“NOT NEW” DOES NOT EQUAL “NO THREAT”
So, the big Drudge headline of the night reveals that the New York Times is running with this story:
QAIDA DOCUMENTS YEARS OLD, BUT OFFICIALS SEE A REAL THREAT
Much of the information that led authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the NY and D.C. areas was 3 or 4 years old… NYT Tuesday Page One Splash To Claim: Intelligence and law enforcement officials ‘had not yet found concrete evidence that a terror plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way’…
The prescient New York Post editorial board has already answered what will be predictable criticisms from the Bush-bashers about the new/old terror alerts. In an editorial published this morning, the Post notes:
It in no way diminishes the gravity of the terror warnings issued yesterday in Washington and at City Hall to ask:
So, what else is new?
Yes, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said the information made public yesterday was obtained within the past 36 hours.
But while the material is alarmingly specific ? Police Commissioner Ray Kelly termed it “a detailed vulnerability analysis” ? it is not dated.
In that sense, all that can really be discerned from the new data is that the terrorists are watching New York City.
Closely.
But that’s not new.
It’s not clear when they started, but their first serious attempt to kill New Yorkers occurred in a World Trade Center parking garage more than a decade ago ? an intricately planned, if somewhat clumsily executed, effort.
And 9/11, in all its tragic particulars, speaks for itself.
There was never any reason to think al Qaeda had quit plotting yet another strike on the American homeland. The information made public yesterday only confirms that unhappy reality.
True, it is difficult to gauge the immediacy of the threat.
So while there could be an attack tomorrow, it is also might not come until next month, or next year ? or even later than that.
Maybe it never will come, an outcome that will involve either a lot of luck, a large pile of dead terrorists ? or both.
Bottom line: It will require a vigorously prosecuted, unambiguous war on terrorism of the sort President Bush has been waging since the day after the Twin Towers fell…
Read the whole thing here.
Update: The New York Times report is up and there’s more spin on it than my daughter’s Barbie fishing reel. Here are the key buried passages:
The officials said on Monday that they were still analyzing computer records, photos, drawings and other documents, seized last month in Pakistan, which showed that Qaeda operatives had conducted extensive reconnaissance. “What we’ve uncovered is a collection operation as opposed to the launching of an attack,” a senior American official said.
Still, the official said the new trove of material, which was being sifted for fresh clues, combined with more recent flows of intelligence, had demonstrated that Al Qaeda remains active and intent on attacking the United States…
And this waaay down deep at the end of the article:
Senior counterterrorism and intelligence officials based in Europe said the information targeting the five buildings was developed by Qaeda operatives before Sept. 11, 2001. But a senior European counterterrorism official cautioned that “some recent information” indicated that the buildings might remain on a list of Qaeda targets.
“Al Qaeda routinely comes up with ways to hit targets for years at a time, so it may not mean much that these buildings were first targeted more than three years ago,” the official said.
Update II: In the Bullpen adds somes helpful reminders:
The information obtained might be old, however it is not as if Al Qaeda hadn’t spent years surveying and planning other terrorists attacks. It is rumored that Al Qaeda planned the attacks on embassies in Kenya and Tanzania for over five years. Photographs and videos have since been found with pictures of the U.S. embassy in Kenya that date back to 1992, six full years before the bombing.
Recent reports also indicate that the attack on the USS Cole took three years to plan and implement. In fact their first try at a United States warship was unsuccessful when their boat filled with explosives sunk.
Terrorists have indicated that they intend on attacking the United States. They have declared war on us. The whole world saw what type of effect can be made in terms of the election process when terrorism strikes with the victory that Al Qaeda made in Spain. It is undeniably accurate that Al Qaeda would like to influence our election by a terrorist attack…
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Homeland Security Headlines
- InTheBullpen.com
- Ed Driscoll.com
- The Moderate Voice
- The Spoons Experience
- Right On Red
- Assume the Position
- Croooow Blog
- New England Republican
- Backcountry Conservative
- QandO
- QandO
- JunkYardBlog
- Kitty Litter
- Wizbang
- Backcountry Conservative
- The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill
- Watcher of Weasels
- The Axis of Weasels
- utube
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Terrorist attacks
Mudville Gazette
» When the wind won't blow
Mudville Gazette
» Bad Weather (Part Two)Mudville Gazette
» Bad Weather (Part I)Legal Insurrection
» Hacked E-mails or Else!Pundit & Pundette
» About last night's voteJustOneMinute
» "Unequivocal"?
Imagine if the White House discovered “old” evidence, of a plot to hijack planes into the World Trade Center and Washington landmarks, on 9/10/01. Would that have been any different from today’s situation.
How quickly some forget that 9/11 was a hatched plot that was years in the making.
In point of fact, the 9/11 attacks began to see the light of day as a real plan at least eight years before the operation was carried out. The Times probably would have called an ante-bellum discovery by the Bush administration a “political move designed to take attention away from the election debate using data about a terrorist attack contrived almost a decade ago and never carried out”- the Times would likely also praise the Clinton administration for that fact.
(Of course, we could argue that Al Gore’s discord helped to distract the administration from being able to focus on things like outside terrorism. The Times (who still thinks Al Gore won, clearly is the one politicizing the War on Terrorism.
Unfortunately, liberals do not seem to grasp the threat our nation faces. 9/11 obviously wan’t enough. I think it will take another 9/11-type attack for the liberal media to understand that people want to kill Americans en masse. Not Democrats, not Republicans, but Americans. Politics should stop at the water’s edge, but it no longer does.
I’ve got 2 questions for all of the people who tried to use the August 6th PDB (Presidential Daily Breifing) to smear Bush.
That PDB didn’t have any specific or actionable information.
Now that the U.S. has come across specific actionable information:
1) How will you characterize the Bush administration’s actions to try to protect Americans?
2) Will you get behind the Bush administrations ATTEMPT to protect Americans or will you make it harder for him?
Some (like Howard Dean) have already spoken. They wish to politicize which in effect makes it harder for Bush to protect Americans from the threat.
These 2 questions are open questions to those of you who know who you are.
Martin,
You wrote – “The Times (who still thinks Al Gore won, clearly is the one politicizing the War on Terrorism.”
I agree with you. Could we start a list of those politicizing the war?
1) The NY Times
2) Al Gore
3) Howard Dean
4) Everyone who tried to use the August 6,2001 PDB as ammunition
5) John Kerry
6) Anyone else want to add?……………………………………………………………………….
It’s puzzling to me. Remember when the press and the 9/11 commission asked why Bush didn’t do anything about the August 6 PDB – which contained no actionable intelligence?
Dated or not dated – this is actionable intelligence. We know these buildings are targeted…we may have to watch them for a long, long time.
If we didn’t, and God forbid, one of them went down…the press and the left would say: Bush had this information and didn’t act. He’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. I’m glad he’s in charge and doing what needs to be done.
Watch for an above the fold front page
diatribe/editorial/news story on tomorrows
page one of the “paper of record”-ed
blunders, plagarisms, lies and distortions.
Number one, or numero uno to our invited
and uninvited guests, is certainly
“CORRECT SIR!”…
Learn to check original sources, people – don’t go with what Ms. Malkin says someone else says the NYT says.
From the NYT web site:
Much of the information that led authorities to raise the terror alert was three or four years old, but officials said even the dated evidence of surveillance was troubling.
…
But the officials continued to regard the information as significant and troubling because the reconnaissance already conducted has provided Al Qaeda with the knowledge necessary to carry out attacks against the sites in Manhattan, Washington and Newark. They said Al Qaeda had often struck years after its operatives began surveillance of an intended target.
…
Hardly downplaying the threat, are they?
Don’t take my word for it, either. Here’s the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/politics/03intel.html?hp
Yes, I agree with you, RepubAnon. Don’t take my word for it, folks. And don’t take
RepubAnon’s, either. Read the entire New York Times article in context and the pooh-poohing headline as well. I’ve excerpted the key buried passages.
Don’t waste your fingertips, Michelle. The RepAnons will spin those buried graphs to show the NYT was fair and balanced.
Let’s simply step back and let them make total fools of themselves. The general public, city officials and those who actually work in those buildings will be the true arbiters of whether this story was overblown–it is a safe bet they won’t see it that way. As a matter of logic, any information that describes a future event is older than the described future event. Duh. The arrest of the compiler of this information and its seizure just happened, but I suppose we shouldn’t be burdened with such trivial details.
The NYT and its ilk, in a blind hatred of Bush, are well on their way to re-electing him. This shouldn’t be politicized, of course, but it is deliciously ironic that those who have chosen this low road are sowing the seeds of their destruction. Fortunately we have others who won’t allow us to be destroyed for the sake of political expediency.
It amazes me. Every time I think that were it any other newspaper in any other American city that had been ruthlessly attacked by terrorists, that paper- no matter its editorial leanings- would have actually learned something or two about who the good guys are. Not the Grey Lady, though. I guess she’s just gotten a little senile.
I wonder what the folks working in those buildings think and feel about the stepped up of security that now guards where these employees must daily work.
Quick! Somebody tell John Kerry! He has already repudiated Howard Dean for claiming the alert level increase was politically motivated.
The Kerry folks really need to get their campaign better coordinated with the NYT editorial board.
Alas, Mr. White, people not sharing your world view are not brainless fools and/or blackguards. Some of just view the evidence differently. For example, the NYT’s main web page stated that just because the info was old didn’t make it irrelevant.
One problem in the war on terrorism is the no-win situations presented. Report one’s suspicions before the attack and prevent it from taking place – thus laying yourself open to charges of political manipulation? Or hold back, hoping to catch some terrorists, and risk being charged with using citizens as bait?
What we need is some way of notifying those concerned without spilling the beans to potential Al Qaeda cells – difficult if not impossible.
Or just send the ACLU to Antarctica to sue for the rights of sea lions until the war is over…
Pakistan is saying whole different tune, they say that the informantion is soild. I’m not sure if the NYT article is just there to plant a seed of doubt within the American Population, or it’s right on the money. I refer you to this article that says something else http://www.deepikaglobal.com/ENG4_sub.asp?ccode=ENG4&newscode=64626
Cheers
Those targets are likelly to be hit after the election. When after? Depends who wins. If GWB is re-elected, expect an attack around Thanksgiving, possibly the day after. I wouldnt be surprised to se a mall hit (any mall with the name America in it is a prime target)
If JFK is elected, they will wait until valentine’s day, or right before. The target will be big and public. It will be designed to test the new administration before it had a chance to get settled in. WMDs would not be used in either case. The idea is to scare JFK in to inacction, or punish the American people if they re-elect GWB
Libs lying? Surely you must be pulling our collective leg, BC
[1) How will you characterize the Bush administration's actions to try to protect Americans?]
They came across this information 3 years ago. Why was it actionable just this weekend? The DNC convention dominating the headlines? How about yet another screw-up coming to light?
[2) Will you get behind the Bush administrations ATTEMPT to protect Americans or will you make it harder for him?]
Nobody is making it hard for him. The typical NY City police officer can accoutre himorherself as well as any soldier. How can that be resisted?
GsOuPx-
1.) Did you even read the story? They didn’t “come across the information three years ago”. They just obtained the information the other day. The dates on some of the files were three years old.
2.) The only people making it harder for Bush to protect Americans are liberals, not New York city police officers.
I read the article very well, thank-you.
“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.”
[2.) The only people making it harder for Bush to protect Americans are liberals, not New York city police officers.]
Challenge.
The information in the PDB was three years old: “We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [- - - - -] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.”
When the existence of the memo was revealed, these were the NYT and WP headlines, respectively, “Bush Was Warned bin Laden Wanted to Hijack Planes” and “Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers.”
What do they give us now? “Reports That Led to Terror Alert Were Years Old, Officials Say” and “Pre-9/11 Acts Led To Alerts.”
GsOuPx – you better do some more reading – the specfic data that was used to raise the alert for the specific targets was based on information recently obtained from Pakistan. The data obtained is most likely old, but still was just recently obtained.
Seems to me that the “OLD” information is more troubling precisely because it is old. It’s the turkey that’s been cooking for four hours that’s ready to come out of the oven, not the one that’s still frozen.
[What do they give us now? "Reports That Led to Terror Alert Were Years Old, Officials Say" and "Pre-9/11 Acts Led To Alerts."]
The fact is the only major change in NYC is that truck traffic has been re-routed. The lower Wall Street area has been protected by both the para-military elements of the NYPD and the US military since 9/11. So, while great press has been made over this, I still need to show my ID badge to get in my building as I have since I’ve been here.
[GsOuPx - you better do some more reading - the specfic data that was used to raise the alert for the specific targets was based on information recently obtained from Pakistan. The data obtained is most likely old, but still was just recently obtained. ]
My reading comprehension is perfectly fine. If you and others insist on perpetuating the myth that this is new info, yinz’s will be suspect.
Hey, GsOuPx, instead of simply making assertions, why not back them up with some quotes? Surely if the article says what YOU claim, you’ll have a wealth of information.
Just for fun, try to find one that comes from someone speaking on record.
[Hey, GsOuPx, instead of simply making assertions, why not back them up with some quotes? Surely if the article says what YOU claim, you'll have a wealth of information.]
Asked and answered herein @ 8:47AM.
It is quite possible that the computer evidence isn’t the *only* evidence the government has. I recalled this story about Iranian guards being expelled for taking photos: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/06/29/un.iran/
What if they just happened to be taking photos of the same places that the old evidence said were likely to come under attack?
Back to the terror alert level system, is that whole thing really working? Are we bahaving normally for people who have been notified that our lives, property, and entire social and technological infrastructures are in grave danger? The only thing I have felt alerted to is the next round of arguments that will occur. I have also stored a little more uncertainty due to the nagging thought that we should be doing something more substantial than election year bickering.
Leave it to the NYTimes and other liberal media to pick up on the DNC talking points and run with them.
Those who brought up the August 6th PDB memo bring a good point into the discussion. This is a classic case of ‘damned if you do or don’t’ – I’d rather our gov’t err on the side of caution than not, you know? Failure to act and implement alerts is, in part, what allowed 9-11 to happen.
As far as the claims that this was released as a distraction, I’d love to find out what the admin is trying to distract from. Oh yeah! Must be that HUGE bounce Kerry got from the convention.
Ummhmm.
(BTW, keep up the good work, Michelle)
[Just for fun, try to find one that comes from someone speaking on record.]
Not gonna happen under this adminstration. They’d be destroyed ala Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, Richard S. Foster, Sibel Edwards, etc etc etc
Nice try GsO, the info is old, our knowledge of it is new.
Alas, Mr. White, people not sharing your world view are not brainless fools and/or blackguards. Some of just view the evidence differently. For example, the NYT’s main web page stated that just because the info was old didn’t make it irrelevant.<<<
RepubAnon, I’ll parse the above.
1. First as to my “worldview.” It has nothing to do with my response to this issue. Information was compiled by a terrorist on buildings in three cities. The terrorist was arrested a few days ago and the information seized from his computer. It is elaborate. I would have the same reaction that attempts to politicize this issue are wrong regardless of my “worldview.”
2. I regard those who have decided to try to spin this as some sort of Bush conspiracy not as brainless but either paranoid lunatics or political hacks. In a sense, if this was done out of stupidity it would be forgivable.
3. The NYT buried the relevant graphs you mentioned, as Michelle Malkin pointed out, to make the story appear to be overblown. I read the entire story and while it does not negate the need for heightened terror alerts, it is chocked full of innuendoes.
As for the remainder of your post about the contradictions such intelligence represents, I agree with you. Unfortunately, many fail to see this issue in anything other than partisan terms and will twist any well-intentioned attempt to disseminate it into an anti-Bush tirade. As I wrote, they are well on the way to re-electing him. I guess that is my “worldview.”
Mr. GOP sux, HA HA HA you’ve been caught in the trap. You are now discredited.
This information was just uncovered. It wasn’t uncovered 3 years ago.
Nobody is saying that it’s NEW info. Everyone is saying that we JUST uncovered it. Meaning we didn’t see the fact that they had these files until very recently.
Jim said it more precisely. Because of YOUR attempt to politicize along with your fellow cohorts on the left (getting it wrong) you are making this country less safe.
There are other people out there that may have heard you speaking who might actually believe that this is information uncovered 3 years ago that Bush is finally acting on with a political motivation behind the timing. Anyone you’ve misled could be corrected by you but I doubt you’ll take that step.
[Nice try GsO, the info is old, our knowledge of it is new.]
If by “our” you mean the public then you are correct. If by our” you mean to include the US government then you’re wrong.
If by our” you mean to include the US government then you’re wrong.
And your knowledge of this is more than your psychic “feeling”?
[Mr. GOP sux, HA HA HA you've been caught in the trap. You are now discredited.
This information was just uncovered. It wasn't uncovered 3 years ago.]
The only trap here is the one in which your reading comprehension has been caught.
The fact that intelligence sources are saying that the information is not new is not a temporal observation but an empirical one.
[Jim said it more precisely. Because of YOUR attempt to politicize along with your fellow cohorts on the left (getting it wrong) you are making this country less safe.]
I haven’t politicized anything. Neither the adminstration nor you can make the same claim. You see my observations in purely political terms that it is a political attack on Bush rather than the practical one that it is.
[And your knowledge of this is more than your psychic "feeling"?]
Asked and answered @ 8:47AM on this thread.
Do you feel lucky, punk ? In all the excitement, I forgot if the terrorist intelligence was hatched 8 years ago, 5 years ago, 3 years ago or just last week. So, you have to ask yourself, do you feel lucky ?
[I read the article very well, thank-you.
"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." ]
Really, nothing new? You mean we knew the terrorists are trying to kill us? You’re right, we knew that.
Did we know they had examined these particular targets? I think that was new. You have any more anonymous sources that said we knew they had targeted these specific buildings?
[Did we know they had examined these particular targets? I think that was new. You have any more anonymous sources that said we knew they had targeted these specific buildings?]
I’ve received a zillion memos since 9/11/01 when I worked @ 1 Liberty Plaza to my prsent building 75 Park Place that every building in Lower Manhattan had been monitored and that I am to report any suspicious people observing either the outside of the building or “strangers” roaming the building.
GOPsux,
How can you possibly conclude from the quote “There is nothing right now that we’re hearing that is new” that the government has been sitting on this information?
What this supposed “senior law enforcement official” has been told for the past three years is probably something along the lines of “we have evidence that major buildings and landmarks in NYC are under surveillance for a possible attack at some point in the future.” Well, DUH! Of course that’s not new. After the first WTC bombing, I doubt there’s a single New Yorker who hasn’t thought about that possibility on a regular basis.
Yet you would have us all twist a one-sentence quote from an ANONYMOUS source into a conclusion that the Bush administration sat on this information and released it for political purposes? Absurd. I’m not sure what you’re putting in that NYT Kool-Aid you drink every morning, but it sure isn’t ice cubes!
[I've received a zillion memos since 9/11/01 when I worked @ 1 Liberty Plaza to my prsent building 75 Park Place that every building in Lower Manhattan had been monitored and that I am to report any suspicious people observing either the outside of the building or "strangers" roaming the building.]
Well, that’s obviously the same as seeing info on an Al Qaeda computer showing the number of pedestrians who pass by a specific target at a specific time of day.
[Asked and answered herein @ 8:47AM.]
Sorry bro, but regurgitating a single anonymous quote doesn’t cut it. If this conspiracy is as vast as you claim, surely there must be one actual person willing to speak on the record?
[Sorry bro, but regurgitating a single anonymous quote doesn't cut it. If this conspiracy is as vast as you claim, surely there must be one actual person willing to speak on the record?]
Sorry bro, but your argument is specious. First off, I’ve never claimed a vast conspiracy. Secondly, the entire artcle is filled with quotes from various intelligence sources speaking on background – hardly an unusual occurrance. I
In point of fact, a background briefing by Richard Clarke was used in an attempt to point out that he told the truth anonymously but lied overtly.
Which way do you want it?
[Well, that's obviously the same as seeing info on an Al Qaeda computer showing the number of pedestrians who pass by a specific target at a specific time of day.]
Is the river whose tributary is a lake any less a river than the river whose tributary is a stream?
“Asked and answered @ 8:47AM on this thread.”
You quoted someone admitting their ignorance. Not exactly a stirring rebuttal.
In fact, since you quoted an anonymous source, we can’t judge the value (such as it is) of the source’s ignorance. This “source” could be anyone, and their “not knowing” could simply be because it’s not their job to know.
Being an “anonymous source” is a cheap way to lie without consequence. I’m amazed that someone who claims your level of intellect falls for it so easily.
“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.”
Note the official was “briefed” on the alert. So they talked to a senior NYPD official who has not seen the intellegence, has not read it or analyzed it, and therefor the claims aren’t credible.
SOME of the intellegence is 3-4 years old. SOME of the intellegence is from January 2004. And there is still a significant amount of newly seized information waiting to be analyzed. We’ve been told numerous times that Al Qaeda plans an attack for years. That’s why they’re successful. We’ve also been told that Al Qaeda will revisit a target in the days before an attack to ensure things haven’t changed.
Planning where to park a truckbomb to bring down a building doesn’t go stale. The building hasn’t moved, the load bearing column is still there.
In January they do another look around and see if any concrete barriers have been put up, if the guards are searching vehicles or if they’re back to sleeping in the guardshack with the tv on.
It isn’t surprising to note that the very same critics now calling the timing suspicious were the ones claiming “Bush knew about September 11th” and that he “ignored the warnings” that said Osama Bin Laden was determined to strike in the U.S.
GsO :If by our” you mean to include the US government then you’re wrong.
So, the entire government knew, millions of employees? That does sound like a vast conspiracy. So we should expect Richard Clark to come out in the next few days and say he knew?
GsO :Is the river whose tributary is a lake any less a river than the river whose tributary is a stream?
Is a liberal any less intelligent when he sounds like Master Poe?
So much for the “old intel” talking points:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usterr033916365aug03,0,2200894,print.story?coll=ny-homepage-big-pix
Source: Terror attack to be in early September
[You quoted someone admitting their ignorance. Not exactly a stirring rebuttal.]
Now you’re just being disingenious – and not disguising it very well either. There is no such admission. In fact, he/she is stating the opposite that he/she already knew what is being reported.
[Being an "anonymous source" is a cheap way to lie without consequence. I'm amazed that someone who claims your level of intellect falls for it so easily.]
Direct that at the journalists who use them and which would include someone near and dear to you. That said, speaking on background is routine for our government officials as the comfort level afforded by anonymity keeps them free from the retribution that is so easily meted out – especially by these maladroits currently in office – by those who do speak on the record.
So, while you have succeeded in attacking a source [a typcial tactic of the intellectually lazy], you’ve failed in discrediting his observation. Feel free to offer up someone on the record claiming that this information is, in fact, uniquely “prescient” as opposed to merely reinforcing what is already known.
[So, the entire government knew, millions of employees? That does sound like a vast conspiracy. So we should expect Richard Clark to come out in the next few days and say he knew?]
Another disingenious point. Only a sophistical milksop [excuse the redundancy] would skew that reference to its widest scale and then add an adhominem attack to reinforce it.
What does that make you, then?
[Is a liberal any less intelligent when he sounds like Master Poe?]
I am SO wounded.
You said “the government knew”
Be more specific.Can’t read your mind,the print’s too small.
Plus GOPdoesnotSUC, your logic is faulty….
If Bush wanted to keep ahead of Kerry all he has to do is stay out of his way. Convention bounce? Uh, no. Pollster after pollster all say the same thing….”The more the public sees of John Kerry, the worse his poll numbers get.”
1.) The 9/11 attacks where years in the planning stage.
2.) The L.A. Times today says the information that the government JUST ACQUIRED on the financial targets, has recently been updated.
3.) If something happens and Bush didn’t warn us, I’m sure you’d be the first one screaming at the top of your lungs (but still trying to impersonate some third rate poet).
OK… Let’s looks at this simply and take things step by step.
First the quote:
“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.”
Ok this guy is saying “I was one of the people TOLD to take everything to a higher security level; HOWEVER, I do not know why as I was given no reason”. THAT’S ALL! Just read the very last quote:
“Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don’t know that.”
He was given no reason why they were taken up to the new level. Here’s the way defense and information works in the non-real world (meaning the military and police). Need to know basis. You don’t need to know the specifics guess what, they aren’t wasting their time or yours to tell you. They say “Guard these buildings, do this that and the other” and leave it at that, it’s then the person that has received the order’s job to do what he is told period. That IS what they are paid for afterall. The fact that the Gov’t recently came across new info on a laptop in Pakistan, and what that information specifically is is NONE of the business of the person protecting the building and is not required for him to do his job.
There is also the possibility of a person going to the other side, being paid off, whatever and the enemy finding out what we really do and do not know. So you make it as difficult as possible for the enemy to gain that kind of information to make youre job easier. Right now all the terrorists know is that we have captured a terrorist, his laptop, and that the laptop had some information on it. They do NOT know exactly what that information is or how much of it we actually have. So they must assume we have all of the knowledge which that particular individual possesses on the project and thus go back to the drawing board.
Now if the guy were to have been told “Here is the info we have”, and the media printed what we had (because obviously the guy is a talker and shouldn’t be trusted with national secrets in the first place), telling the terrorists we were on the completely wrong track, it would do no good and would actually work against us.
Now do you understand why the security official said what he said? Now do you understand that not EVERYONE is told EVERYTHING and why? Welcome to war, that’s the way it is played. Might as well get used to it (and now I suspect GsO is going to go on about how the Gov’t is intentionally hiding the info).
Now maybe we can have a rational discussion based on facts and the way things really work, rather than arguements based on misconceptions founded by people who have no clue how things work on the inside or why.
I wonder what the ‘Times take on the threat would be if their offices showed up on the target list?
Ya know, “GsOuPx”, if you’ve got that much to say, how about you go open your own blog? It would save us the annoyance of having to read and refute your drivel?
OK GsOuPx, How’s this:
“Yes, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said the information made public yesterday was obtained within the past 36 hours.”
It took me 10 seconds to find this qoute – it was right on Michelle’s main page and was taken from the NYT article. Tom Ridge is going ON RECORD as saying that the information made public was obtained in the past 36 hours. Not 3 years ago, not a long time ago, but 36 hours ago. The information may dated, but it (and the specific targets it mentions) was obtained 36 hours ago.
Got it?
Guys…just stop ok? GsOuPx has a massive ego and a vocabulary and you are never going to convince him of anything….he does’nt want to have the truth , he wants to have and win the argument. The news story is clear about what happened, who knew what and when. If someone wants to work their fingers overtime trying to weave cleverly worded webs and innuendo…..let them and get back on topic. For the Record the only enemy we should be focusing on is Al Qaeda. George Bush and Rumsfeld are’nt working day and night to kill us all( and before you idiots out there get started-Bush is not killing our guys in Iraq, OUR enemy is. And if you dont agree on who the enemy is then you are just more DEAD, USELESS WEIGHT we’re gonna hafta carry over the finish line. Fighting to defend your country means COMBAT and as stunning as this might be to you…people get killed in combat. Get in the fight or get the hell out of our way(boots a mouthy,hooded, anarchistic,violence loving((as long as it’s violence against the U.S.))anti-war protestor in the groin and leaves a boot-print on his face going by)
Wait a minute. The increase in the threat warning is supposed to be caused by something new. I didn’t need Homeland Security to tell me that Al Qaeda hopes to attack us some day. We all know we are targets of Al Qaeda. But Homeland Security increased the warning relying on 9/11 material. I didn’t make that up, that’s what they told us, most of the material was old news. We can’t have bogus alerts. It seems that it is all political.
[OK... Let's looks at this simply and take things step by step.
First the quote:]
ROFLMAO…are you the guy quoted? I think not. It’s very clear wht he is saying and it isn’t what you are saying that he is saying.
[They say "Guard these buildings, do this that and the other" and leave it at that, it's then the person that has received the order's job to do what he is told period.]
Those and these buildings are ALREADY being guarded for exactly the reasons Uberfuhrer Ridge is claiming to be new. As I said before, the only change that was made was to traffic patterns.
[Now maybe we can have a rational discussion based on facts and the way things really work, rather than arguements based on misconceptions founded by people who have no clue how things work on the inside or why.]
I doubt it. I’m getting dizzy from watching you spin.
[Ya know, "GsOuPx", if you've got that much to say, how about you go open your own blog? It would save us the annoyance of having to read and refute your drivel?]
I’m sorry that you find reading an annoyance. Go turn Hannity back on. He’ll tell you what to think.
["Yes, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said the information made public yesterday was obtained within the past 36 hours."]
I know it was. They announced that they found it. So?
[Wait a minute. The increase in the threat warning is supposed to be caused by something new. I didn't need Homeland Security to tell me that Al Qaeda hopes to attack us some day. ]
You’ve got it.
They don’t.
Spin Dems, Spin
Stir the truth into a bitter soup.
Give it to the Media quick.
They will serve it to the sheeple and make them sick.
[Zero attacks on US soil since 9/11/01. Seems like someone is doing a decent job of protecting us.]
Increased terror attacks gainst American interests and allied around the globe is a decent job?
I’d hate to see how you measure failure.
Those buildings may have been cased as part of the original plot to fly even more planes into American targets on 9/11 than actually were successfully carried out. Difficulties in preparation, recruitment, training, or logistics may have caused those and other targets to be scratched on that day. Since vulnerability of those buildings has been assessed in some detail already, I’d say those buildings are MORE likely to be targets in the future – some of the work has already been done.
Debate about the timing of the release of this information, politicizing the reporting, and otherwise blowing smoke about the whole thing may be missing the real point – that the buildings were and presently are high-value targets.
I don’t have to be the guy they quoted, it’s called reading comprehension, something they teach (at least around here) from grade school on.
Stop trying to find conspiracy and simply look at the blatant and obvious facts. Given that I have served in the military and you have most likely not, I am most likely a little bit better informed than the average layman or blog reader about how things worked. Most likely scenario the guy was told to do a job in a specific way, he was not told why other than “we suspect they plan to attack here” which he has been told for a long time. Thus he has not heard anything new. That’s not spin, or a conspiracy it’s how the gov’t works plain and simple. Actually it’s how MOST businesses work, you can’t get anything done if everything goes to commitee and everyone gives their 2 cents. So again this individual most likely hasn’t been told jack because he doesn’t need to know the information to do his job. Does your boss give you an in-depth reason for every single thing he asks you to do? Please get back into the real world, and figure out how things really work.
Let the people do their jobs and stop second guessing everything our gov’t does. Believe it or not, not everyone is out to screw the public.
Debate about the timing of the release of this information, politicizing the reporting, and otherwise blowing smoke about the whole thing may be missing the real point – that the buildings were and presently are high-value targets.
<<<
Well said, hernesheir.
Tom Ridge is to commended for release of the information. The lunatic fringes who could care less about the survival of this nation almost are as scary as the terrorists who seek to do it harm.
The point gets lost as the partisan volume increases.
[Increased terror attacks gainst American interests and allied around the globe is a decent job?] – GOPdoesntSUC
Ah yes, the old “everything’s our fault” line. And that little thing on September 11, 2001….that was caused by our “aggressive” stance against terrorism? No, because we didn’t have an aggressive stance against terrorism. Flimsy argument number 10,238 out of your mouth just shot down.
When are you and your liberal buddies going to realize that not everything bad that goes on in this world is the fault of the United States? I know…as soon as a Democrat is in the White House. Kosovo was a “great and noble” undertaking. But Iraq is meaningless.
Inconsistency is the death knell of liberalism.
For the Deaniacs and the GOPsux crowd to decide that the main story in the terrorist alert is that it is a politically motivated way to grab the spectacularly good headlines away from Kerry is to reveal a fundamental fact about their mindset – they are in denial of the fact that the terrorists are at war with us.
They live in a pretend world where the this is Bush’s war and if he is defeated the war goes away. It is a pathetic admission of addiction to living in an adolescent fantasy world where the only bad people in the world are Republicans, America, and big fat capitalist pigs out to colonize the world on behalf of Starbucks.