The Politics of Terra (Warnings)

[Nbadan]

Terror Alert in NYC: “Driven by Political Concerns?”
October 7th, 2005

Yesterday I posted about the Terror Alert in NYC, and questioned why Mayor Bloomberg held a National Press Conference announcing they had received a “credible threat” yet Homeland Security denied there was a threat.

Today, Tim Grieve on Salon’s War Room notes a conversation with “John Kerry last May” where Kerry “complained to us about the boy-who-cried-wolf nature of the Bush administration’s terror warnings.” Grieve notes that “Kerry was right.”

Maybe all those orange alerts had been justified by intelligence reports, Kerry told us, but maybe they’d been driven by political concerns, too. “I just have no way to measure it,” he said. “Instead of feeling absolutely confident, I have no way of measuring it.”

Grieve says, “It turned out that Kerry was right to be concerned.”

Blogspot

37-39% approval rating, worsening situation in Iraq, House majority leader under indictment, Senate majority leader under investigation, turdblossom possibly under indictment, softening in the economy, continued botched recovery effort in Hurricane afflicted costal regions, Philipine spy in the Vice-President's office for 3 years, 29% approval rating for W in NY, the information on the possible bombings being 2 months old, but none of that matters.

"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "

-- Former Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge

[Nbadan]

More details on one of the three possible foiled Al-Queda attacks W mentioned in his latest speech have started to emerge...

WASHINGTON — In the spring of 2003, Los Angeles police officials were summoned to a briefing with the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force and told that the 73-story Library Tower might have been the target of a terrorist plot similar to that of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackings.

When the plot was disclosed last year, authorities said publicly that they had viewed the claims by captured Al Qaeda chieftain Khalid Shaikh Mohammed with skepticism. They said that, at best, the alleged plot was something that had been discussed but never put into action.

By the time anybody knew about it, the threat — if there had been one — had passed, federal counter-terrorism officials said Friday.

.....

On Friday, the White House responded to questions seeking clarification on the potential attacks by referring inquiries to the FBI or other counter-terrorism agencies. The FBI referred the questions to the White House.

MORE: LA Times

On Friday, the White House responded to questions seeking clarification on the potential attacks by referring inquiries to the FBI or other counter-terrorism agencies. The FBI referred the questions to the White House. Hot potato!

[ChumpDumper]

Shut up dude! We were thwarting threats without even knowing about them! That's efficiency!

[boutons]

"We were thwarting threats without even knowing about them"

don't believe anything this WH ever says, esp now that they are lying to salvage their administration and necks.

If the "thwarts" were true, the American people would have been much reassured to hear about them as they happened. Instead all we got was color-coded wolf-alerts.

these 10 thwarts, trotted out in dubya's week of horrors, are BS until proven otherwise.

[Nbadan]

Another one of these supposed threats in supposed to be the capture of Louis Padilla, who they are still holding despite ever convicting him of anything. They say they have evidence under sealed indictment, but the government has never been forced to show it's hand in this case either.

[Marcus Bryant]

I prefer the model of not warning the public about threats that aren't 100% verifiable. Yeah.

Remember how you thought conservative GOPers were off the deep end when they blamed Clinton for everything including the wind and rain? Well, you guys are there. Congrats.

[boutons]

"I prefer the model of not warning the public about threats that aren't 100% verifiable.
Yeah."

Fine, then keep them secret FOREVER, and don't trot them out later, when your ing ship is holed and sinking, as:

"We DEFINITELY stopped 10 DEFINITE al Quaida attacks in the USA".

Repub Bloomberg's al-Quaid-in-the-subway warning this week was from some punk in Iraq, TOTALLY UNVERIFIABLE, ping-ponged between WH and FBI, but it was "Repub week", so Bloomberg went along playing the Rove smoke-and-mirrors terrror card.

As always, Repubs exploiting the terror card in total self-serving dishonesty, which is 1000 times worse than a lie that "I didn't have sex with that woman".

[mookie2001]

As always, Repubs exploiting the terror card in total self-serving dishonesty, which is 1000 times worse than a lie that "I didn't have sex with that woman".

I agree
fearmongering assholes

[RandomGuy]

Remember how you thought conservative GOPers were off the deep end when they blamed Clinton for everything including the wind and rain? Well, you guys are there. Congrats.

Yup. Bush is not to blame for everything any more than Clinton was/is.

Bush gets some credit here and there for some things, but I think the long run, history will be less kind to Bush. Clinton may have had one overarching scandal that he will be remembered by, but that lapse pales in comparison to the Iraq blunder, and the balooning of the national debt.