Does anyone think that the new terror warnings are politcally motivated? While I’d like to believe that this isn’t the case, this makes me consider otherwise:
So basically the information has been there for months, intelligence doesn’t believe the people are in the United States, the information isn’t enough to go to an orange warning level, but Ashcroft feels we need a reminder? What reminder? A reminder to stay vigilant? Or a reminder of the fear we are supposed to feel?
To predicate the timing of the news conference upon a “reminder” suggests that the administration is intent on keeping the country afraid and/or creating a distraction from the current “scandals” (for lack of a better word). Given that this isn’t new information, and the reason for the timing of the news conference is that it is a “reminder,” should we consider this another attempt to manipulate the public?
I thought it was interesting that when the news made these threats sound so dire, Ridge said the alert level wouldn’t be raised. Now it sounds like we don’t have any specific info (which has been the case every time the alert level has been raised), and that there isn’t even any new info that prompted the announcement. I don’t know if it’s simply motivated by Bush’s poll numbers, but it seems a bit weird.
Its a no-lose situation, from thier point of view. There is no downside to issuing such a warning. If nothing happens, they win, because thier diligence and vigilence averted the disaster. If something does, they win because they told us so, which proves that they know what they are talking about. If they get lucky, and somebody actually turns somebody in, then they really win, and have something to trumpet to the very skies.
And the people who are likely to suspect that they are full of shit are the same people who already suspect it.
I’m convinced they ARE politically motivated, although there may be some underlying intelligence, too. For instance, you may recall the great plastic-and-duct-tape warnings. I was convinced, at the time, that a news reporter who investigated Rumsfeld’s investments would find that he had bought large amounts of 3-M stock right before announcing that 3-M products would protect you. No one seems to have taken me up on it.
Can a President win at all these days? If he does something that is good for the country (not saying that this is), is it because he “justs wants to get re-elected?” This is just silly. It’s been said that Clinton didn’t bomb Osama when he had the chance because he didn’t want right-wingers to cry that he was just trying to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal. Bush visits the troops on Thanksgiving, something that they apparently really appreciated, and gets railed for conducting a shallow photo op. It’s a sad state of affairs when the President can’t do something he actually believes is right for fear of it being perceived as just a bid for re-election. If the Bush admin wanted to, they could create much better propaganda. Cut your fucking leaders a break already. Democracy certainly makes for the option to constantly criticize the current administration, whether Democrat or Republican, but it
doesn’t make it mandatory.
Haven’t seen you in a while elucidator. Welcome back?
Pelosi, Kerry, and the usual idiots will claim political motivation for any warning issued in 2004.
If Bush issues the warning, and nothing happens, it is because Bush and Ashcroft are evil facist racist war-mongerers racially profiling Arabs.
If Bush issues the warning, and something happens, it is because Bush and Ashcroft are evil incompetent racist murderers who didn’t do enough.
If Bush doesn’t issue the warning, and something happens, it is because Bush and Ashcroft are evil incompetent racist murderers who didn’t do anything.
If Bush doesn’t issue the warning and nothing happens, Bush and Ashcroft are evil facist racist murderer war-mongerers just because.
I, too, was annoyed once I got to the bottom of Ashcroft’s statement – there’s no compelling reason, aside from increased “chatter” apparently. I think elucidator has it down pretty good.
On the Other Hand, although I’m no great lover of Bush and his regime, I think that a warning about possible terrorist activity is timely and worth making – the possibilities should be obvious to anyone. (And here in the Boston area, you can’t miss it – they’re talking about shutting down the major interstate through downtown and public transit coming in from the North. How they expect commuters to get to work puzzles me – buses are going to be overburdened, and I’ll bet most of them won’t/can’t walk or bike.)
I just wuish they hadn’t made it sound as if they had bold new evidence that something was definitely going to happen. It’s too early for “warning fatigue”.
elicidator and shodan, my compliments to you both. Well said.
I have always believed as shodan does here. No matter what happens, the people that think that GWB eats freshly harvested infant hearts for breakfast will find something to complain about.
Conversely, the same thing has happened with a Democrat in power and will happen again. It seems that the opposing ideology is willing to trade credibility for naked partisanship these days, no matter who is in power.
This whole thing gets a big “duh” from me. I’ve been living under the assumption that AQ have been trying to launch another attack on the U.S. ever since 9/11, because that’s waht terrorists do - they keep on trying to top themselves. In fact, I was pretty sure that the only reason that there hasn’t been another WTC scale attack was that American security forces have been doing a good job preventing it. If I’m wrong, and Bin Laden wasn’t planning to start trying until this summer, well… it doesn’t say good things about the Bush Administration. I thought they were doing a good job, but it turns out that there hasn’t been any challange.
If there is no new evidence of a pending attack, then one must question the motivations of the new warnings. Bush has milked the terrorism cow long enough. It is he who keeps attempting to link the Iraq war with the battle against terrorism when in fact no link exists or ever existed. If these suspects are captured as a result of the new warning, then he will be the first to claim credit. If nothing happens, he will claim credit for having prevented it. If something does happen, then he’ll tout that as proof that we must keep on with his crusade.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this is meant to draw some heat from the troops in Iraq and the prisoner torture scandal.
Sorry if I’m so cynical, but the current administration has done almost everything humanly possible to deserve suspicion. I simply don’t trust any of them one iota, and I don’t think any of you should either.
No shiny tinfoil hat here. No paranoid partisan. Call me all the names you like, these folks are egregious crooks, and such actions are NOT beneath them. We’re in a completely illegal war justified by a campaign of misinformation that makes the Gulf of Tonkin Incident look like an episode of Punk’d, remember? What’s yelling fire in a movie theater next to invading another country for cheap oil and contracts, and then blaming it on Al Quaeda? These guys would exploit a little xenophobia as an attention-getter as readily as they would swat a mosquito, for crying out loud. Why should anyone expect different of them?
I doubt that there was any overtly political motivation for the terror threat warning. I think it was more a move made out of frustration. The U.S. has been looking for these characters and simply does not know where they are. By putting up the pictures, they will unleash a flood of tips. From these responses, one or two may actually pan out and lead to the capture of a few of the suspected terrorists. Whatever it does, it should give pause to those named in the announcement, at least for awhile.
Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post wonders the same thing in his White house Briefing. Intelligence reporter Dana Priest was suspicious enough to delay writing the story “to ask a wider range of people and certainly enough non-political types to feel certain we were not being spun.”
But my favorite part comes a little later in the article.
I’m certain this was just more sleight-of-hand, an attempt to direct public attention away from Iraq, dead soldiers, daily explosions and the torture photo’s. Coincidentally, NBC was running some new ugly prison photo’s yesterday as an exclusive that clearly show MI involvement in what was going on, blowing away the administrations protestations that these tortures were the work of a few lone wolf soldiers.
If they keep crying wolf, there will be no one to believe when/if something really does warrant a warning.
The SF Chronicle is running a story on this today, of course, with the expected denials of any political motivations by the administration:
I’m confused. What happened to the suspects who were supposedly in the country that they were supposedly looking for that I heard about on the news last night?
And if something happens, and they miss it, they’ll still look like big assholes. I mean, it appears there was credible information that possibly could have prevented 9/11, either directly or indirectly, but it slipped through the cracks.
I think they do the warning thing around the big holidays because so many people attend events that draw big crowds. I heard the new WWII memorial dedication is considered a possible target. There’s going to be a gajillion people there and it’s one of those symbolic targets that the bad guys would just love to hit (or so they say…)
Greater public vigilance, John, check. Problem is, a lot of us tend to equate “suspected Qaeda members/sympathizers” with “anyone who appears to be of Middle Eastern descent.” Thanks for getting our paranoia clocks back up to speed, though, and with no new real evidence! Bravo.
A thread like this graphically illustrates the mistrust that many Americans have for their politicians, whatever the stripe. On the CNN site yesterday, right below the article on Ashcroft’s warnings, was an op-ed piece about how a terrorist attack would impact the political scene. It’s no wonder we are all jaded.
As a country, we have been lied to incessantly by our presidents and politicians at least since Truman, with some serious ramping up starting with Nixon. Once politicians discovered ‘spin’ and how to manipulate the public through the media, it was (and continues to be) a gravy train for them.
I have no doubt that Ashcroft’s little spiel is at least in part politically driven and directed by the White House. I have no belief in coincidence when it comes to the relentless pursuit of power. A cowering public is easily manipulated; fear makes people docile.
It’s become nearly impossible to distinguish the lies from sincerity. It seems the mentality these days is that if one tells a lie with enough sincerity, and repeats it often enough, it will become a truth. Or at least a plausible enough lie to be acceptable to the majority of voters.
My evaluation of Bush’s handling of the terrorist threat is not dependant upon how many press conferences that are held. Rather, I’m more concerned about the substantive measures that are taken.
Shodan, one, quit playing the race card, nobody said anything to that effect. In fact, at the press conference they noted that Al Qaeda is looking to recruit people who are not Middle Eastern. Secondly, you’ve completely dodged the issue here. Do you have any response to it? Why was there a press conference and why did we get these messages right now, when there appears to be no new intelligence that prompted them?