Was this just a spoiler for the DNC?

[skunk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3530358.stm

US terror plot intelligence 'old'

There are claims that new warnings of al-Qaeda attacks on US cities are based on old intelligence.

Security has been tightened around financial institutions in three cities, following the discovery of detailed information about them.

President George W Bush described the US as a "nation in danger".

But US newspapers say officials investigating the information believe much of it was compiled by al-Qaeda before the 11 September 2001 attacks.

The sources reportedly told the New York Times and Washington Post that they were unsure if Osama Bin Laden's network was still conducting surveillance on the sites.

The Post said officials believed much of the information was gathered by al-Qaeda from public sources like the internet.

Employees turned up for work this week despite the specific warnings against the New York Stock Exchange, the Citigroup Center building in New York, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank buildings in Washington DC, and Prudential Financial's headquarters in Newark, New Jersey.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice described the intelligence behind the warnings as being extraordinarily detailed and "unlike anything that I have seen".
Hmmm.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35466-2004Aug2.html
Pre-9/11 Acts Led To Alerts
Officials Not Sure Al Qaeda Continued To Spy on Buildings

By Dan Eggen and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 3, 2004; Page A01

Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and authorities are not sure whether the casing of the buildings has continued, numerous intelligence and law enforcement officials said yesterday.

More than half a dozen government officials interviewed yesterday, who declined to be identified because classified information is involved, said that most, if not all, of the information about the buildings seized by authorities in a raid in Pakistan last week was about three years old, and possibly older.

"There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."
Is someone playing games with intelligence warnings for political gain? Hard to believe, I know.

[Thomas Veil]

Is someone playing games with intelligence warnings for political gain? Hard to believe, I know.
Nooooo! :eek:

:rolleyes:

Seriously, if that turns out to be true, it'll turn out to be something of a blow for the Bush administration.

See, I want my president to come out and say, "We have newly-acquired, very specific information, but we're not sure about it's relevancy yet because it is several years old. It may be important, or it may not." I don't want my president getting everyone all stirred up without necessarily knowing what he's talking about.

Like...oh..."weapons of mass destruction".

[skunk]

See, I want my president to come out and say, "We have newly-acquired, very specific information, but we're not sure about it's relevancy yet because it is several years old. It may be important, or it may not." I don't want my president getting everyone all stirred up without necessarily knowing what he's talking about.
Dream on! :rolleyes:

[Don't panic]

Nooooo! if that turns out to be true, it'll turn out to be something of a blow for the Bush administration.

i refuse to believe that my Commander in Chief would do something like this. and if He did it's because Someone higher up told him so, so i'll vote him anyway

[Taft]

i refuse to believe that my Commander in Chief would do something like this. and if He did it's because Someone higher up told him so, so i'll vote him anyway

Emphasis mine.

OK, three things scare me about this statement.

1) You think there is someone higher up than the president.

2) You think the higher up is important enough to capitalize his title.

3) You don't care that Bush is a puppet being run by someone you didn't vote for so you'll vote for him again.


WTF. Pardon my naivete, but when I'm voting for President, I expect that I'm voting for the commander in chief. That is, the leader of the country. The highest authority for decisions about how to run the country. The fact that people are aware that Bush is a puppet and trust his "handlers" without even knowing who they are is indeed scary.

If this belief is widely held, I weep for America.

Taft

[skunk]

I think you missed the <sarcasm> tag in Don't Panic's post. At least I hope there was one... ;)

[skunk]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=547432

A nation in danger. Or a president in peril?

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington

03 August 2004

America was bracing itself last night after intelligence agencies warned al-Qa'ida could be planning to attack financial institutions on the East Coast and that its operatives had already carried out surveillance missions on the targets.

Police sealed off streets in New York, ordered international finance employees in Washington to go through extra security checks and added barricades and a heavy armed presence in Newark, New Jersey, after intelligence gathered in Pakistan identified that institutions in these cities were being targeted.

"We are a nation in danger," said President George Bush, after the nation's state of alert was raised to "orange" (high) on Sunday evening. "We are doing everything in our power to confront the danger. [This alert is ] a solemn reminder of the threat we continue to face"

Officials said the warning was based on information gathered following the unannounced arrest in Pakistan on 13 July of a computer engineer, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, 25, who allegedly operated an al-Qa'ida communications system. Warnings based on "documentary evidence" were passed to Washington last Friday, which, combined with other intelligence, reportedly led officials to raise the alert.

The US has issued numerous terror alerts since the attacks of September 2001, and some people were sceptical yesterday as to the nature of the administration's latest warning. The former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean highlighted the concerns of many without access to the information. "It's hard to know what to make [of it]. None of us outside the administration have access to the intelligence which led to this determination," he said.

"I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism," he told CNN. "His whole campaign is based on the notion that 'I can keep you safe, therefore, at times of difficulty for America, stick with me' and then out comes Tom Ridge. It's just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much of this is politics, and I suspect there's some of both in it."

But Mr Ridge, head of the Department of Homeland Security, and other officials insisted the information was "alarmingly" more specific than the usual intelligence chatter. Information recovered after Mr Khan's arrest was a "potential treasure trove", they said.

Officials said that institutions being targeted by al-Qa'ida included the New York Stock Exchange and the Citigroup buildings in Manhattan, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington and Prudential Financial in Newark, New Jersey.

Reports yesterday said that al-Qa'ida operatives had carried out surveillance of those institutions and The New York Times reported investigators in New Jersey said suspects had been found with blueprints of the Newark building and a "test-run" to launch a car-bomb or similar attack had been carried out in recent days.

In New York and New Jersey, police placed the target buildings under heavy security, closing some streets and banning trucks from bridges and tunnels leading to Wall Street. Michael Bloomberg, the New York mayor, and the Governor, George Pataki, rang the opening bell at the stock exchange in an effort to show confidence in the city's precautions. Despite such bravado, oil prices rose to near-record highs in trading as jittery markets reacted to the alert.

Given that America is in the middle of a closely fought election campaign, there was, perhaps, little surprise that some would accuse the Bush administration of playing politics. With an eye to possible criticism from Republicans, the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, felt the need to distance himself yesterday from Mr Dean's comments.

At the same time, there have been numerous terror alerts since the 11 September attacks that appear to have been based on little more than chatter. Some - such as the arrest of Jose Padilla, the alleged "dirty-bomber" - have been announced in a way designed to have maximum political impact. Other warnings have been based on information later shown to be incorrect.

In regard to the latest alert, Mr Ridge admitted the intelligence did not give crucial details about when, where or how terrorists might strike. Officials said, however, the information showed al-Qa'ida operatives had been scouting the targets, seeing how to make contact with employees, as well as traffic patterns and locations of hospitals and police posts.
Well, which is it?

[pseudobrit]

I made this observation yesterday. Over the weekend, the cable news networks were pretty wall-to-wall in their Kerry coverage, oftentimes to the point where I thought they were spending too much time on him.

Monday, Kerry was gone, with coverage favoring Tom Ridge & friends and GW talking about the latest threat while campaigning.

Mission Accomplished.

[Don't panic]

I think you missed the <sarcasm> tag in Don't Panic's post. At least I hope there was one... ;)

Thanks Skunk.

The thought that someone thought that those thoughts could actually be thought by someone is indeed a scary thought.

[skunk]

"We do not do politics at the Department of Homeland Security," Mr Ridge said. "Our job is to identify the threat."
ROFLMAO

[IJ Reilly]

"We do not do politics at the Department of Homeland Security," Mr Ridge said. "Our job is to identify the threat."

But they have identified the threat: Democrats.

[skunk]

Don't you find this cynicism (the Administration's, not yours) is getting too much? These guys are playing very fast and loose with the ethics of government (if that's not an oxymoron...). They are showing enormous contempt for the political process. Where's the anger? Where are the mass demonstrations? What happened?

:confused:

[amnesiac1984]

Thanks Skunk.

The thought that someone thought that those thoughts could actually be thought by someone is indeed a scary thought.

well I think there are many stupid enough to think like that, that is why I am generally scared most of the time. :p

[zimv20]

"We do not do politics at the Department of Homeland Security," Mr Ridge said. "Our job is to identify the threat."

where threat = Mr. Kerry, i presume

edit: IJR beat me to it. that'll teach me to load up 20 topics and read them at my leisure... :-)

[Taft]

Thanks Skunk.

The thought that someone thought that those thoughts could actually be thought by someone is indeed a scary thought.

Don't mind me. I'm just looking for a fight today. :p

Taft

[pseudobrit]

"We do not do politics at the Department of Homeland Security,"

What do they do, exactly? So far all we've gotten was this see-sawing yellowish-orange alert bar thingy (oh, you mean there are other colours, too?) that has predicted nothing and duct tape.

[pseudobrit]

Ridge also said, "This is not about politics. It's about confidence in government."

Anyone feel confident when the DoHS uses information older than the agency itself to run the latest round of its Chicken Little act?
---

Anyone else stunned by how date late/dollar short this warning is?

"New York financial centers and Washington may be targeted for terrorist attack, say intel sources from before 9/11," makes me think, "no ****!"

oil prices rose to near-record highs

Glad to see someone's getting rich.

[Lyle]

In yet another cheap attempt to play to Americans' patriotic feelings and distract voters from Kerry's campaign, the Statue of Liberty was re-opened today (story here (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/08/03/statue.of.liberty.ap/index.html)). If that weren't enough, the first hurricane of the year, Hurricane Alex (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WEATHER/08/03/alex/index.html), has "suddenly" popped up.

It's one thing for this administration to exploit a national symbol like Lady Liberty for political gain, but when they start manipulating the weather and potentially risking human lives just to bury coverage of their opponents, that's inexcusable.

[Neserk]

but when they start manipulating the weather and potentially risking human lives just to bury coverage of their opponents, that's inexcusable.


ROFL

[pseudobrit]

It's one thing for this administration to exploit a national symbol like Lady Liberty for political gain, but when they start manipulating the weather and potentially risking human lives just to bury coverage of their opponents, that's inexcusable.

Perhaps the Kobe trial will go full-bore (er, bad word choice) during the RNC.

[skunk]

I think they'll bring on UBL in chains.

[IJ Reilly]

I think they'll bring on UBL in chains.

While this (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=519032&selectedItemId=519009) plays over the sound system?

[skunk]

I see politically motivated reporting on all of the articles referenced. The terror alert is directly related to the computers recovered July 13th 2004. Would you rather that they come out with it during Kerry's speech?

Hypothetically, if you find some intelligence that says bob uses locker 13, and then 4 years later you find intelligence that bob has a bomb in a locker, does that make the news old news? Sure, you knew he used locker 13 for four years.

I think it is Kerry playing politics trying to write off this warning. Damn Bush, I sure wish we would get attacked without warning so they will vote him out of office.
Most of the information is 3-4 years old, with an update on one part from January 2004: that's already six months old. Sheer cynical politicking.

[blackfox]

I see what you are saying Stelliform (I think)...

This info was recently uncovered in Pakistan, and I suppose initially they did not have a reference to it's age and the subject matter is pretty compelling...

Still, I do think that if you are the government you might want to check the relevancy of the info (incl. time-frame) before you make a PUBLIC announcement, although it might be prudent to take precautionary steps in private.

Whether this was politically motivated vis-a-vis the DNC, I do not know...but I can say that it makes you look pretty stupid when you make a big scare, curb citizen's civil liberties and then retract the threat...especially when many people question the credibility of the Nation's intelligence-gathering...I mean, what's the point of all these warnings that are either vague or misleading, there does not seem to be a practical element and I believe much of the populace may fall into the "boy who cried wolf syndrome" which of course defeats much of the purpose of the warnings in the first place...

[skunk]

With new information from July 2004. Even if the computer only contained old intelligence that they gathered from 100 different sources, its being contained on the same computer ties it all together and makes it new intelligence.
Surely "their" job is to "tie it all together" as soon as they get it?

[Stelliform]

Surely "their" job is to "tie it all together" as soon as they get it?

But you have to question your source. Having a second copy of the intelligence is quite valuable as it validates the first. Having 5 locations stand out, out of the hundreds that they know al-Qa'ida surveilled is important intelligence.

[skunk]

OK, I'll accept that it's a moot point. Difficult to say more without knowing what was found in more detail.

[Stelliform]

OK, I'll accept that it's a moot point. Difficult to say more without knowing what was found in more detail.
Agreed.

[Neserk]

Aren't we blaming Bush anymore for the storms? :p


Those are the least of his problems.

[Colirio]

Well, I think it's interesting to see everyone try to analyze what has been released to the news media. Homeland Security gives virtually nothing of intel to the media to validate its claims as it could easily compromise their agents and contacts for future intel.

For everyone to dismiss this information simply because parts of it were initiated 4 years ago is preposterous IMO. We have no idea what current intel HS has come across recently that might validate those claims that were 4 years old.

[Ugg]

With new information from July 2004. Even if the computer only contained old intelligence that they gathered from 100 different sources, its being contained on the same computer ties it all together and makes it new intelligence.

Yeah, well what if that computer hasn't been used in 3 years? Does that make it new news? Sorry, but I'm not going to believe anything about catch 'em on Sunday, talk about 'em during the DNC and then CLAIM that a computer suddenly appeared out of the firmament and confirms a bunch of stuff that is 8 years old. Tom Ridge is nothing but Rove's political puppet. If this "evidence" is so earthshattering, then why don't they give us some specifics instead of regurgitated BS?

[pseudobrit]

For everyone to dismiss this information simply because parts of it were initiated 4 years ago is preposterous IMO.

Yeah. Where would I get the idea that "terrorists plan to strike NYC and Washington" might really be worthless old news?

They're three years too late with this warning.

[Thanatoast]

two things:

first, didn't we have a thread with this same topic last time they raised the alert to orange? wasn't it also conveniently politically timed, based on sketchy evidence, really vague, etc?

second, i love how tom ridge said, ~"we will show the terrorists we are not cowed, they have not won. we will not become fortress america", and then they shut down a two block radius around the nyse, did random bag searches, pulled over all trucks for inspection, and *then* told people, "don't worry when you go to work today". mixed messages? maybe a wee bit.

it's been a ****ty three years.

[toontra]

Well, I think it's interesting to see everyone try to analyze what has been released to the news media. Homeland Security gives virtually nothing of intel to the media to validate its claims as it could easily compromise their agents and contacts for future intel.

For everyone to dismiss this information simply because parts of it were initiated 4 years ago is preposterous IMO. We have no idea what current intel HS has come across recently that might validate those claims that were 4 years old.

I judge people, and organisations, on their past actions. Are you really suggesting that, after the farcical and manipulative "intelligence" we were fed about Iraq by your government in order to justify war, we should listen to stuff like this without snorting with derision!!

[Neserk]

I judge people, and organisations, on their past actions. Are you really suggesting that, after the farcical and manipulative "intelligence" we were fed about Iraq by your government in order to justify war, we should listen to stuff like this without snorting with derision!!

Exactly. The timing is obviuosl At least the media is keeping up on this stuff now instead of us finding out in 3 years that the intel was old. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be keeping an eye on financial institutions but I don't think raising the terror alert was anything but political.

[IJ Reilly]

The NewsHour had an interesting segment on this issue yesterday. Larry Johnson, a former CIA guy they have on regularly to discussion intelligence issues, was adamant that the DHS should not be issuing such vague warnings that don't allow anyone to take any proscriptive action.

Realaudio:

http://audio.pbs.org:8080/ramgen/newshour/expansion/2004/08/03/rs28.rm?altplay=rs28.rm

[Colirio]

I judge people, and organisations, on their past actions. Are you really suggesting that, after the farcical and manipulative "intelligence" we were fed about Iraq by your government in order to justify war, we should listen to stuff like this without snorting with derision!!

You are forgetting that a good portion of the intel we had about Iraq came from the intel sources APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT CLINTON. A good bit of the intel was gathered during the 8 years that Clinton was President and Bush didn't appoint new ones in their place. It was also based off of the old ways of intelligence gathering which included limiting what each department within the federal government was allowed to tell other departments.

Homeland Security is brand new and also uses brand new communications between the federal departments for sharing information. It was created specifically with the intent for anti-terror intel gathering. The policies and intelligence gathering techniques are actually quite different than the ones that have been used previously.

Regardless, the sole argument against this warning seems to be "look how convenient the timing of this information is." Is circumstantial speculation all that you can come up with to discredit this warning? You are actually willing to jeopardize the security of the nation in discrediting information based SOLELY on the premesis that you find the timing to be too convenient?

There have been accusations that this warning is politically motivated. I'd say the accusations AGAINST this warning are blatantly obvious in being politically motivated. Homeland Security has provided proof that is not only several years old but has also provided information regarding recent finds within captured computer documentation to support their reasonings behind this new warning. What proof has the naysayers used to discredit their claims?

[Thanatoast]

Regardless, the sole argument against this warning seems to be "look how convenient the timing of this information is." Is circumstantial speculation all that you can come up with to discredit this warning? You are actually willing to jeopardize the security of the nation in discrediting information based SOLELY on the premesis that you find the timing to be too convenient?

Bush went to war over circumstantial speculation. If it's good enough for the President, it's good enough for me, eh?

[toontra]

You are forgetting that a good portion of the intel we had about Iraq came from the intel sources APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT CLINTON. A good bit of the intel was gathered during the 8 years that Clinton was President and Bush didn't appoint new ones in their place. It was also based off of the old ways of intelligence gathering which included limiting what each department within the federal government was allowed to tell other departments.

Homeland Security is brand new and also uses brand new communications between the federal departments for sharing information. It was created specifically with the intent for anti-terror intel gathering. The policies and intelligence gathering techniques are actually quite different than the ones that have been used previously.

Regardless, the sole argument against this warning seems to be "look how convenient the timing of this information is." Is circumstantial speculation all that you can come up with to discredit this warning? You are actually willing to jeopardize the security of the nation in discrediting information based SOLELY on the premesis that you find the timing to be too convenient?

There have been accusations that this warning is politically motivated. I'd say the accusations AGAINST this warning are blatantly obvious in being politically motivated. Homeland Security has provided proof that is not only several years old but has also provided information regarding recent finds within captured computer documentation to support their reasonings behind this new warning. What proof has the naysayers used to discredit their claims?

You make too many assumptions.

Firstly, I'm not American, and I'm not a partisan Democrat who will absolve Clinton of all wrongdoing in any matter, so leave out the bold type.

Secondly, it's not the gathering of intelligence that worries me as much as the way the current US administration has collated, sifted, and then introduced it into the public arena. Are you denying that the anti-Iraq proclamations prior to, and during, war were political in motivation? It seems clear to me that they were made with the sole aim of substantiating a political objective - i.e. regime change in Iraq.

So why should I expect it to any different this time? As I said, I judge people by their previous actions and behavior. The current objective? - winning an election. If it looks, tastes and smells like ******, then it probably is!

[Colirio]

Bush went to war over circumstantial speculation. If it's good enough for the President, it's good enough for me, eh?

Simply not true. The intel to go to Iraq was not based upon circumstantial evidence. They used satellite photos, letters and other documentation, and many other types of evidences. You are simply spouting rhetoric with that statement.


I'm not American, and I'm not a partisan Democrat who will absolve Clinton of all wrongdoing in any matter,
Why is it that when I mention Clinton's name around here everyone always assumes I am casting blame at him for something? I used Clinton's name in reference to the fact that it wasn't just some new evidence that Bush was purporting in going to Iraq. It was based upon the evidences of others before him as well. I didn't accuse Clinton of any wrongdoing, so, your statement shows you didn't actually read what I wrote or weren't paying attention to it so, I believe it is YOU who has assumed too much. :)

It seems clear to me that they were made with the sole aim of substantiating a political objective
If that is your claim, then, yes, I am denying this being the truth. Bush's intentions were not trying to substantiate a political objective. Bush's objectives were based upon national security following the intel that the US had at the time. Any assumptions to the contrary are unsubstantiated themselves because they are based upon circumstantial theories. Nobody has proven anything to the contrary as yet. Nor has any hard evidence surfaced upon which to base such a claim.

As I said, I judge people by their previous actions and behavior.
You have nothing upon which to base any claims that the information coming from Homeland Security is politically motivated. So, according to your own statement, how can you be "judging" this to be that of a politically motivated threat? So far, they have thwarted SEVERAL terrorist attempts and have not been proven to make false threats thus far. So, by your own admission with this statement, shouldn't you be taking their threats seriously?

[zimv20]

Simply not true. The intel to go to Iraq was not based upon circumstantial evidence. They used satellite photos, letters and other documentation, and many other types of evidences.
analysis and collection are two different things. besides, do you think there are satellite photos of WMD? there's not -- it's photos of buildings, roads, desert. the photos themselves prove nothing.

what you're missing in all this:
1. bush and clinton had access to basically the same intel, yet took radically different approaches on how to deal w/ iraq
2. there was nothing found on the ground, just as blix and other inspectors had warned

the existence of WMD was a theory, and like all theories it can be proven or disproven. NOTHING HAS BEEN FOUND, therefore the theory has been disproven. why do you insist on presenting the february 2003 version of the theory over and over but ignore everything that's happened since?

you cite anti-bush bias on these threads, but our views have no causative effect on what's found on the ground in iraq. "proving" us wrong does not suddenly validate the WMD theory.

[Colirio]

<sigh> Honestly, why does every political debate these days come down to Iraq?

what you're missing in all this:
1. bush and clinton had access to basically the same intel, yet took radically different approaches on how to deal w/ iraq
2. there was nothing found on the ground, just as blix and other inspectors had warned

1. What you are missing in all this is that due to Clinton's and the UN's inaction in Iraq is that WMD might have actually made its way into terrorist hands already. 2. You are missing that there were 3 1/2 years time where Saddam had not allowed the weapons inspectors into Iraq.

Regardless of all this, our intel said he had them. Saddam did not live up to his end of the UN resolutions which made him a threat as it was HIS responsibility and burden of proof to prove he had done away with the WMD programs. He had already gassed his own people AND had attacked Kuwait.

the existence of WMD was a theory,
No, just because we haven't found them Iraq doesn't mean they don't exist. The 3 1/2 years alone should shed some doubt on them not existing. Was Saddam baking cookies during that time? :rolleyes: Not to mention that I have posted links previously about the ones that we have found. Then, there's the fact that he used them to gas the Kurds. Obviously, there is SOMETHING of validity to the "theory" of WMD.

Anyhow, I'll give you the final word on it though and let's get back on topic. ok? :)


So, does anyone actually have proof beyond that of a theory that Homeland Security's new threat is politically motivated and not a sincere threat? Bill Clinton was quoted recently as believing the threat was true along with a few other prominent Democrats. Interesting...

[zimv20]

Anyhow, I'll give you the final word on it though and let's get back on topic. ok? :)

okay, here it is:

if bush had said in feb 03 -- "saddam has several rusty warheads w/ traces of chemical weapons in them, and i'd like to spend $130 billion and send 135,000 troops to iraq to take care of that," few would have thought it was a good idea.

everything else, from "saddam gave them away" to "he used to have some", relies on faith and imagination to arrive at the "imminent threat / mushroom cloud" conclusion.

you talk of no one having evidence that the latest terror warning was politically motivated. $130 billion later, you still have no evidence that saddam was an imminent threat.

give me $130 billion and i'll prove that the terror warning was politically motivated. short that, i have neither the means nor the access to prove it, but there is evidence that makes it look that way. we're all welcome to how we read that evidence, but your demanding proof doesn't make it false.

[Colirio]

Well, you are absolutely correct in that statement! In fact, I have no more proof that it isn't politically motivated than you have proof of it being the case. I definately can't dispute that fact.

And you are definately correct as well about how people have the freedom to be able to interpret the situation in the way they see fit.

My whole point though has been that it seems to me that people are very ready to dismiss this threat from Homeland Security as being a political stunt. My whole thought on it is that by doing so, we put ourselves at risk. IF there is a chance that it is correct, I believe that we should take heed. Anything less could be dangerous on our part.

[zimv20]

My whole point though has been that it seems to me that people are very ready to dismiss this threat from Homeland Security as being a political stunt. My whole thought on it is that by doing so, we put ourselves at risk. IF there is a chance that it is correct, I believe that we should take heed. Anything less could be dangerous on our part.
i'm not certain anyone is dismissing it, the controversey is the timing of it. IF it's true that the administration speeds up or delays its announcements of things in order to grab headlines and help itself politically, is that a bad thing? i put that question to you.

[Colirio]

IF it's true that the administration speeds up or delays its announcements of things in order to grab headlines and help itself politically, is that a bad thing?

Absolutely! I don't think there should be anything political about Homeland Security. It shouldn't be a tool for that purpose at all. It was designed to help us be prepared as a nation to be more secured and informed of terrorist threats.

IF the President was found to be using it for political gain, I would actually be extremely angry as it is something that I have entrusted to be "fair and balanced." (Fox news logo fits here. :p ) It HAS to be non-political or else it honestly is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[letterbox]

Absolutely! I don't think there should be anything political about Homeland Security. It shouldn't be a tool for that purpose at all. It was designed to help us be prepared as a nation to be more secured and informed of terrorist threats.

IF the President was found to be using it for political gain, I would actually be extremely angry as it is something that I have entrusted to be "fair and balanced." (Fox news logo fits here. ) It HAS to be non-political or else it honestly is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

To prepare us as a nation to be more secure and informed would include releasing the information and at the same time stating that, indeed it is 3 years old.

So basically, with out going too in depth, DoHS could have said the following and received less flak...

"New intelligence found on a computer in Pakistan indicates that three years ago al-Qaida had in great detail scouted and recorded information about financial institutions in New York and DC."

yada yada...yada...?

[pseudobrit]

IF the President was found to be using it for political gain, I would actually be extremely angry as it is something that I have entrusted to be "fair and balanced." (Fox news logo fits here. :p ) It HAS to be non-political or else it honestly is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

How would we find proof that the Dept. was being used for political purposes? Must we wait for a whistleblower?
Will anyone listen to a whistleblower anyway (I'm remembering this administration's past treatment of such "troublemakers")?

[Colirio]

As I stated before, Homeland Security doesn't give out many of its details for a reason. It could easily compromise future intel. For instance, in this case, just the fact that they released so much information about them getting intel from the computer could possibly make it so that Al Quaeda members will encode their computer equipment differently and change their whole system just in case more is captured in the future.

Just little bits of intel that they release to the public is dangerous to future intelligence sources.

The CIA doesn't give out its intel sources. The FBI doesn't give out its intel sources. Why should Homeland Security be forced to do so?


EDIT: You raise an interesting question Brit! Unfortunately, the way it is designed at this time, there is no way of knowing. We just have to trust in their word. Same thing with other federal government agencies. So far, though, their track record has been pretty good, so, there really is no reason to distrust HS. If the time comes when this isn't th case anymore, then things will need to be reevaluated.

[zimv20]

Will anyone listen to a whistleblower anyway (I'm remembering this administration's past treatment of such "troublemakers")?
how much respect are ms. rowley and ms. edmonds getting these days?

[toontra]

<sigh> Honestly, why does every political debate these days come down to Iraq?

1. What you are missing in all this is that due to Clinton's and the UN's inaction in Iraq is that WMD might have actually made its way into terrorist hands already. 2. You are missing that there were 3 1/2 years time where Saddam had not allowed the weapons inspectors into Iraq.

Regardless of all this, our intel said he had them. Saddam did not live up to his end of the UN resolutions which made him a threat as it was HIS responsibility and burden of proof to prove he had done away with the WMD programs. He had already gassed his own people AND had attacked Kuwait.


... just because we haven't found them Iraq doesn't mean they don't exist. The 3 1/2 years alone should shed some doubt on them not existing. Was Saddam baking cookies during that time? :rolleyes: Not to mention that I have posted links previously about the ones that we have found. Then, there's the fact that he used them to gas the Kurds. Obviously, there is SOMETHING of validity to the "theory" of WMD.

Anyhow, I'll give you the final word on it though and let's get back on topic.

I think we are very much on topic. We are talking about how much trust we can put in Government statements based on "intelligence".

Colirio, you seem to be living in some strange parallel universe where what you are told by your leaders takes precedence over what actually exists in the real world, where fuzzy arial photos and pronouncements of "imminent peril" are taken as fact, even when subsequently contradicted by the facts.

On that basis, your reassurements of a benign Government merely issuing terror statements for the public good are as deluded as they are absurd.

[blackfox]

From the NYT Editorials...

Our lives have changed so much since Sept. 11, 2001. We know that we may never again be free of the threat of terrorism. It's been a tough adjustment for everyone, and the burden on President Bush is especially heavy. Given the unprecedented circumstances and the costs of making a mistake, it's easy to understand why the administration has had so much trouble managing the way it informs the public about potential danger. But after 17 months in which alerts blinked from yellow to orange and back a half-dozen times, the White House should be past its learning curve. It isn't. The events of this week showed starkly that the system is not working.

The administration was obviously right to warn the country that Al Qaeda had apparently studied financial institutions in three cities with the idea of a possible attack. But the delivery of the message was confusing. The color-coded threat chart doesn't serve the purpose for which it was invented, and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is hopeless as a public spokesman on this issue. The Bush administration needs to come up with a method of communication that informs the public in a calm, clear way. Perhaps most important, people need to be made totally confident that this critical matter is not being tangled up in the presidential campaign.

The alert system has always rested on a precarious balance. Local officials must have up-to-date information about possible danger. Private citizens need to know, too, so they can make informed choices and be on the lookout for trouble. But it is possible to go overboard. Ratcheting up the warning level creates huge costs for city and state governments. And if Americans are warned too often, and too shrilly, they will become inured to terror alerts.

In the past, Mr. Ridge and others have talked ominously about intelligence that they have routinely described as the most alarming since 9/11, without providing details. This week they were specific: the five financial institutions were in danger of being bombed in the "near term." The terror alert was raised to orange for those sites in New York, Washington and New Jersey. But things quickly lapsed into confusion. For three days, officials at news conferences and background briefings said their concerns were based on new information, then old information, then back to new information. Many people were scared out of their wits on Monday, cynical on Tuesday and befuddled by yesterday.

Mr. Bush should junk the color bars, which are now of use mostly to late-night comedians. Ordinary people have no way of calibrating their lives to the color ladder. It does them no good to be told to be scared, more scared or really scared, especially when they are also being told to act as if nothing's wrong. Unless the government is prepared to tell people to stay home from work, there's no reason to keep lighting the terror lamps. What we need is information that we can use, not another shot of adrenaline.

We would have been happy last weekend if a senior official more adept than Mr. Ridge had called a news conference to say what the government knew and what defensive measures had been taken. Instead, he spoke in apocalyptic terms, then produced an "intelligence official" who offered more detail and more alarming words, anonymously. Later that day, and on the next day and the day after, other officials spoke off the record, providing additional information that made the situation seem much more complicated.

There's a practical aspect to the terror alerts that the administration must address to demonstrate its own commitment. The higher alert levels require local governments to take enormously expensive actions, for which Washington is not paying its share. The Homeland Security Department has made it clear that New York City is the spot that comes up most frequently in terrorism-related intelligence, yet money continues to be doled out in a manner that has much more to do with elections than genuine danger. It's shocking that Washington has not followed through on its own information by underwriting the protections cities need to stay safe.

Finally, there is the matter of politics. The Bush administration expressed outrage at the suggestion that there could be any politics behind any of its warnings, but the president has some history to overcome on this issue. There is nothing more important for Mr. Bush to do every day until Nov. 2 than to make it clear that he would never hype a terror alert to help his re-election chances. It is a challenge complicated by the fact that he is running on his record against terrorism and is using images of 9/11 and the threat of more attacks to promote his candidacy. The president's credibility on national security issues was gravely wounded by the way he misled Americans, intentionally or not, about the reasons for invading Iraq - including the suggestion that the war was part of the campaign against Al Qaeda.

Some of the past terror alerts have seemed aimless and happened when the Bush administration would have benefited from a change in the political conversation. On Sunday, when the administration had grim and specific information to convey, Mr. Ridge did a real disservice to himself, his president and the public by giving what amounted to a campaign pitch for "the president's leadership in the war against terror.''

It's hard to write that off as an offhand comment. If Mr. Ridge is to continue in this role, he must stay out of the election; using him as a campaign surrogate would be disastrous for public confidence. The administration should also stop dropping dark hints about Al Qaeda's having election-related motives to attack, as if a vote against the current president were appeasement.

Americans are stone-cold serious when it comes to potential terror attacks - there is no need to worry about making them pay attention. We have learned since Sept. 11, 2001, to value every day in which nothing terrible happens as a gift and an opportunity. The Bush administration has been given the same blessing. Every morning the president and his deputies are challenged not only to renew their war against potential terrorists, but also to earn the confidence of the people they aim to protect.

Now I think this is practical and honest enough appraisal of the situation and what concerns need to be addressed.

To those who would like to shift the debate to the Democrats, to the Media, past Presidents, or whomever...I would like to remind them that it is the current President's responsibility to address and clarify these issues, because he is, after all, the President. It is his job and no-one else has the power to do it for him...

You may thank insomnia...

[skunk]

A fine example of Fairness and Balance™

[blackfox]

Skunk, I'm sorry, my sarcasm meter is broken...care to recalibrate it for me?

[skunk]

Skunk, I'm sorry, my sarcasm meter is broken...care to recalibrate it for me?
Sorry, I'm still busy repairing my roof... :D

[Colirio]

On that basis, your reassurements of a benign Government merely issuing terror statements for the public good are as deluded as they are absurd.

I hardly think that casting insults at one another is considered to be "on topic" either, sir. You provided no further proof of anything and nothing with which to advance the discussion. Instead, you told me that my arguments were absurd without providing a basis for such beliefs other than making assumptions about me and my beliefs.



Blackfox, thank you for responding kindly and posting that article. There are some things that the author of that editorial doesn't seem to take into account IMO:

1. The issue of the color coding - The color coding of terror alert levels isn't new. It was instituted years ago by GSA. (General Services Administration) The color coding did not pertain to the citizens as much as it did to the governmental agencies. By changing the color system to a different color, it actually changes the security policies of the different governmental agencies. Different security measures are taken, different agencies depending upon what security code they fall under also could be closed or opened during that time. The changing of those colors currently is essentially the same thing in that it really doesn't affect the citizens at large. It still only really pertains to the governmental agencies and how they need to structure their policies for a period of time.

2. The information being old was explained already - Homeland Security has stated that the information was originally based upon intel that was years old that they were already aware of. Friday night they discovered information from a computer that corroborated with the intel that they already had. It verified their previous intel.

The amount of intel that Homeland Security obtains on a daily basis is staggering! There are literally THOUSANDS of reports issued daily and from those they have to be able to verify certain points in order for them to be processed. The fact that they issued this warning based off of this secondary piece of information is what makes me wonder why they would issue a warning. I tend to think that they most likely have OTHER intelligence sources that are also corroborating this evidence of which they make no mention due to keeping their sources secured. To me, that would make much more sense than that of a political motivation.

3. "Mr. Ridge did a real disservice to himself, his president and the public by giving what amounted to a campaign pitch for "the president's leadership in the war against terror.''

And this last part is what gets me about his article. The President and Tom Ridge both have been accused of political motivations behind the issuing of the warnings previously. So, it would only make sense that when issuing this warning Mr. Ridge would be sure to stress that the President was doing a great deal of "good" in the War on Terror. It backs up Homeland Security's assessments for him to do so. So, why is he being attacked for this? Is he not supposed to defend his decisions along with the President's?

Again, thank you for responding kindly. :)

[skunk]

1. The issue of the color coding - The color coding of terror alert levels isn't new. It was instituted years ago by GSA. (General Services Administration) The color coding did not pertain to the citizens as much as it did to the governmental agencies. By changing the color system to a different color, it actually changes the security policies of the different governmental agencies. Different security measures are taken, different agencies depending upon what security code they fall under also could be closed or opened during that time. The changing of those colors currently is essentially the same thing in that it really doesn't affect the citizens at large. It still only really pertains to the governmental agencies and how they need to structure their policies for a period of time.
Of course it affects the citizens at large. It restricts their freedom of movement, it costs them money to enforce, and, by publishing a constantly changing spectrum of warnings, they can only be actively seeking to affect the population's perception. If they are only for govt agencies, why publish them?

[mactastic]

Yeah it's not like these shifts in terror threat warning level are done in a low-key manner. Every time Tom Ridge is out there in front of the cameras informing us of more threats to the US, often at prime news times as opposed to items the administration wants to keep low-key that are released on a Friday evening.

[Colirio]

Of course it affects the citizens at large. It restricts their freedom of movement, it costs them money to enforce, and, by publishing a constantly changing spectrum of warnings, they can only be actively seeking to affect the population's perception. If they are only for govt agencies, why publish them?

Of course they are meant to have SOME effect on the citizenry as well. That is why they are published through the media. But, ONLY in the capacity that they would be more observant than normal for things that are out of the ordinary. I assumed that this point should have been obvious and so I didn't go further into detail. My fault... :rolleyes:

However, the private sector really isn't affected by this as much as the government agencies are by these warnings. When was the last time that you actually saw something in the private sector change when a terror alert was issued? In this last case, those specific companies were targeted and so change was enacted for them, but, did anything actually change other than in those areas of interest? Last time the orange alert was issued, did you actually see any changes made in the private sector?


The fact is, in a free society, it is impossible to maintain complete security for the citizens. All the government can do is issue warnings to people to be on guard. And those government warnings cannot contain all of the information they used to assess the situation because it compromises the intelligence sources.

[skunk]

Of course they are meant to have SOME effect on the citizenry as well. That is why they are published through the media. But, ONLY in the capacity that they would be more observant than normal for things that are out of the ordinary. I assumed that this point should have been obvious and so I didn't go further into detail. My fault... :rolleyes:
The very fact they are published means that the media have to take it seriously, and it takes over the headlines, which means timing is everything.

However, the private sector really isn't affected by this as much as the government agencies are by these warnings. When was the last time that you actually saw something in the private sector change when a terror alert was issued? In this last case, those specific companies were targeted and so change was enacted for them, but, did anything actually change other than in those areas of interest? Last time the orange alert was issued, did you actually see any changes made in the private sector?
If nothing changes, isn't it even more of a cynical exercise? Even if it's only taxpayers' money being spent, it's still wasted if it's for nothing.

The fact is, in a free society, it is impossible to maintain complete security for the citizens. All the government can do is issue warnings to people to be on guard. And those government warnings cannot contain all of the information they used to assess the situation because it compromises the intelligence sources.
If the sources are three years old, I doubt it.

[Colirio]

If nothing changes, isn't it even more of a cynical exercise? Even if it's only taxpayers' money being spent, it's still wasted if it's for nothing.
I said that the PRIVATE SECTOR doesn't really change unless it is something specific that is targeted. The government agencies already have their policies and they impliment them whenever the alert is given to their department. So, your statement doesn't really make sense to me since I already answered that question. Are you making another point here that I am missing? :confused:


The very fact they are published means that the media have to take it seriously, and it takes over the headlines, which means timing is everything.
Yes, that is correct. They found the intel on Friday night and released the warning on Sunday. Why is that so strange?


If the sources are three years old, I doubt it.
As Homeland Security has already stated and as has been reported more than enough recently, the information leading to this warning was dicovered last Friday night. It happened to match information that they have been gathering for a few years now, so, they released a warning. Honestly, why do you keep dismissing this information as being old when they CLEARLY have stated the corroborating evidence was found last Friday night?