# BushCo outs our al-Qaeda infiltrator?! (Incompetent, malevolent, who gives a flip??) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 8, 2004, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831 "2004-08-08T01:01:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/21 "2004-08-08T22:53:04Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > The linked article says that the operative was outed by the New York Times, and that officials then confirmed it. As we went over in the Palme case, there is no “cat out of the bag” clause in either common sense nor security policy. The cat is never really out of the bag until it’s officially confirmed. Indeed, the actions of the White House appears to have actually worked to CALL ATTENTION to the outing. Otherwise it might even have gone unnoticed. And given Rice’s admission, the NYT angle may be moot anyway. ---
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2004, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/22 "2004-08-08T23:21:47Z")
I’m not so much concerned about who specifically outed Khan - what really distesses me is this incident no doubt has pissed-off the Brit and Pakistani intelligence personnel who were working with him (the Brits were forced to hurriedly wrap-up an ongoing investigation; word is, one of the twelve that was rounded up was let go and its been suggested that the others may be released as well). The negative repersussions with the Brits and Pakistani intel folks will impact our (US) effort in dealing effectively with Al Qaeda. Truly, a terrible blow to our intelligence efforts in combating terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![stockton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@stockton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stockton)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/23 "2004-08-09T04:15:18Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Sandy Berger got a Blowjob! > Compromised the entire war on terror. > The man ought to be serving hard time. Your haiku is obviously superior to my kung-fu. I shall retreat and post some other day. The Art of War is very clear on this circumstance. PS: How did you make that crazy haiku with all of those extra syllables? ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/24 "2004-08-09T05:49:54Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > As we went over in the Palme case, there is no “cat out of the bag” clause in either common sense nor security policy. The cat is never really out of the bag until it’s officially confirmed. Indeed, the actions of the White House appears to have actually worked to CALL ATTENTION to the outing. Otherwise it might even have gone unnoticed. > > And given Rice’s admission, the NYT angle may be moot anyway. I don’t understand. Why would it be moot? Someone leaked the name to the NYT. Someone leaked the name to the someone who leaked the name to the NYT. Who knew the name in the first place? I’ll just bet that Sibel Edmonds has been tearing out her hair this past week. She tried to blow the whistle on FBI translators who could be double-agents 2 years ago. In her [letter to the 9/11 Commission](http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0802-06.htm) where she takes them to task for practically ignoring her important and explosive testimony, testimony that has been confirmed by others, she warned us that there were huge holes in the system. > [@](#): > > Sibel Edmonds: I know for a fact that problems regarding intelligence translation cannot be brushed off as minor problems among many significant problems. **Translation units are the frontline in gathering, translating, and disseminating intelligence. A warning in advance of the next terrorist attack may, and probably will, come in the form of a message or document in foreign language that will have to be translated. That message may be given to the translation unit headed and supervised by someone like Mike Feghali, who slows down, even stops, translations for the purpose of receiving budget increases for his department, who has participated in certain criminal activities and security breaches, and who has been engaged in covering up failures and criminal conducts within the department, so it may never be translated in time if ever. That message may go to Kevin Taskesen, or another unqualified translator; so it may never be translated correctly and be acted upon. That message may go to a sympathizer within the language department; so it may never be translated fully, if at all. That message may come to the attention of an agent of a foreign organization who works as a translator in the FBI translation department, who may choose to block it; so it may never get translated.** If then an attack occurs, which could have been prevented by acting on information in that message, who will tell family members of the new terrorist attack victims that nothing more could have been done? There will be no excuse that we did not know, because we do know. I’d love to hear what she thinks. There was a 60 Minutes feature on her last night, but it was pre-recorded and dates from before Ronald Reagan died, which is when it was first supposed to air. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/25 "2004-08-09T18:45:03Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Apparently, Rice acknowledged that the administration gave the name to the press “on background.” And as [Josh Marshall](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_08.php#003257) reminds us, “on background” simply means the reporter can’t identify his/her source; the _content_ is for public consumption, unless other ground rules have been specified. Marshall quotes the following exchange (and [here’s the full transcript from CNN](http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/08/le.00.html)): > [@](#): > > BLITZER: Let’s talk about some of the people who have been picked up, mostly in Pakistan, over the last few weeks. In mid-July, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. There is some suggestion that by releasing his identity here in the United States, you compromised a Pakistani intelligence sting operation, because he was effectively being used by the Pakistanis to try to find other al Qaeda operatives. Is that true? > > RICE: Well, I don’t know what might have been going on in Pakistan. I will say this, that we did not, of course, publicly disclose his name. One of them… > > BLITZER: He was disclosed in Washington on background. > > RICE: On background. And the problem is that when you’re trying to strike a balance between giving enough information to the public so that they know that you’re dealing with a specific, credible, different kind of threat than you’ve dealt with in the past, you’re always weighing that against kind of operational considerations. We’ve tried to strike a balance. We think for the most part, we’ve struck a balance, but it’s indeed a very difficult balance to strike. Here’s a coupla quick links: [, CNN has finally weighed in](http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/09/terror.wrap/index.html), [The Scotsman](http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3316518) has a followup story, and [the British Home Secretary is pretty upset with the U.S.](http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,1278826,00.html). I’d stay and give quotes from those, but I’m chasing down something else. Later. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/26 "2004-08-09T19:07:52Z")
[British Home Secretary David Blunkett is furious](http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,1278731,00.html): > [@](#): > > over the last four days there has been column inch after column inch devoted to the fact that in the United States there is often high-profile commentary followed, as in the most current case, by detailed scrutiny, with the potential risk of inviting ridicule. > > In Britain the accusation is the opposite. It is that we don’t say enough. We don’t comment often enough. We don’t speculate enough. In other words, we don’t sufficiently raise the profile - and therefore the concern - about terrorism. > > The same commentator that I heard on Wednesday night suggested that regular appearances by a minister would be helpful. But helpful to whom? > > I could have appeared a dozen times last week on radio and television but I turned down the offers. I turned them down because I didn’t have anything relevant and additional to say, not because I don’t know what is taking place. > > I spent last Wednesday going through the facts, not the speculation, with the security and intelligence services, the Metropolitan Police and my own officials. > > At any one time there is a lot of painstaking and patient work being undertaken by them to tackle this threat and last week, as always, I was kept fully up to date with developments. > > Of course, it is not possible for me to comment on last week’s arrests and the action which has followed. These are operational matters. But I can say that I am full of admiration for the work of the police and the Security Service in dealing with these situations. I issued an appropriate statement and I refused to comment further. Why? > > \*\*Because had I done so without having anything additional to add, I would have merely added to the speculation, to the hype, to the desire for something to say for its own sake. In other words, to feed the news frenzy in a slack news period. > > Is that really the job of a senior cabinet minister in charge of counter-terrorism? To feed the media? To increase concern? To have something to say, whatever it is, in order to satisfy the insatiable desire to hear somebody saying something? > > Of course not. This is arrant nonsense. I’ve never been known as a shrinking violet and I’m the first person to say something when I’ve got something to say. But it is important to be able to distinguish if there is a meaningful contribution that helps to secure us from terrorism. And to understand if there isn’t. \*\* > > And there are very good reasons why we shouldn’t reveal certain information to the public. Firstly, we do not want to undermine in any way our sources of information, or share information which could place investigations in jeopardy. Second, we do not want to do or say anything which would prejudice any trial. > > So I make no apology for not having appeared last week, over and over again. I can’t recall a senior spokesman for one of our major allies unloading on us like this, ever. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/27 "2004-08-09T19:50:37Z")
And somebody tell me AGAIN, because it just keeps slipping away from me, why Bush is the guy to vote for if your issue is terrorism? Anyone? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/28 "2004-08-09T20:00:50Z")
Now I am getting confused. Perhaps one of you kindly Moore-ons could explain things for me… The first screechings from you folks were that the terror alert was based on nothing; Mere politics and smoke and mirrors. Where is the information to backup the ludicrous claims of attacks in NY and DC?!? DAMN THAT BUSH FOR NOT TELLING US! But now, the screechings have taken an interesting turn: DAMN THAT BUSH FOR TELLING US! Now that you know that yes indeed, this is some potentially serious shit, you are still getting your panties in a bunch. Which is it? Would you have been better served as citizens having a terror alert with no data to back it up, or having a terror alert with data to back it up? Which would be taken more seriously? Of course, your babblings _look_ like blatant fucking hypocrisy; But I know better! I know that under all those hysterics and melodrama, you folks have a logically consistant position on the matter. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/29 "2004-08-09T20:05:54Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > And somebody tell me AGAIN, because it just keeps slipping away from me, why Bush is the guy to vote for if your issue is terrorism? > > Anyone? **Mr. Moto** should be along shortly to say that Kerry outed two moles. These people should be in Gitmo. Or worse. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/30 "2004-08-09T20:17:48Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Now I am getting confused. Perhaps one of you kindly Moore-ons could explain things for me… > > The first screechings from you folks were that the terror alert was based on nothing; Mere politics and smoke and mirrors. Where is the information to backup the ludicrous claims of attacks in NY and DC?!? DAMN THAT BUSH FOR NOT TELLING US! But now, the screechings have taken an interesting turn: DAMN THAT BUSH FOR TELLING US! Now that you know that yes indeed, this is some potentially serious shit, you are still getting your panties in a bunch. > > Which is it? Would you have been better served as citizens having a terror alert with no data to back it up, or having a terror alert with data to back it up? Which would be taken more seriously? > > Of course, your babblings _look_ like blatant fucking hypocrisy; But I know better! I know that under all those hysterics and melodrama, you folks have a logically consistant position on the matter. Right? Actually, I’m the one who’s confused. What does any of this have to do with the rightness or wrongness of revealing the identity of an important mole in Al Queda? Are you saying that you don’t mind having undercover operatives revealed, against the wishes of important allies, in order to reassure the American public? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/31 "2004-08-09T20:23:09Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Now I am getting confused. Perhaps one of you kindly Moore-ons could explain things for me… > > The first screechings from you folks were that the terror alert was based on nothing; Mere politics and smoke and mirrors. Where is the information to backup the ludicrous claims of attacks in NY and DC?!? DAMN THAT BUSH FOR NOT TELLING US! But now, the screechings have taken an interesting turn: DAMN THAT BUSH FOR TELLING US! Now that you know that yes indeed, this is some potentially serious shit, you are still getting your panties in a bunch. > > Which is it? Would you have been better served as citizens having a terror alert with no data to back it up, or having a terror alert with data to back it up? Which would be taken more seriously? > > Of course, your babblings _look_ like blatant fucking hypocrisy; But I know better! I know that under all those hysterics and melodrama, you folks have a logically consistant position on the matter. Right? Actually, I’m the one who’s confused. What does any of this have to do with the rightness or wrongness of revealing the identity of an important mole in Al Queda? Are you saying that you don’t mind having undercover operatives revealed, against the wishes of important allies, in order to reassure the American public? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/32 "2004-08-09T20:29:31Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Now I am getting confused. Perhaps one of you kindly Moore-ons could explain things for me… > > The first screechings from you folks were that the terror alert was based on nothing; Mere politics and smoke and mirrors. Where is the information to backup the ludicrous claims of attacks in NY and DC?!? DAMN THAT BUSH FOR NOT TELLING US! But now, the screechings have taken an interesting turn: DAMN THAT BUSH FOR TELLING US! Now that you know that yes indeed, this is some potentially serious shit, you are still getting your panties in a bunch. > > Which is it? Would you have been better served as citizens having a terror alert with no data to back it up, or having a terror alert with data to back it up? Which would be taken more seriously? > > Of course, your babblings _look_ like blatant fucking hypocrisy; But I know better! I know that under all those hysterics and melodrama, you folks have a logically consistant position on the matter. Right? Actually, I’m the one who’s confused. What does any of this have to do with the rightness or wrongness of revealing the identity of an important mole in Al Queda? Are you saying that you don’t mind having undercover operatives revealed, against the wishes of important allies, in order to reassure the American public? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/33 "2004-08-09T20:32:40Z")
Arrgh, stupid lag. Mods, could you delete the copies? ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/34 "2004-08-09T20:40:51Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > The first screechings from you folks were that the terror alert was based on nothing; Mere politics and smoke and mirrors. Where is the information to backup the ludicrous claims of attacks in NY and DC?!? DAMN THAT BUSH FOR NOT TELLING US! But now, the screechings have taken an interesting turn: DAMN THAT BUSH FOR TELLING US! Now that you know that yes indeed, this is some potentially serious shit, you are still getting your panties in a bunch. > > Which is it? Would you have been better served as citizens having a terror alert with no data to back it up, or having a terror alert with data to back it up? Which would be taken more seriously? **Brutus** , first of all, if you think that wanting evidence of things like weapons of mass destruction is the same as demanding publishing the names of undercover agents, you’re a complete moron. Second of all, this has _nothing_ to do with partisan politics. Allowing the names of valuable intelligence assets to become public knowledge is a grave, grave mistake. Are you so blinded by fear of a non-Republican president that you will defend anything? Do you not care at all how the president does his job, as long as it says (Republican) after his name? I really am shocked by this. Classified material is taken so incredibly seriously at the lowest levels (including stuff so boring and unimportant you couldn’t pay someone to read it), that to have something of this magnitude casually allowed to be made public blows me away. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/35 "2004-08-09T20:59:37Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Now I am getting confused. Perhaps one of you kindly Moore-ons could explain things for me… > > The first screechings from you folks were that the terror alert was based on nothing; Mere politics and smoke and mirrors. Where is the information to backup the ludicrous claims of attacks in NY and DC?!? DAMN THAT BUSH FOR NOT TELLING US! But now, the screechings have taken an interesting turn: DAMN THAT BUSH FOR TELLING US! Now that you know that yes indeed, this is some potentially serious shit, you are still getting your panties in a bunch. > > Which is it? Would you have been better served as citizens having a terror alert with no data to back it up, or having a terror alert with data to back it up? Which would be taken more seriously? > > Of course, your babblings _look_ like blatant fucking hypocrisy; But I know better! I know that under all those hysterics and melodrama, you folks have a logically consistant position on the matter. Right? Here’s how I see it. This threat level bullshit should only be given to law enforcement, don’t tell the general public about a plot to blow such and such up. That way, when a plot gets thwarted, it’s not on the fucking front page and the people involved can skip the plan and get away. The people are actually _caught_ because they didn’t know they were being watched. There’s a wrench in the plan though. If they\* _don’t_ warn us and something happens, then they’re fucked one way (they didn’t do enough), and if they _do_ tell us something is going to happen, they they’re fucked the other way (they are scare mongers). We (not me though) brought this on ourselves because we’re a bunch a little whiny assholes, so enjoy the problem you created. \*they = a dem admin or a repub admin ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/36 "2004-08-09T21:05:13Z")
You know, when an administration bases it’s policies on secret or classified information, that for some reason the public _shouldn’t_ know the details of, they take shit for it. This is right and proper as it keeps the administration, any administration, from just making stuff up so it can do as it damned well pleases without worrying about accountability. Administrations from time immemorial have faced this quandary; release too much, and burn someone, or not release enough, and be accused of making shit up. Most administrations **do the right thing** , and when it’s necessary, protect their sources, and take a little heat for it. If their actions turn out to be correct, they are quickly forgiven. But here we have an administration that has not only proven itself to make tragically incorrect judgments based on intelligence (WMD’s anyone?), but they lack the balls to take the political fallout for using _good_ intelligence when they need to. Instead, they leak like Olestra fried potato chips through a fatman. This is not good for the country. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/37 "2004-08-09T21:28:43Z")
The fault, dear **Brutus** , lies not in the stars but in ourselves that we are underlings. -William Shakespeare It is words like the ones you typed here, that show what a inferior, subordinate minion you are. No matter if the criticisms to Clinton were warranted or not, during the attacks he made to other nations as president; never he made the blunder or decided it was ok to then expose our classified material, or thought it was necessary to uncover spy activities to cover his butt like the current POTUS. That old chestnut is valid here: “If it is too hot, stay out of the kitchen” since this administration is so obtuse to recognize this, we have to get rid of it in November. If not sooner, how come there are no quick and swift investigations of the administration like in the Clinton era? Yes, I know, I think having all branches of power under the control of one party is idiotic. These administration of yahoos are not the people I want controlling the power of America. Heck, when even a spy like Chalabi can get next to the president, why should I trust these idiots to take care of the secrets of America? Vote these rascals out! ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/38 "2004-08-09T21:42:45Z")
Blogger [Steven C. Clemons](http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000014.html) says one of his sources tells him that the World Trade Centers were among the buildings that Khan’s discs had surveillance info on. Like the title says, this is rumor and hearsay, so don’t tell me I said otherwise. I’d ask if the press has bothered to ask Ridge whether this is so, but the American press has gone so totally AWOL on this story that the answer is clearly No, they haven’t. But I’d sure like to know - because if it were true, what it would indicate is that the operation they were doing surveillance for, had already taken place 35 months ago, and this current alert is known BS. Now (back to solid fact) it was heartwarming to see [Laura Bush and the Bush twins](http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032004/news/regionalnews/26137.htm) share the risk of being blown up by al-Qaeda. I’m trying to get my head around how the Secret Service would have let them knowingly go to a site staked out by terrorists for imminent attack, but I’ll let others wrestle with that. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2004, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/39 "2004-08-09T23:39:27Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Do you not care at all how the president does his job, as long as it says (Republican) after his name? Nah, I think it’s more about the imaginary taxes Brutus won’t have to pay when he gets rich. (This is actually why so many middle class and poor people support policies favoring the rich, by the way. Just in case they ever get rich themselves…) ---
**Author:** ![drewbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drewbert/32/15890_2.png) [@drewbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewbert)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2004, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831/40 "2004-08-10T00:08:39Z")
I’d agree that there’s a certain level of hypocracy in complaining that terror alert levels are issued without any information about the specific threat, and also complaining when information about the threats are leaked. **This is the reason** terror alerts are so undetailed - to do otherwise compromises our sources of information. Sure, conspiracy theories abound about politics and conventions and stuff, but assuming an honest administration (hypothetically!), how much better could one perform this balancing act? > [@World Eater](#): > > This threat level bullshit should only be given to law enforcement, don’t tell the general public about a plot to blow such and such up. That sounds good until the first cop with loose lips starts telling his friends that ‘something’s up but I can’t tell you what it is’. Then people will start complaining that “our law enforcment agencies and the government are keeping the public in the dark about possible threats.” Besides, it’s a lot easier for Ridge to get up on a podium and say “orange” then it is to quietly get the information to every affected agency. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushco-outs-our-al-qaeda-infiltrator-incompetent-malevolent-who-gives-a-flip/258831.md?page=3)