I haven’t seen this, but perhaps you are more observant than I am. I have, however, seen talk of last week’s capture of some guy in Pakistan being arranged to coincide with the Democrat’s convention.
Let’s start with some actual data, i.e. a chronological list of the terror alerts, including both the ones issued by Ridge and the ones issued by Asscroft. Have you got such a list? Has anyone got such a list? I’ve looked around a bit but can’t find one.
It’d make things a bit easier if we had one - so if someone has come across such a thing, please post it.
My own hypothesis (as yet untested) is that the terror alerts are more likely to have a strong negative correlation with this graph.
I’m guessing that Tom Ridge appreciates that these guys are going to hear his nationally announced warning. As a matter of fact, I would guess that he is counting on it, and that it is the primary reason to make the announcement. He doesn’t give a shit if YOU know that the gov’t has uncovered attack plans, he wants THEM to know.
The goal is to prevent the attack, period. Catching the terrorists, breaking their ring, prosecuting them, all must take a back seat to preventing an attack. Nobody is going to let a building full of people be bait in an attempt to catch these guys.
Merely increasing security is no guarantee. One person screws up, and thousands can die. The only guarantee is if we can get the terrorists to give up on the plan altogether. The only hope you have of that is to let them know that their plans are busted and security is being beefed up. They go on to form a new plan, in the meantime, you can still try to find them, and they haven’t attemped a new attack.
I compared the dates of the alerts against the graph, and immediately noted that they were associated with downtrends in Bush’s approval rating. Upon further inspection, however, it’s apparent that apart from four specific events (9/11, the initial Iraq invasion, Saddam’s capture, and Reagan’s death), everything in the past 3 1/2 years is associated with downtrends in Bush’s approval rating.
The problem is the warnings are based on vague information. Running around and PUBLICLY announcing the terror warnings is counter-productive.
The information which precipitated the warnings only showed that AQ was listing possible targets. There was no evidence beyond that.
By going on the news and making these announcements, AQ finds out where their leaks are, and can plug them up.
By going on the news and telling everyone “these are the buildings which may be targeted, and this is how we will protect them,” we show off our security mechanism, and anyone interested can start checking for weaknesses.
Wolf!
If they really wanted us to be protected, we would never hear about these warnings. In all, we are providing a better dry run than any over-active Syrian bladder ever could.
According to an ex-CIA officer inteviewed on NPR this morning, the Department is really making the case here for why these terror alerts are a bad idea. From what anyone can tell, the information we got was that people connected to Al Qaeda had considered these buildings as potential targets at one time: there weren’t any specific timetables or anything like that. If that’s so, then its not clear what this raise in the public alert level is going to accomplish unless we want to stay at this level for years. All it does is let the terrorists know exactly how we’ll respond to even rumors of a threat to certain targets: thus showing our hands on exactly what sort of security functionality we are ready to deploy. The repeated threat alerts are also clearly having a “boy who cried wolf” effect which is terrible for public morale and vigilence. Even if there is an attack, or was an attack planned, it’s just one more example of how they can hurt us or freak us out without actually going on to actually carry out an attack.
Bottom line, and I think I agree: we need a better system. Might be nice if it wasn’t being run by patronage too so that the public can actually trust the information more fully.
I’m willing to give 'em this one. It’s specific in target, means. and comes after recently locating a specific operative in Pakistan.
also, although Americans seem to focus a lot of attention on airport security, planes being hijacked etc, car and truck bombs have been the traditional method of choice for terrorist attacks (and much more difficult to screen for); plus the targets seem to be the sort favored (vs. what we think they might hit). There had been a focus of sorts on quasi militaristic targets/symbols of US presence in other countries (embassies, military installations, our boats etc.), but the targets on this soil were the WTC, Pentagon, (whitehouse/congress), military and financial center targets.
The problem with his ‘theory’ is that the terrorists aren’t stupid, they read these threads.
I mean, they aren’t stupid, they’ll usually coordinate an attack during some sort of political event anyway. What I’m saying is, if an attack does happen, it will probably happen during an important national event anyway. So, it just makes sense that if any credible advanced terror information gets out it will probably be
right around the time leading up to a national event. Not a coincidence or a conspiracy, -just the way it’s going to be.
why do people keep assuming this? what ‘important national event’ was happening when the Cole was bombed? the embassies in Africa? 9/11? the barracks in Beiruit? Lockerbie?
Why? They never have before. Not one of the attacks attributed to Al Qaeda has coincided with a high profile event or holiday. They do it on their own schedule, at a time when they think it will be most successful. Since you admit they are not stupid, why would they attack when security is highest.?
wring, Fear Itself, you’re right. I worded that poorly. I was thinking that the best way for them to screw things up will be to coincide with some large event or try to disrupt an event to gain some sort of political edge one way or the other. Create chaos during the Republican Convention, for instance, to slow or stop any momentum the party might have at the time. So, it wouldn’t seem far fetched to me to have intell intercept some plots that would coincide with this event or others like it.
Better?
::shrug:: not really for me at least. Thier Jihad is against the American People, not “this administration” or “that administration”. They didn’t attack during the last election season when arguably, there would have been ‘some’ incentive (gosh, one person running was the son of the infindel GHWBush!) their attacks are exceptionally well planned and organized, take years to conceive and execute. When exactly, for example, did the parties announce where the conventions were to be held?
Plus - I believe I mentioned that their historical targets outside this country were military or embassy related for the most part (cole, the embassies, the barracks), ie, the symbol of the infindel in their countries. In this country, their targets (to date) have been economy related and militaristic in nature (WTC, Pentagon, unknown (afaik) if final target was white house or congress).
No, can’t go along with that either. George W. Bush is the best tool Al Qaeda has. They need an aggressive, military response to their attacks to further their goals of fomenting a world-wide Islamic war against the West. I seriously think they will avoid anything that would jeopardize Dubya’s re-election chances.
Uncommon Sense, Not sure that you are getting where I am coming from. I don’t have a specific theory, as such; all that I am saying is that the hypothesis that the Republicans are somehow using Terror Alerts in order to manipulate the election (i.e. get folks to stop focusing on the Democrats) should be pretty easy to prove one way or another.
And let me make sure that I am clear on something. I specifically don’t think that they are. It may be that this administration is making more politically hay off of the war on terror than is seemly, but I don’t think that they are just making shit up to scare us. For one thing, I am still idealistic enough to believe that the entire government from the top down can’t be that evil. For another, the potential for a leek that would cause a scandal the likes of which we have never seen is too great. The possible gain is to out of whack with the potential shitstorm.
Amen to DoubleDome. Even if some snippet of evidence should surface that could be interpreted, I would still be more inclined to credit “wishful thinking” over “dark conspiracy”.
To clarify: we all know, and history teaches, that people tend to see what they expect to see. This is a essential principle in the magicians art of misdirection. The Admin would very much like to have something going on that would permit GeeDubya to put on his The Leader persona, and say some firm, in-control, things. But this only makes them more inclined to be sensitive to the possibility of threat, it doesn’t provide that good a motive for out-and-out skullduggery. As pointed out, the risks are too great.
But Mr. Ashcroft’s quote, as noted above, has no bearing whatsoever on informing the public or any other legitimate excercise regarding security. It is entirely an editorial comment, and an entirely political one. That stinks. It just plain stinks to exploit fear and dread, however plausible, to promote one candidate over another.
This is not the first time Mr. Ashcroft has been noted to pull political shenanigans. You are free to imagine that such behavior is sternly disapproved by the WH and Mr. Rove.
Anyone want to rethink their doomsaying/politicization allegations since this alert is apparently based on information taken off of an arrested al-Qaeda operative’s laptop computer?
