My favorite is the advice that we should report suspicious-looking people. It’s New York - who doesn’t look suspicious?
By the way, I work next door to one of the buildings on the threat list. I have the day off today, but getting to work tomorrow should be fun.
Some people think the Bush Administration is lying about terror threats for political gain.
Bush Administration announces latest terror threat, and adds, “We got information from a laptop!”
TeaElle ignores the skepticism from #1, implicitly trusts #2, and wonders why people still believe #1.
What’s wrong with this picture?
They’ve been working hard to get rid of the honest, decent people. The whistleblowers are gone and marginalized into the “left-wing loony” column.
As right-leaning as the media is, and with all the things they’ve gotten away with so far, I’m astonished that you, anyone, could be so innocent.
In other news, I don’t have a link yet, but just heard that Laura Bush and NY Gov. George Pataki toured Citigroup Center today. Citigroup was on yesterday’s terror alert list.
Capture of Qaeda Suspect Led to U.S. Alert
Everything that’s been said seems to come from anonymous sources.
The question is, are they Sandy Berger type anonymous sources, Valerie Plame type anonymous sources, or Richard Clarke type anonymous sources? Are they telling the truth, or are they lying?
The Abu Talha bit appears somewhat fishy:
Spain detains ‘al-Qaeda fundraiser’ (Apr 2002)
Is this the same guy? One source lists him as a financier, and another as a communications expert.
If this is the case, that the Administration seeks to disrupt a plot by making a public announcement that it knows about the plot, then we have something akin to shouting into the darkness, “I know you’re out there.” From my understanding of what the Homeland guys are going on (stuff on the computer of some guy in Pakistan that seems to be observations of the four or five sites) there is a fair chance that the stuff we have is a decoy, a diversion, as anything else.
I’ll give the Homeland guys one thing. Even if the public announcement doesn’t defeat an ongoing plot it does serve to create the impression that the Homeland guys are doing something. The kid yelling “wolf” at least proved he was out there with the sheep. Here the Homeland guys have proven that they are out there making noise whether there is a basis for the yelling or not.
I still don’t understand why in this high stakes poker game we feel compelled to show our hand. I just don’t know how much of this is real security and how much is cynical public relations. I don’t suppose we will have an answer to that for some time.
This hits the head of the nail perfectly.
I was under the impression that talk about attacks being coordinated to specific events began after the bombing in Madrid and the effect it had on the election a few days later (although there is a dispute as to whether or not the bombing made a difference, or if that was the direction the election was heading anyway). Because in the U.S. the election is the next closest “big” event, speculation is centered on it. I believe at least immediately after 9/11, warnings were raised around Christmas and the SuperBowl, primarily because, as such important events in American culture, an attack at those time would be more disruptive.
If you accept that the Madrid bombing was designed to influence the election, than speculating that a similar attack could be made on the U.S makes sense. Let’s say there is an attack around the time of the RNC Convention. Regardless of whether the attack is successful or thwarted, the reaction of the U.S. could be a victory for terrorist.
At some level, the terrorists win every time the U.S. deviates from its role as the land of the free, when our actions are less than stellar. If, after such an attack or attempt, the election is postponed, or more civil liberties are surrendered, or people riot in the street–it’s a victory for the terrorist, we’ve lost some of what makes us great as a nation. If the election goes on and Bush wins by a landslide and he’s free to bully the world, the terrorists win by getting more recruits. If Kerry wins and manages to get international support and Iraq calms down, the terrorists have still won, because Bush is no longer President. We can argue if either event was caused by the attack, as we have in the Madrid bombing, but it is a possible motive for terrorist activity. Hence, the speculation and the heightened warning levels.
They’ve already won, because our fucking rights are flying out the window.
The rest of the world would win too.
p.s. they ain’t going to fucking attack during a time when we all expect it, wake up people, they’re just fucking with us.
What’s wrong with this picture is that you have absolutely zero evidence about what I ignore or what I implicitly trust. I asked a question. Instead of answering the question, you had to try to smear me with presumption. That says a lot.
A simple “no” would’ve sufficied. Jackass.
Here’s a link: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=arj.lT5AAc.s&refer=top_world_news
Am I nuts? Am I totally fucking nuts? Doesn’t anyone else find this bizarre???
And why is that bizarre? That the First Lady and daughters should stand in support of people who work? That she shows confidence in the abilities of the various protective services? Or am I being "whooshed??
Well, either president Bush doesn’t give a shit about his wife and daughters and is willing to take the chance that they could be vaporized along with hundreds or thousands of other New Yorkers (which, I admit, would get him a lot of sympathy that would make big bad anti-Bush people look really heartless), or the terror alert was a bunch of crap. Bush knew it, Ridge knew it, everyone in the know knew it, but it still was worth a press conference, front page news, the closing of tunnels and freaking out a few million people.
What did he tell his wife and daughters before they went? “It’s ok, don’t worry, there’s no real threat” in which case, I’d ask, WHY THE TERROR ALERT?? Or did he say “You’ll be in danger, I love you, have a good time!” in which case, I’d ask, why would anyone support a man who cares so little about his family?
No, it doesn’t mean either one. Perhaps it simply means, as I speculated, that they are demonstrating courage, confidence in the ability of the police and military, and solidarity with the people.
Are you old enough to remember, or have you read about, the British royal family during WWII? Please note I’m not saying the Bush family is royalty, or that this is precisely the same thing, but the King was urged to flee London and move out into the countryside where he and his family would be safer during the frequent German bombings. Or to at least send the children. He refused. They all stayed in London, in order to set an example of courage (literally) under fire and to show that he would not give in. It was, I am told, a source of pride and inspiration to the Londoners.
You may also recall that in 2001 when major league baseball resumed after the attacks, that President Bush threw out the first pitch in Yankee stadium.
No such thing as courage in your world, hmmm? No such thing as a show of confidence? Maybe he trusts the security with the lives of his family, like he is asking us to do with ourselves?
CNN says different. Also, Drudge isn’t saying it; he’s reporting that the NY Times said it. I guess we can all trust the NY Times explicitly, too. It’s not as if the NYT ever had any erroneous reports. Or faked ones.
So, you think there WAS a threat, and think that Bush is brave and true for sending his wife and daughters into a possible fire zone? Well, bully for him in your eyes, I guess.
Yes Mehitabel, there is such a thing as courage in my world. I don’t think Laura, Jenna and Barbara going to NY took courage in the face of danger though, because I believe the terror alert of yesterday was bogus and politically motivated, just like the one on Saturday, just like the one on Thursday, just like the next one will be, and the one after that, and the one after that and the one after that.
The terrorists WILL strike again, but by then we’ll be so numbed and cynical no one will take the prior terror alert seriously.
This is a terrible cheap shot.
Is this yet another example of our President saying “Send anybody but me?” If it is all that brave and courageous a thing to do shouldn’t the President go himself? Should he really send his women folk into harms way while he is off gallivanting around the Midwest?