# is "the war on terror" a sham? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 2, 2004, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-on-terror-a-sham/258022 "2004-08-02T20:55:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![toftdahl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@toftdahl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toftdahl)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-on-terror-a-sham/258022/21 "2004-08-03T05:16:22Z")
**Equiprose** - You said nothing that would even come close to indicate the administration did this for political gain. Simply because GWB allowed his wife to stand there? That is hardly proof of any kind. Is it suspicious? Nah. As Dean said, he has no access to the information used to set these levels. I just don’t see where your info really relates to what I said. Please note I indicated that he should be impeached if used for _political gain_. That would mean not just politics, but manipulating the people for his own gain. ---
**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 3, 2004, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-on-terror-a-sham/258022/22 "2004-08-03T07:19:29Z")
> [@toftdahl](#): > > **Equiprose** - You said nothing that would even come close to indicate the administration did this for political gain. Simply because GWB allowed his wife to stand there? That is hardly proof of any kind. Is it suspicious? Nah. > > As Dean said, he has no access to the information used to set these levels. > > I just don’t see where your info really relates to what I said. Please note I indicated that he should be impeached if used for _political gain_. That would mean not just politics, but manipulating the people for his own gain. I only have my own opinions, which I couldn’t articulate anywhere near well enough to debate. How could it be proven short of tapes of conversations between the relevant parties? Without a whistleblower, the people who think that Bush is using terror alerts politically are going on gut instinct, circumstantial evidence and, yes, partisanship. For me, the pieces are damning. For you they’re not. An article that should be in (checks watch) today’s New York Times points out that the info that Sunday’s terror alert was based on dates from before September 11. [Reports That Led to Terror Alert Were Years Old, Officials Say](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/politics/03intel.html?ex=1091592000&en=f211a9d11083ac4b&ei=5059&partner=AOL) (requires free registration) > [@](#): > > Aug. 2 -Much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas was **three or four years old** , intelligence and law enforcement officials said on Monday. They reported that they \*\*had not yet found concrete evidence \*\* that a terrorist plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way. > [@](#): > > The officials said on Monday that they were still analyzing computer records, photos, drawings and other documents, seized last month in Pakistan, which showed that Qaeda operatives had conducted extensive reconnaissance. > [@](#): > > A sizable part of the information seized in Pakistan described reconnaissance carried out **before the Sept. 11 attacks** , officials said. The documents do not indicate who wrote the detailed descriptions of security arrangements at the financial buildings or whether the surveillance was conducted for a current operation or was part of preparations for a plan that was later set aside. I wonder if the World Trade Center was mentioned in any of these documents. > [@](#): > > Federal authorities said on Monday that they had uncovered \*\*no evidence \*\* that \*\*any of the surveillance activities \*\* described in the documents **was currently under w** ay. > [@](#): > > Another counterterrorism official in Washington said that it was not yet clear whether the information pointed to a current plot. "We know that Al Qaeda routinely cases targets and then puts the plans on a shelf without doing anything,’’ the official said. > [@](#): > > The information, which officials said was indicative of preparations for a possible truck- or car-bomb attack, left significant gaps. It did **not clearly describe the suspected plot, indicate when an attack was to take place nor did it describe the identities of people involved.** > [@](#): > > Senior counterterrorism and intelligence officials based in Europe said the information targeting the five buildings was **developed** by Qaeda operatives **before Sept. 11, 2001**. So, why now? Why Sunday? And why send his wife and daughters into a “targeted” building, when the threat was taken seriously enough so that… > [@](#): > > The concern about the possibility of an attack was apparent on Monday. Armed guards were positioned at the five targets listed by Mr. Ridge: the New York Stock Exchange and the Citigroup buildings in Manhattan, the headquarters of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Washington and Prudential Financial in Newark. The buildings were subjected to their highest level of security since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, with barricades, rapid-response teams and bomb-sniffing dogs providing rings of protection. To my eyes, if the threat was real and immediate, he sent his family into harm’s way for political purposes. If the threat was real but not immediate, it sure was a handy way to get John Kerry off the front page. It’s obvious now that the threat was NOT real and immediate, and it was a handy way of getting John Kerry off the front page. But then, I’m way cynical. Political or not, these constant terror alerts are a bad idea. Right now, their only use is to terrorize the population, make other countries think we’re even more daft, let the real terrorists have a good laugh at our expense, and waste time, energy and money that could be better spent elsewhere. Some day we WILL get attacked, but by then, the boy will have cried wolf so often, that no one will hear the warnings. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-on-terror-a-sham/258022/23 "2004-08-03T08:07:48Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > One big problem with conspiracy theories like this is the total number of people who would have to be “in” on the conspiracy to make it work. How many conspirators do you need to decide, “We’ll only send 15,000 troops into Afghanistan, save the rest for Iraq”? Or, similarly, “I don’t care about the nut who had explosives in his sneaker, a total ban on matches for airline flights is out of the question”? Doing a half-assed job of fighting terrorism can easily be done by a handful of folks – as long as they’re folks in the right places. ---
**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 3, 2004, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-on-terror-a-sham/258022/24 "2004-08-03T08:14:18Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > It’s obvious now that the threat was NOT real and immediate, and it was a handy way of getting John Kerry off the front page. To clarify, I don’t mean that I think the information was made up out of thin air. I’m not THAT cynical, not yet anyway . I just meant that the information consisted of nothing more than reports that reconnaissance was done, but no indications that it was still going on. That’s not a real, immediate threat to me. I do realize that plans for 9/11 were made many years in advance, so indications of 3-4 year-ago plans would be enough to perk up the ears of law enforcement, but to call a terror alert? It seems a bit much with so little to go on. ---
**Author:** ![rngadam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/97f17d/32.png) [@rngadam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rngadam)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-on-terror-a-sham/258022/25 "2004-08-03T15:53:13Z")
> [@toftdahl](#): > > You’re kidding, right? You want to hold Israel up as an example of a land without terrorist attacks and peace in our time? You must read different news than do I. The difference is that they have been fighting terrorists for decades… I don’t think Americans would be doing better in the same situation using their current methods. Considering their situation they are certainly working it out better; they face attacks daily but at least they’ve been able to counter a lots of those attacks. Of course, the real solution would be to attack the root of the problem (poverty and lack of future for many of these people)… ---
**Author:** ![toftdahl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@toftdahl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toftdahl)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2004, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-on-terror-a-sham/258022/26 "2004-08-03T16:21:55Z")
I can’t believe I’m defending GWB. I hate the man with every fiber of my being. But here goes… > [@Equipoise](#): > > How could it be proven short of tapes of conversations between the relevant parties? Without a whistleblower, the people who think that Bush is using terror alerts politically are going on gut instinct, circumstantial evidence and, yes, partisanship. For me, the pieces are damning. For you they’re not. You can’t prove it. And without proof, the only way to use your gut instinct is at the voting booth. Do you really think we should impeach based on partisanship and gut instincts? > [@Equipoise](#): > > So, why now? Why Sunday? Good question considering how old the information is. I’d really like to hear an explanation for that as well. > [@Equipoise](#): > > And why send his wife and daughters into a “targeted” building For political gain, no doubt. But sending your wife and child is a lot different than setting the terror alert to begin with. I’ve no problem with him using his wife and family for political gain. Well, no problem in the sense I think it warrants impeachment. > [@Equipoise](#): > > But then, I’m way cynical. So am I, believe it or not. I don’t doubt that most of these terror alerts ARE being used for political gain. But again, the administration is in a no win situation. It is our own damn fault for allowing these alerts to be used this way. > [@Equipoise](#): > > Political or not, these constant terror alerts are a bad idea. Right now, their only use is to terrorize the population, make other countries think we’re even more daft, let the real terrorists have a good laugh at our expense, and waste time, energy and money that could be better spent elsewhere. Agreed. The problem is that the terrorists aren’t going to take out a full page ad in the NYT telling us when they will strike. The admin has to go with the best info and gut instincts they have. The public is screaming for this and they are getting exactly what they wished for. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-war-on-terror-a-sham/258022.md?page=1)