PDA

View Full Version : dubya AGAIN exploiting the AQ/terrorist card to distract from bad news



boutons_
07-17-2007, 11:39 AM
We're All Gonna Die

By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Columnist Friday 13 July 2007
We are all wired into a survival trip now.

- Hunter S. Thompson
Who can forget the incredible scandal that erupted back in May of 2002? Around about the middle of that month, details began to emerge about the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing that specifically warned Bush about Osama bin Laden's determination to strike the United States.

Wait. Actually, everyone forgot, because two days later, the Bush administration unleashed a blizzard of dire warnings about impending terrorist attacks. FBI Director Robert Mueller intoned such attacks were "inevitable," and the Department of Homeland Security announced the imminent, explosive destruction of all American railroads, along with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty.

Who can forget the incredible scandal that erupted back in June of 2003? Over the course of two days, reports emerged about serious doubts held by the CIA regarding the credibility of the administration's claim Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. On the heels of this, Congress unfurled its 9/11 report, which criticized all levels of the Bush administration for its performance before and during the attacks.

Wait. Actually, everyone forgot, because the Bush administration unleashed another blizzard of warnings about impending terrorist attacks. Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security warned terrorists were, once again, preparing to attack the United States with suicide missions using commercial airliners as bombs.

Who can forget the incredible scandal that erupted back in December of 2003? 9/11 Commission chairman Thomas Keane declared the attacks of 9/11 should have been prevented. The next day, a Federal appeals court ruled against the administration on the case of suspected terrorist Jose Padilla, stating Padilla could not be held indefinitely without being charged.
Wait. Actually, everyone forgot, because the Bush administration increased the terrorism threat level to Orange and claimed more suicide planes were about to come zooming out of the sky. Six international flights were diverted due to potential terrorist actions of some passengers who were later identified as an insurance salesman, an elderly Chinese woman and a five-year-old boy.

Who can forget the incredible scandal that erupted back in May of 2004? Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared on Meet the Press and stated the intelligence on Iraqi WMD he'd been given for his UN presentation had been "inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading." Horrifying new pictures of the torture, rape and murder of prisoners by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison became public. The American military accidentally bombed a wedding party in Iraq, killing 40 civilians.

Wait. Actually, everyone forgot, because FBI Director Mueller and Attorney General John Ashcroft announced they had reports from multiple sources of al Qaeda's "specific intention to hit the United States hard." The threat levels were not raised, but dire warnings of impending catastrophe were offered by the administration for the next several days.

The recipe is simple, like the directions on the back of a shampoo bottle. Damaging reports of Bush administration malfeasance emerge. Warnings of imminent terrorist-borne doom immediately follow, all spread far and wide by said Bush administration. Lather, rinse, repeat.

There are many more instances of this curious timing to be found, but apparently, no one in the administration is concerned this dubious pattern - spreading fear among the populace to change the subject, an act of terrorism itself - might start to wear thin.

Who is going to forget the incredible scandals of June and July of 2007? The Bush administration leaves Nixon in the dust by commuting the prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. This action strongly suggests the existence of a quid pro quo between Libby and Bush's people to cover up the criminal activities of powerful officials like Vice President Dick Cheney, who had recently claimed his office wasn't part of the executive branch to avoid handing papers over to the National Archives.

The administration deploys spurious claims of Executive Privilege to avoid subpoenas regarding the patently illegal NSA wiretapping of American citizens. That privilege is extended to deny Congressional access to Harriet Miers, former White House counsel, regarding the issue of fired US attorneys. Contempt charges are threatened against Miers, and the NSA subpoena stonewall comes closer to getting openly challenged in court. Alberto Gonzales is exposed as having lied to the Senate in his testimony about FBI abuses of the Patriot Act.

Few of the benchmarks for success in Iraq are met. Desperate to halt a tide of GOP defections from his Iraq policy, Bush again coughs up the totally discredited link between 9/11 and Iraq, saying, "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children." The House again votes to withdraw American troops from Iraq. A new Harris poll on Bush's approval rating is published. The number reads 26 percent.

Wait.

Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff all but guarantees devastating new terror attacks against the United States this summer. He bases this warning on a "gut feeling." White House spokesman Tony Snow threatens that withdrawal from Iraq would bring terrorism "to a shopping mall near you."

Meanwhile, al Qaeda is alleged to be as secure in Pakistan and Afghanistan as they were before 9/11, yet no one in the administration connects this new security to the drain of resources happening in Iraq. Additionally, no one in the administration points out the fact that, if Chertoff's gut is indeed correct, and we are indeed attacked again, responsibility for that attack will fall upon those who manufactured war in Iraq. Never mind the fact that if an attack is allowed to happen, even a minor one, more of our constitutional rights and protections will be eviscerated by the very same people who failed to stop it again.

Will everyone forget about the scandals of June and July 2007 amid these deadly warnings of coming death?

Lather, rinse, repeat.


========

eg: on the day the Dems are "going to the mattresses" against the Repugs blockining a yes/no vote on the Iraq war,

with Reed coming back from Iraq claiming Petraeus is ready for a "change in direction" (ie, different from dubya's direction),

with dubya/dickhead/country-direction ratings in the toilet,

while dubya is harping on AQ in Iraq as the main problem in Iraq (not what the generals say, and we know dubya listens to his generals, until he fires them)

while dubya is confounding a group claiming to be AQ in Iraq with no known links to OBL and not known to be taking orders from OBL, and calling the AQ/Iraq guys the same ones who dubya allowed to hit the WTC.


we now have dubya's NIE blathering on about terrorist threat to USA, after a long time of silence about such a threat,

Rinse and repeat, indeed.

Oh, Gee!!
07-17-2007, 12:07 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QEBV080&show_article=1

DarkReign
07-17-2007, 12:07 PM
Reading that, I dont know why this popped in my head, but does anyone else find it amusing that you never hear about the Terror Alert System (whatever its called) anymore?

So, what the fuck are we at now, like fuscia or something?

Oh, Gee!!
07-17-2007, 12:10 PM
chartreuse

Jamtas#2
07-17-2007, 12:14 PM
It does seem to be more of the "Election Alert System" more than anything. I think we get a big alert everytime the elections roll around. Those terrorists just know the right time to make a move. I kind of think it's a bogus system to begin with. Shouldn't our defenses always be on alert? Raising it up or down just seems like more of a scare tactic than anything. Why involve the general public in the notification if it doesn't affect their lives at all? Do we do things differently when at stage orange than we do for red? (just pulling colors out of the air for that one).
There is no need to raise the level of paronia or fear within the country, unless the goal is to scare the population for a specific reason.

Spurminator
07-17-2007, 12:16 PM
It's a no win game, really. If you warn the public, you create an environment of fear... if you don't warn the public and something happens, the public demands to know why they weren't made aware.

What would be preferable is if Homeland Security handled these things more quietly instead of announcing to the world that "something" is afoot. I don't really see any value to Chertoff and Snow's comments.

If (God forbid) we do experience another catastrohpic attack, hopefully we will see that some (specific) effort was taken to stop them. But frankly I don't care to know about Chertoff's "gut feelings."

Aggie Hoopsfan
07-17-2007, 12:17 PM
Rinse and repeat, indeed.

Yep, same tired bullshit from you, croutons bot.

truthout? What, was Cindy Sheehan unavailable for comment? :lol

Is this where you get all your "takes" from boutons? Their url is www.wehategeorgebush.com

:lmao

Aggie Hoopsfan
07-17-2007, 12:19 PM
It's a no win game, really. If you warn the public, you create an environment of fear... if you don't warn the public and something happens, the public demands to know why they weren't made aware.

What would be preferable is if Homeland Security handled these things more quietly instead of announcing to the world that "something" is afoot. I don't really see any value to Chertoff and Snow's comments.

If (God forbid) we do experience another catastrohpic attack, hopefully we will see that some (specific) effort was taken to stop them. But frankly I don't care to know about Chertoff's "gut feelings."

Therein lies the rub:

If they don't announce warnings, and an attack happens, douches like boutons would scream that it was all part of a conspiracy by the right to take away more freedoms or some bullshit like that.

If they do announce it, douches like boutons will (and are) screaming that it's all to scare people and distract from what's going on right now with respect to the administration.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, either way the liberals still hate your ass. C'est la vie.

clambake
07-17-2007, 12:20 PM
They were warned before 9/11.

They wouldn't know what to do with a threat if it slapped them in the face, because before 9/11, a threat slapped them in the face.

It's just another "Bush is the only one that can save us" tactic.

boutons_
07-17-2007, 12:43 PM
What are we supposed to do with these warnings?

Stock up on duct tape, bottled water, and plastic sheeting?

dubya/dickhead/Condi raised NO alerts in the summer of 2001 when lights were flashing red, chatter was extremely high, "planes into buildings". Their dereliction of NatSec duty allowed AQ to hit the WTC.

Raising warnings is not the problems (but, really what am I supposed to do when the DHS stoplight is lit at the highest level?)

The problem is raising warnings ALWAYS in the middle of difficult times for the WH.

fyatuk
07-17-2007, 12:46 PM
Why would I even bothering to read that when everything I've seen from truthout is merely partisan dribble?

Jamtas#2
07-17-2007, 01:03 PM
It's a no win game, really. If you warn the public, you create an environment of fear... if you don't warn the public and something happens, the public demands to know why they weren't made aware.

What would be preferable is if Homeland Security handled these things more quietly instead of announcing to the world that "something" is afoot. I don't really see any value to Chertoff and Snow's comments.

If (God forbid) we do experience another catastrohpic attack, hopefully we will see that some (specific) effort was taken to stop them. But frankly I don't care to know about Chertoff's "gut feelings."

I agree somewhat with this, but here is my view on the public's reactions. If you warn the general public, all you are doing is instilling fear since there is nothing asked or required from them as a response. I wouldn't mind the public not being informed when there is evidence that a terror plot might be happening, I would only be angry if no government steps were taken with the warnings known. In other words, I wouldn't be angry at the government if an attack happened and they had moved on intelligence to prevent it and didn't tell me. I'd only be angry if they didn't say anything about it and also didn't take the proper steps in trying to prevent it. (notifying the public is not one of the steps)

boutons_
07-17-2007, 01:20 PM
More WH anti-terror news, with standard shrill hyperbole, timed to co-incide with today's Congressional debate on the Iraq war

=============

July 17, 2007

US to Crack Down on Terror Bankrolls

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:40 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration announced a new tool Tuesday to freeze financial assets of those who want to destabilize Iraq.

President Bush unveiled a new executive order that allows the administration to block bank accounts and any other financial assets that might be found in this country belonging to people, companies or groups that the United States deems are working to threaten stability in Iraq.

Bush cited the ''unusual and extraordinary threat'' to national security and foreign policy of the United States ''posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.''

( Iraq was completely stable and non-threatening BEFORE dubya invaded, broke the country into total instability that dubya has not been able to resolve. Look in the mirror, dubya, YOU are the biggest threat to Iraq's stability )

No person, company or group was designated under the order on Tuesday.

The order seeks to fill a gap in U.S. authority to use financial sanctions to go after such offenders.

The president's new executive order comes as Republican support for the Iraq war has eroded in recent weeks. A White House interim progress report last week found that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has made spotty progress in meeting major targets of reform.

The 25-page administration report was issued in the fifth year of a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,600 U.S. troops and is costing U.S. taxpayers an estimated $10 billion a month.

Against this backdrop, the State Department announced Tuesday that the United States is ready to hold new direct talks with Iran on the deteriorating security situation in Iraq.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, in consultation with with secretaries of State and Defense, is authorized to take action under the president's new executive order.

The administration already has tools to clamp down financially on people, companies and groups that seek to bankroll terrorist activities or help funds specific terror groups, such as al-Qaida and Hezbollah. The United States also has financial sanctions against countries accused of fostering terrorism, such as Iran.

===========

Nothing wrong with tool. It's about the timing of the announcement and the gratuitous scare-mongering.

George Gervin's Afro
07-17-2007, 01:35 PM
Reading that, I dont know why this popped in my head, but does anyone else find it amusing that you never hear about the Terror Alert System (whatever its called) anymore?

So, what the fuck are we at now, like fuscia or something?


lavendar..

Yonivore
07-17-2007, 01:37 PM
I wouldn't be angry at the government if an attack happened and they had moved on intelligence to prevent it and didn't tell me.
Yeah, well, I'm thinking you're not Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or some of the other whackjobs on the left.

Trust me, if we got hit and it was discovered the federal government had even an inkling there was an attack coming and they didn't warn the public...oh wait, it's already happened.

The left still harps on that NIE from before September 11 that suggested Osama bin Laden might fly planes into buildings somewhere in the United States.

Spurminator
07-17-2007, 01:42 PM
Fringe loonies will complain, but I don't care. I think it's a fair trade-off to suffer predictable partisan whining as opposed to vague semi-monthly terror warnings.

Yonivore
07-17-2007, 01:46 PM
Fringe loonies will complain, but I don't care. I think it's a fair trade-off to suffer predictable partisan whining as opposed to vague semi-monthly terror warnings.
Fringe loonies? These are the Democratic leaders in Congress. And, it's not the whining, it's the interfering through nonsensical investigations (300 in 100 days).

Such stuff distracts from important matters.

boutons_
07-17-2007, 01:49 PM
"the federal government had even an inkling there was an attack coming and they didn't warn the public"

The pubic should not be the primary recipient of terror warnings. WTF are we supposed to do?

The 9/11 Commission Report, circumscribed as it was by dubya and dickhead, pointed out that the Exec failed to warn, in the summer of 2001, the federal/state/local entities that are the primary line of defense and have the tools and authority to respond.

Perhaps if the FBI had been on high-alert, they would not have ignored the agent's report about people getting trained to fly planes, but not how to take-off and land them, etc, etc. You know, connect the dots rather than warm chairs.

dot: "lots of chatter about (hi-jacked) planes into buildings"

dot: "student pilots (ethic Middle Easterners) showing no interest in take-off and landing"

Spurminator
07-17-2007, 01:53 PM
Do you really think these vague warnings are going to prevent investigations after another terror attack anyway? Do you think Pelosi is going to back off, like "Well, Chertoff did say he had a gut feeling about something."

The only purpose these warnings serve is to keep the public on edge. If political opponents want to play partisan games then we hold them accountable for it. I'm not interested in living in a climate of fear just so we give Nancy Fucking Pelosi one less thing to bitch about.

And I think that's being overstated as a reason for these warnings anyway.

Nbadan
07-17-2007, 02:30 PM
New NIE Morphs Al-Queda-in-Iraq into a homeland threat....


WASHINGTON -- The terrorist network al Qaeda will likely leverage its contacts and capabilities in Iraq to mount an attack on U.S. soil, according to a new National Intelligence Estimate on threats to the U.S.

The declassified key findings, to be released publicly on Tuesday, were obtained in advance by the Associated Press.

The report lays out a range of dangers -- from al Qaeda to Lebanese Hezbollah to non-Muslim radical groups -- that pose a "persistent and evolving threat" to the country over the next three years. As expected, however, the findings focus most of their attention on the gravest terror problem: Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

The report makes clear that al Qaeda in Iraq, which has not yet posed a direct threat to U.S. soil, could become a problem here.

"Of note," the analysts said, "we assess that al Qaeda will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland."

WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118467398632368809.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

....because Pakistani and Saudi contacts suddenly aren't good enough?

Aggie Hoopsfan
07-17-2007, 08:05 PM
What are we supposed to do with these warnings?

Stock up on duct tape, bottled water, and plastic sheeting?

dubya/dickhead/Condi raised NO alerts in the summer of 2001 when lights were flashing red, chatter was extremely high, "planes into buildings". Their dereliction of NatSec duty allowed AQ to hit the WTC.

Raising warnings is not the problems (but, really what am I supposed to do when the DHS stoplight is lit at the highest level?)

The problem is raising warnings ALWAYS in the middle of difficult times for the WH.

You call Cheney a dickhead, when you're the biggest one in the country. Kinda ironic...

And what would happen if they didn't warn you and an attack happened? You'd be screaming that it was a conspiracy and Bush should be impeached.

Either way, you're a liberal bigot. Nothing shocking there.

boutons_
07-17-2007, 08:08 PM
"(300 in 100 days)."

Quite a backlog built up during the rubber-stamping 6-years of Repug control of both houses and committees.

The Repugs served Clinton with 1054 subpoenas. As always, you Repug motherfuckers love to dish it out, but you can't take it.

PixelPusher
07-17-2007, 08:30 PM
Reading that, I dont know why this popped in my head, but does anyone else find it amusing that you never hear about the Terror Alert System (whatever its called) anymore?

So, what the fuck are we at now, like fuscia or something?
Michael Chertoff swallowed the Terror Alert System; in now resides in his lower intestine or "gut".

I'd rather have Bushie's screaming bloody terrorist than not...at this point, if you haven't seen through their transparent attempts to wag the dog you never will. A major domestic terrorist attack on U.S. soil now would be the worst thing that could happen to this country, not just for the damage it would incur, but for the paralysis of fear that would enable this Administration to do more harm.

DarkReign
07-17-2007, 08:38 PM
Michael Chertoff swallowed the Terror Alert System; in now resides in his lower intestine or "gut".

I'd rather have Bushie's screaming bloody terrorist than not...at this point, if you haven't seen through their transparent attempts to wag the dog you never will. A major domestic terrorist attack on U.S. soil now would be the worst thing that could happen to this country, not just for the damage it would incur, but for the paralysis of fear that would enable this Administration to do more harm.

Which is more scary than the actual attack itself. Seriously.

boutons_
07-17-2007, 08:41 PM
"And what would happen if they didn't warn you and an attack happened?"

Can you read, dickless? We had an attack, 9/11, and the Exec raised no warnings.

Anyway, _I_ don't want to be warned. I'm not some NRA gun freak who thinks he's gonna go Audie Murphy and defend the country.

Any yes, I want dubya, Condi, dickhead, Tenet all subpoenad and impeached so we can find out WTF they were doing in the 4,5 months before 9/11. The WH delayed for months against any commission, and then emasculated the 9/11 Commission so those truths couldn't be exposed.

Extra Stout
07-18-2007, 11:52 AM
If you are high on LSD while reading articles about terror warnings, you can literally smell the fear.

Aggie Hoopsfan
07-18-2007, 08:13 PM
"And what would happen if they didn't warn you and an attack happened?"

Can you read, dickless? We had an attack, 9/11, and the Exec raised no warnings.

Anyway, _I_ don't want to be warned. I'm not some NRA gun freak who thinks he's gonna go Audie Murphy and defend the country.

Any yes, I want dubya, Condi, dickhead, Tenet all subpoenad and impeached so we can find out WTF they were doing in the 4,5 months before 9/11. The WH delayed for months against any commission, and then emasculated the 9/11 Commission so those truths couldn't be exposed.

You try and pass yourself off as centrist or whatever the fuck lame justification you use to try and justify hating on Bush but being 'fair and impartial.'

My question to you is this - if those guys all get subpoenas, do we get to do the same with Clinton, Gore, Sandy Berger, Albright and Co.?

And don't give me some pissant hateful response either.

It's a simple yes or no and I expect a simple yes or no.

boutons_
07-18-2007, 08:23 PM
"Clinton, Gore, Sandy Berger, Albright and Co"

These people were in power in 8 months before 9/11?

So the answer is: FUCK NO

These Dem people DID warn the incoming shrubbies about AQ (just in case the Repugs had been too pre-occupied harassing Clinton for 8 years to read the newspapers), warnings from the Dems that were apparently TOTALLY ignored by Repugs, probably just because the warning WERE from the Dems.

There is NO TRACE that the Repugs did anything about terrorism or AQ from 20 Jan to 11 Sep. So YES, I want those motherfuckers subpoened and impeached to find out exactly how they were negligent, and make the derelection of NatSec duty clear as day for the history books.

Aggie Hoopsfan
07-18-2007, 08:32 PM
"Clinton, Gore, Sandy Berger, Albright and Co"

These people were in power in 8 months before 9/11?

So the answer is: FUCK NO

These Dem people DID warn the incoming shrubbies about AQ (just in case the Repugs had been too pre-occupied harassing Clinton for 8 years to read the newspapers), warnings from the Dems that were apparently TOTALLY ignored by Repugs, probably just because the warning WERE from the Dems.

There is NO TRACE that the Repugs did anything about terrorism or AQ from 20 Jan to 11 Sep. So YES, I want those motherfuckers subpoened and impeached to find out exactly how they were negligent, and make the derelection of NatSec duty clear as day for the history books.


You're a retard :lol People who were in office for 8 years before Bush weren't in any way responsible, but Bush was supposed to change the world in four months :lol


These Dem people DID warn the incoming shrubbies about AQ (just in case the Repugs had been too pre-occupied harassing Clinton for 8 years to read the newspapers), warnings from the Dems that were apparently TOTALLY ignored by Repugs, probably just because the warning WERE from the Dems.

Um, they warned them about a billion things. Damn Bush for not finding the needle in the fucking haystack in four months.

Just what I thought, you want to give Billary and his administration a free pass. Bush was supposed to kill bin Laden and his movement in 4 months time, but Clinton is free of blame when he had a country serve OBL up on a fucking silver platter :lmao

Way to go, boutons bot. :clap

boutons_
07-18-2007, 09:14 PM
"Bush was supposed to change the world in four months"

red herring. He didn't have to change the world, he and his accomplices only had to put all federal/state/local agencies on HIGH ALERT in response to the chatter ON HIS WATCH. Is that so fucking hard?

I give Clinton's people a free pass for what happened under dubya's watch, to which dubya did not take seriously and did nothing in response to the warnings, as the 9/11 Commission clearly indicated.