Terror alert info 3-4 years old.

[techs]

From todays NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/po...3intel.html?hp

WASHINGTON, 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 story does go on to state that Al-Qaeda has taken years on their projects.
My question comes down to two possible coincidences.

First. Two days after Kerry picked Edwards as his running mate Homeland Security director Tom Ridge holds a press conference to warn of undisclosed threats. Yet the FBI which meets with Ridge along with the CIA said they were not told of his press conference and no new info was discussed at that meeting. And that the FBI and CIA were not told he was doing a press conference that day. (btwThe CIA doesn't comment about anything). So a person could ask was this a way to capture news time away from Kerry-Edwards.

Second. Two days after the Democratice National Convention, Security director Tom Ridge holds a press conference to warn of possible attacks. The Times has a story saying there was little if any new information came in.

Regardless of what happened in these two cases what would be your reaction to find an admistration (Bush, Kerry, whoever) had attempted to use terror alerts for political gain?
Do you feel that it should be a crime?

[Ya_know]

Regardless of what happened in these two cases what would be your reaction to find an admistration (Bush, Kerry, whoever) had attempted to use terror alerts for political gain?
Do you feel that it should be a crime?

I don't believe that this was done intentionally, however if your theory proves to be correct, then yes, it should be a crime. something like this shouldn't be used as a dog and pony show just to control the media top stories.

I sincerely believe that the best interest of America was in consideration here, however I am basing that mostly on faith right now. Fact is, something like this didn’t need to be so widely publicized to the degree that it was. All police, and appropriate civic services should have been briefed to the specifics of the new threat, and a story run in all of the news stations, but to raise the alert, and emphasize that there was such a clear danger…without disclosing the age of the evidence does sound like a folly of noticeable proportion. You don’t have to be a liberal to notice that…

[techs]

Despite my admitted feelings I tried to word it so that the issue was what's important. I agree with Ya_know. We need to hold all politicians to the greater good on this one. If you use terrorist alerts for political purposes you will be out on your a**. We really need to know that when there is an alert its for real.

[Ya_know]

One thing to point out that's good about this alert, by showing the world, which we know is watching, that we are taking all threats seriously, this effectively helps slam shut windows of opportunity. If there was indeed a plan in progress for these specific targets, and an implementation was nearing, the entire job may have just gotten scratched. That my friend is just as much a success as finding the crew and making an arrest the day they wanted to plant the bomb. Additionally, the terrorists are going to learn now that we do take every piece of intel we discover very seriously...in the effect more windows are closing...that is still an overall victory, and that is what I sincerely believe the recent terror alert was geared towards.

My theory is mo'bett'a than yours!

[amyb]

I think you would also complain if the threat wasn't taken seriously. For god's sakes what do what? Better safe than sorry and have another 9/11.

[techs]

More news on the "Alert"
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ty_alert_dc_27

The decision to warn key U.S. financial centers they may be attacked by al Qaeda was based largely on three-year old information, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said on Tuesday, but he insisted the threat was still real.

But he insisted al Qaeda had updated its surveillance of financial buildings, "as recently as January this year."

So I guess it was 8 month old info, not 3-4 year old info.
It really smells bad.

[imaeditedbysowulo]

I would be extremely pissed if it is found that this last alert was even slightly politically motivated. Immediate removal from duties for any and all who are involved.

[Cleetus]

Even if it is, do you honestly think that anyone in the Bush party actually responisble will fess up?

[imaeditedbysowulo]

Even if it is, do you honestly think that anyone in the Bush party actually responisble will fess up?

No but it looks like someone is interested in gathering enough evidence to make it impossible for them to deny it. Reminds me of the WMD's and prisoner treatment subjects.

It's not happening, it's not happening! Ok, it has happened but it's just an isolated incident. Well we actually did that on purpose but he had a very good reason, besides it's still better than "XXXXXX" (insert horrible act of terror committed against the US).

Can't wait for November. I'm thinking about not even paying attention to the ballot card and instead voting against every single incumbent across the board.

[Zil]

We never know what raising the terror alert is actually doing, since there have been no attacks on our soil since Sept. 11. We could be foiling several plots to disrupt our economy or kill citizens, but we don't really see if we are successful or not. You could say that its working because there are no attacks, but that could be entirely false, since there may not be any attacks at all.

Of course, if there was a terrorist attack during any administration (Bush or Kerry), the other side would automatically blame that administration for not alerting us or doing something about it (9/11 commission).

So its basically damned if you do, damned if you dont.

[Zil]

More news on the "Alert"
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ty_alert_dc_27



So I guess it was 8 month old info, not 3-4 year old info.
It really smells bad.

@techs
Everything smells bad to someone who stinks.



LA Times story here:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...eats&printer=1

[techs]

@techs
Everything smells bad to someone who stinks.



LA Times story here:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...eats&printer=1

From your link:

Some of the surveillance files that triggered the nation's latest terrorism alert were reviewed and updated by Al Qaeda just months ago

by months ago do they mean January like every other paper is saying?

and dovetail with other, fresh intelligence that indicates the terrorism network remains intent on launching a major U.S. attack during the presidential election campaign, U.S. authorities said Monday.

so there was nothing indicating an attack on the day of the warning or even the week or month. But sometime in the next 3 months? Are we going to be at this state of alert til the election?

the point I have made is why two days after the Democratic convention and why two days after Kerry picked Edwards?
The first time with NO evidence of anything new. The second also with nothing newer than January. It stinks.

[Zil]

But several senior U.S. counterterrorism officials said that the surveillance, obtained in Pakistan and reviewed late last week by authorities in Washington, came amid a continuing stream of intelligence corroborating Al Qaeda's determination to launch strikes in the U.S.

On Monday, U.S. officials said that the Al Qaeda surveillance files were found in the possession of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, 25, an Al Qaeda computer expert who was arrested in Pakistan in mid-July.

But in a briefing, White House homeland security advisor Frances Townsend described the intelligence as coming not just from Khan but from "multiple reporting streams that came together in such a way to give us real grave concern."

Good intelligence. Mutliple sources. Would you sit on your @ss and let them plot and get prepared for an attack on us? No. Would it make a difference on the timing of the alerts? Yes, but what if they planned on attacking during or after the convention? If it was totally politically motivated, Bush would have raised the alert the day of Kerry's speech or shut the convention down or something like that, not these small terror alerts.

Again, Bush is screwed. He can't protect the country with terror alerts (for fear of people calling it fearmongering and politically motivated) and he can't sit by and let the terrorists attack us ("Its all Bush's fault we were attacked").

If we have to be on alert until the election, so be it. We already have intelligence that they will try to disrupt the election.


I wonder if Osama was captured in the next month or two, would it be politically motivated too? Probably, according to you.

[Cleetus]

Good intelligence. Mutliple sources. Would you sit on your @ss and let them plot and get prepared for an attack on us? No. Would it make a difference on the timing of the alerts? Yes, but what if they planned on attacking during or after the convention? If it was totally politically motivated, Bush would have raised the alert the day of Kerry's speech or shut the convention down or something like that, not these small terror alerts.

Again, Bush is screwed. He can't protect the country with terror alerts (for fear of people calling it fearmongering and politically motivated) and he can't sit by and let the terrorists attack us ("Its all Bush's fault we were attacked").

If we have to be on alert until the election, so be it. We already have intelligence that they will try to disrupt the election.


I wonder if Osama was captured in the next month or two, would it be politically motivated too? Probably, according to you.

So then to you, Bush can do no wrong then?

[Ya_know]

So then to you, Bush can do no wrong then?

Wad'up Lefty!?!