# Terror Index up to Orange: I guess Bush was BSing the troops. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 21, 2003, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terror-index-up-to-orange-i-guess-bush-was-bsing-the-troops/220372 "2003-12-21T21:50:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terror-index-up-to-orange-i-guess-bush-was-bsing-the-troops/220372/61 "2003-12-22T22:42:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Corrado \* > There are at least three fallacious assumptions, there, **RT** , and you’re smart enough to know better. > > 1: You’re asserting that an event cannot help the War on Terror unless it leads to an _immediate_ reduction in the Alert Level- something that will help us six months down the road is, therefore, not helping and therefore pointless. By that token, freezing assets of terrorist supporters means nothing because the financial crunch won’t actually be felt by terrorists until months later. Where did I say this? I said the War on Saddam and the War on Terror were two independent wars: > [@](#): > > The threat level could have gone up this week, it could have gone down - and it wouldn’t have had squat to do with what’s going on over there. What I said was, _no matter which direction the threat level went, it wouldn’t have reflected what was happening in Iraq._ Maybe I should have spelt it out even _more_ clearly: the _sheer coincidence_ that the Terror Index went up, so closely on the heels of Easily The Best Week in Iraq Since April, _highlights_ their lack of connectedness. Not _proves_. _Highlights._ Look it up. > [@](#): > > 1. You’re asserting that an event cannot help the War on Terror unless it directly affects the United States at home; ergo, actions that lead to a more stable Middle East don’t help the War on Terror because it’s not actually taking place in the U.S. Again, you’re arguing against the highlight. > [@](#): > > 1. You’re asserting that helping the war on terror is only definable through a lowered alert status- even though an alert status only measures the _likelihood_ of attack, not the size or scope of the attack. Ditto. > [@](#): > > I mean, come on, **RT**. You’re asserting that because the war in Iraq has not led to an immediate reduction in the terror status, it was wrong. Nope. The war on Iraq was wrong for two reasons, even before it became apparent that the WMD threat was nonexistent: 1. Saddam was a relatively minor and well-contained threat to us, compared to several other entities in the world - most notably North Korea, Iran, our ally Pakistan, and of course Al-Qaeda; and 2. We had nothing remotely resembling a guarantee that there was a way to stabilize Iraq in the long term, under a government that represented a substantial improvement over Saddam. (I still haven’t heard the Administration theoreticians put forth even one plan for a stable Iraq, given the country’s religious and ethnic differences. Sunnis, Shi’ites, and Kurds - how does it work? But the dismantling of Saddam’s organization will get Iraq and Dubya through Election Day, and that’s all that matters.) But once again, Bush has _claimed_ that on account of what the troops are doing, “we don’t have to face [the terrorists] in our own country.” Tom Ridge is saying that we may shortly have to face the terrorists in our own country. Bush didn’t say, “Due to what you’re doing now, _there will come a time when we won’t have to face the terrorists in our own country._” If he’d said that, then you’d have had a point. And since Turkey Day was the _second_ time he’s used this line, it wasn’t just off the cuff; it’s what they wrote for him; it’s been vetted by the people who vet Presidential speeches for a President who okays the speeches and delivers them, but doesn’t write them. They claim it’s taking the heat off us _now_, that we’re fighting terrorists over there. They’re wrong. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terror-index-up-to-orange-i-guess-bush-was-bsing-the-troops/220372/62 "2003-12-23T00:44:16Z")
FWIW, when we last went to an Orange Alert (May 2003) our Department (not affiliated with DHS and/or DoD), passed along defined procedures with respect to the raised threat level within 24 hours. This time around we have yet to receive any required notifications. Now this could be because the DC-area bureaucrats are thin in number during this holiday week and have yet to get around to it, no official notification has been received (as required by procedure), and/or no notification is forthcoming. If the former two are correct, we should receive our required notifications before Wednesday, or someone in DC is not doing there job. However, if the latter, then the raised threat level undermines the (public) warning system because the official notices to federal agencies will never take place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terror-index-up-to-orange-i-guess-bush-was-bsing-the-troops/220372.md?page=3)