'Credible Threats' Of Terrorism During Election -Or- Throwing The Election?

[Duckster]

Ridge says al Qaeda planning attack
Terrorists’ aim is to influence presidential vote, security chief says

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Al Qaeda plans a large-scale attack on the United States “in an effort to disrupt the democratic process” before November’s elections, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Thursday.

Ridge cited “recent interdictions” for the new warning. He said U.S. officials have no precise knowledge of the time, place or method of attack, but said they are “actively working to gain that knowledge.”

– snip –

A senior administration official said accusations of scaremongering are to be expected. But the official, who has read Ridge’s prepared remarks, added, "This is one of those damned if you do and damned if you don’ts, and our default is ‘do.’ "

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/08/ridge.alqaeda/index.html

This is not an attempt at a tinfoil hat debate, however, as it may first appear.

The question is not to debate the merits of another terrorism warning by Tom Ridge. The question is not to debate the merits that an actual terrorism act may/may not occur. As much as Ridge and Co. issuing warnings of potential threats, nothing eventually occurs. Of course, this can be for a variety of reasons ranging from the “we just want to raise public awarness,” to bad intelligence, to actual potential incidents thwarted (which we never hear about). I am already hearing among people around me that no matter what Ridge and DHS may say (as well as know but not telling us), the cry wolf syndrome is well entrenched in people. As the CNN story says it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t already.

The question is there any likely scenario that elements within the current Administration, if not the re-election people, might try to manipulate the terrorism alert system to throw the election?

I am not assuming Ridge and Co. would be knowing and/or willing participants, nor anyone else within the DHS/law enforcement structures.

However, could the alert system be manipulated to the point that the Administration would subtlely instill fear into the populance that a failure to re-elect would cause the whole anti-terrorism to stop? We’ve already seen such ambiguity from the Administration with respect to the story Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

[EsotericEnigma]

Are politicians using the terror alert level to influence the election?

Of course.

The fact that the terror alert level serves a political agenda does not necessarily mean that it is false or exaggerated, though.

[Lemur866]

If you hypothesize that the terror alert system can be used to influence the election, then you must also be able to predict that either an increased terror alert will lead to more votes for Bush, or a decreased terror alert will lead to more votes for Bush.

For the life of me, I can’t see how you could prove either one. If the terror alert is raised, wouldn’t that indicate to people that Bush is a failure in fighting terrorism, and that they should therefore vote for Kerry? Alternatively, if the terror alert is lowered, wouldn’t that indicate to people that the war on terrorism is succeeding, and therefore there is no reason to keep Bush in office, and that they should therefore vote for Kerry?

Let’s stipulate for the sake of arguement that the terror alert level can and will be changed at the direction of Karl Rove to suit whatever political goals he desires. What isn’t obvious is that any particular terror alert level serves the President’s re-election goals better than any other terror alert level.