud my caution.
Yup, and that’s what makes it irresponsible to issue vague warnings. I’d rather my warnings be a little more solid. Saying “we anticipate terrorist retalliation, but we don’t know when or where” would be fine. Reiteratining that warning every couple of days is fine, but saying “the 22nd is day of interest”, “there is a strong possibility of terrorist activity this weekend”, “there’s very strong possibility of an attack within the next three days”, and so on, ad nauseum, is foolish on their part.
You’re right, you never said that. Silly me. That was somebody else replying to Sam Stone, or else I must have grossly misinterpreted your writing through my poor reading skills.
You see, I had thought you said (without being inflammatory) that the present situation (George Bush being President) was exactly the worst choice you could conceive.
Clearly though you were saying something else. Silly me.
It’s plain to see that I’ve angered you my that misattribution. Who wouldn’t be angered by being credited with such a stupid indefensible statement as what I so fallaciously claimed you made.
Even if somebody did make such an egregiously half-witted remark, they’d probably deny it after the fact or even get angry or evasive in order to not have to deal with supporting it. Anything else would mean they’d be backed into a corner and either have to admit they were just taking a cheap shot, or else try to defend the indefensible.
But seeing as that wasn’t you responding to Sam Stone, or Blacksheepsmith on page 1, it must be my mistake.
Maybe there’s somebody named St0id and I got them confused with you.
Well done, Scylla, my lad. Clearly, you have considerable experience in apologizing to women. However, as an expert, I counsel that it falls a little short in the all-important “groveling” aspect: you are clearly trying to retain a scrap of dignity. Won’t do, lad, simply won’t do, when you are dealing with a True Incarnation of the Goddess. But, after all, you’re still young, you’ll learn.
Oh, just one little thing: you post apologizing for hurting my delicate sensibilities has apparently been lost in transmission. (elucidator snuffles, shows big “wet puppy in the rain” eyes of hurt feelings}
You make a compelling case. Except I don’t know who you’re talking to, I didn’t say any of that stuff. Don’t take my words out of context and misconstrue my arguments. I know damn well what was I was saying (but I won’t tell you.).
Hey! That works pretty good!