mikkey 0 #1 August 3, 2004 Just read this on the BBC. I hope that what is inferred is not true. How likely is it that this very specific alert was put out for political reasons? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3530358.stm QuoteUS terror plot intelligence 'old' The US administration admits that new warnings of attacks on American cities were based on information gathered by al-Qaeda up to four years ago. Security was tightened around US financial institutions earlier this week after raids in Pakistan recovered documents reportedly naming them. Homeland security adviser Frances Townsend said some of the information recovered was collected in 2000/2001. But she said some may have been updated "as recently as January of this year." On Sunday, Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge said the US had received "new and unusually specific information about where al-Qaeda would like to attack". "In light of new intelligence information, we have made the decision to raise the threat level for this sector in these communities to bring protective resources to an even higher level," Mr Ridge said. Some have suggested that the timing of the latest US government warning is designed to knock presidential challenger John Kerry off the front pages after his nomination as the Democratic Party's candidate last week. But Ms Townsend said: "It had nothing to do with the Democratic National Convention." Her comments followed reports in leading American newspapers that US officials were unsure if Osama Bin Laden's network was still conducting surveillance on the sites named as potential targets. She confirmed: "You can't tell from the intelligence itself whether or not those individuals [who amassed it] are still here." Employees turned up for work this week despite specific US government warnings naming 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. The raids in Pakistan reportedly turned up hundreds of photos, sketches and written documents, which included details on the number of pedestrians passing named buildings, and whether explosives would be able to melt the steel holding them up. A computer and communications expert reportedly linked to al-Qaeda, Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, and one of America's most wanted terror suspects, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, were among those held by the security forces. 'Nation in danger' BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says some leading Democrats believe that the Bush administration is playing the terrorism card for all it is worth. But he adds that whatever lies behind this heightened alert, the broader threat remains real enough and is likely to grow as November's election gets closer. President George W Bush has described the US as a "nation in danger". He has asked Congress to clear the way for a new national intelligence director, and announced the creation of a national counter-terrorism centre to collect and analyse data on suspected terrorist activities. The measures follow recommendations made by the Senate commission that investigated the 11 September attacks. --------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #2 August 3, 2004 "How likely is it that this very specific alert was put out for political reasons?" I saw this story earlier and was going to squeak it into another thread. They (the US public) are being played. Thats just my opinion....-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,196 #3 August 3, 2004 Are you suggesting that the Bush administration is cynically playing on the fears of the American public for political gain? Say it ain't so! Next thing, they will be asking small airplane owners to lock their planes with bicycle locks (oh, too late).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #4 August 3, 2004 It's not just the BBC reporting this... Google Results Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #5 August 3, 2004 QuoteIt's not just the BBC reporting this... Google Results Had a look and mostly non-US media reporting the issue of how old the intel is. Had a quick look at Fox News web site. Full of terror threat stories, Could not find a story that talks about the age of the intel behind the alert. Interesting......--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #6 August 3, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle, CA USA Today Reuters San Jose Mercury News (subscription), CA Seattle Post Intelligencer, WA Houston Chronicle, TX Los Angeles Times (subscription), CA etc... From Fox News QuoteNEW YORK — Information obtained from terrorists regarding potential attacks on certain U.S. financial targets could be up to four years old, but officials were warning that Al Qaeda (search) is patient and takes its time to plan attacks, FOX News learned Tuesday. Officials said they had not yet found hard evidence that a terrorist plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way Start to read a little more than the front page, ok? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #7 August 3, 2004 QuoteSan Francisco Chronicle, CA USA Today Reuters San Jose Mercury News (subscription), CA Seattle Post Intelligencer, WA Houston Chronicle, TX Los Angeles Times (subscription), CA etc... From Fox News QuoteNEW YORK — Information obtained from terrorists regarding potential attacks on certain U.S. financial targets could be up to four years old, but officials were warning that Al Qaeda (search) is patient and takes its time to plan attacks, FOX News learned Tuesday. Officials said they had not yet found hard evidence that a terrorist plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way Start to read a little more than the front page, ok? All right then - only had a quick look. It's late here.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 August 3, 2004 QuoteHad a look and mostly non-US media reporting the issue of how old the intel is. Had a quick look at Fox News web site. Full of terror threat stories, Could not find a story that talks about the age of the intel behind the alert. Interesting...... Yes, and if they DIDN'T act on it and there was an attack, then you would be screaming that they didn't do enough to protect the country...... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #9 August 3, 2004 I knew some blind liberal sheep would post this the nanosecond they heard about it. One sentence the liberals continue to ignore is that it was updated since January of this year. Let me ask you this. How many years of planning did the 9/11 attack involve? Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 August 3, 2004 The timing of this begs for questions to be asked. What better way to ensure Kerry doesn't see a bounce? We've seen numerous alerts in the past 3 years, without a single event, or even an arrest, taking place. I would hope the appropriate Senate subcommittee was shown the evidence behind this selective uptick. If done, that would be a comforting counterproof to the allegations being made wrt political timing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #11 August 3, 2004 QuoteThe timing of this begs for questions to be asked. For the liberals it does. For the rest of the rational, intelligent, independent minds it does not. Maybe they should have warned us after the attack occured. Wait...nevemind...then they would be crying about Bush not warning us fast enough. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,196 #12 August 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe timing of this begs for questions to be asked. For the liberals it does. For the rest of the rational, intelligent, independent minds it does not. Maybe they should have warned us after the attack occured. Wait...nevemind...then they would be crying about Bush not warning us fast enough. Tom Ridge was just on the radio denying that it was a politically motivated alert. Then admitted that NO new information was used to issue this alert.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,154 #13 August 3, 2004 > The timing of this begs for questions to be asked. What better way >to ensure Kerry doesn't see a bounce? Of course, although the arrest of the Al Qaeda figure was the event planned to disrupt the DNC: But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #14 August 3, 2004 Bill, haven't you figured out how to determine whether someone is telling the truth yet? If it is good for Bush, it must be the truth. If it's not, it must be a lie. Simple, really. Any 3 year old republican can grasp that concept. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #15 August 3, 2004 So true. Why can't anyone accept that both political parties are made up of "politicians", which is probably defined as "creative liar". They release all information when it is helpful to THEM, and they release it with a spin that benefits THEM. This is not specifically a Republican trait, but to think that the conservatives (and liberals) don't do it ALL THE TIME is as naive as a person can get. It seems that the conservatives on here love to follow "their leaders" blindly and with 100% faith. Kelly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #16 August 3, 2004 Quote... It seems that the conservatives on here love to follow "their leaders" blindly and with 100% faith. Kelly That's why they call Rush "I need a hit like Courtney Love after a long day" Limbaugh drones are called "Dittoheads." They cannot think for themselves... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #17 August 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe timing of this begs for questions to be asked. For the rest of the rational, intelligent, independent minds it does not. There's something rather amusing about your stating that intelligent independent minds not asking questions and accepting everything on faith. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #18 August 4, 2004 QuoteThere's something rather amusing about your stating that intelligent independent minds not asking questions and accepting everything on faith. Not as amusing as someone who thinks how his party tells him to and thinks everything is a conspiracy by the big bad republicans. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 August 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteThere's something rather amusing about your stating that intelligent independent minds not asking questions and accepting everything on faith. Not as amusing as someone who thinks how his party tells him to and thinks everything is a conspiracy by the big bad republicans. That might be a valid, if irrelevent comment, had it not been for the fact that I voted for Bush in 2000. And if we accept Kerry as the leader of the party right now, he's stated he doesn't have such suspicions. By definition, an independent mind asks questions and assumes little as fact. Otoh, you think exactly what your party tells you. Honestly, when is that last time you challenged a statement from the GOP? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
