NationStates Jolt Archive

The top news story on most US news services today is a statement by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller regarding an "increased concern over the possiblity of a major terrorist attack on US soil" this summer. They are so concerned with disseminating this information, that they have scheduled a joint press conference for Tuesday afternoon to address this issue.

However, is anyone still listening?

Ever since 9/11, the US public has been bombarded with terrorist threat level increases. Usually around holidays and usually at the beginning of summer, we have been told that the terrorists "chatter" (which, frankly, to me makes them sound like 12 year old girls or something) has increased and something may happen. Invariably, nothing does and the true terrorist incidents (Madrid, Bali, etc.) happen when no warning has been issued. We've also been told since the upset of the Spanish government that terrorists might try to directly attack US soil in an effort to discredit our current administration (which is silly, because they're doing an excellent job of that themselves). Additionally, authorities have expressed concern over certain upcoming, high profile, public events such as the Democratic and Republican Party Conventions, the dedication of the WWII Memorial Monument, Fourth of July celebrations and the Olympics. Again, though, seemingly over the last three years not a single major holiday or public event hasn't prompted concern and usually an elevation of thw swanky new "Terror Threat Level" indicator. These elevations have only stopped recently after a massive public outcry against such non-specific warnings and fear-mongering.

The news conference this afternoon will not present any specific time, target or dates for these supposed attacks. It seems to be little more than Ashcroft and Mueller getting on TV in an almost backdoor political campaign speech to reaffirm their stance against terrorisim and, at the same time, replant the seed of danger in the minds of the American public. There is no plan to raise the official Terror Threat Level. Police Commissioners in New York, Boston and Los Angeles have not been informed of specific, creditable threats against thier cities. The Department of Homeland Security "remains concerned about the Al Qaeda threat but has no new specific information." One DHS staffer was quoted by CNN as saying, "We are not aware of any new highly credible intelligence indicating a planned attack in the U.S. this summer." Given the release yesterday of a Washington Think Tank's report that Al Qaeda numbers are swelling in direct response to the US war in Iraq, the timing of this press conference seems...odd.

Is this just more fear mongering? While it's doubtless that Al Qaeda is plotting something against the US, does simply drumming up public fear without any creditable, specific information hurt or help Bush's War on Terror? Is this a politically motivated announcement, a bait-and-switch manover to take the focus off the ever worsening Iraq prison abuse scandal, the new home buying figures tumble and record low approval numbers for Bush?

I believe that these types of announcements increase the awareness of the general population. Even if only a small percentage really pay attention to the proper degree it will help. Perhaps that is the one person that will spot something and report it to help avoid a terrorist act.

Just as people need to be reminded of the impact of the events of 9/11, they need to be reminded that we are ar WAR here, this is not just a passing fancy or political ruse. There is a threat and being more aware and concerned is the best way to help fight back.

How many terrorist acts have these announcements prevented?
Could be 0, could be 27. We'll never know.

Does the simple act of telling people to be on their toes thwart the terrorists to some degree? Maybe.

Terrorism intel is probably very spotty, and not very reliable.
One of the few things we learned from 9/11 was that terrorist "chatter" had increased just before the attack. Now, if we get an increase in chatter, and a couple of sources that corroborate evidence of an attack, then they should make the announcement.

Better to have 10 million angry people than 4,000 dead ones!

Ever since 9/11, Bush and co. have used fear to a greater degree than even the terrorists. It is painfully obvious that half of what they say is a way to try and keep Bush elected. Just like the "don't say anything bad about Bush, this is wartime and that is bad" crap the right keeps giving us. All these constant but nonspecific warnings are doing is making the public more complancent. If you heard every day that there might be a bomb in your building, eventually you would get used to hearing that and stop worrying too much about it.

This is a tough question for me. The optimistic side of me wants to believe that the Bush administration has learned its lessons from not only 9-11, but from the negative press they've received in recent months from former administration insiders over their lack of focus on al Qaeda. I really hope that they've realized just how bad they screwed up by going into Iraq and that this announcement signals a change in their thinking and attitudes.

But the cynical part of me, nourished by the incompetence of this administration over the last 3+ years, thinks that this is election year ass covering, so that if something does slip through, they can say "we warned you" and if nothing slips through, they can say "we protected you!"

Does anyone notice the irony that despite the idea that the US is in a "war on terror" the Republican party seems intent on actually increasing the level of fear across the U.S. I'd have thought that by fighting terror they'd want to do the opposite.

Terrorism is a very real danger to the entire western world, yet that point conceded I think George Bush is well aware of the fact that his best hope of getting re-elected is by pushing issues of national security into the forefront of voters minds for the upcoming elections. Hence all the rhetoric about being a "war president", the endless "we must defend our freedom" speeches, and by constantly accusing John Kerry of being "weak" on the issue of defence. I actually think that Iraq serves a similar purpose and will be more of an electoral asset to G.W than a detractor, particularly since Kerry initially supported the war and is largely restricted in terms of the criticism he can offer.

I would be very willing to bet that there will be at least one terrorist "scare" or an elevated alert status in the build up to the elections this year.

If a terrorist attack happens on American soil this summer, how many of you will say that it was really just pulled off by the administration because it's an election year?

(rhetorical question- I already know the answer :roll: )

Just as people need to be reminded of the impact of the events of 9/11, they need to be reminded that we are ar WAR here, this is not just a passing fancy or political ruse. There is a threat and being more aware and concerned is the best way to help fight back.

And Oceania has *always* been at war with Eurasia ...

Whats next - the 'War on thoughtcrime' ?

If a terrorist attack happens on American soil this summer, how many of you will say that it was really just pulled off by the administration because it's an election year?

(rhetorical question- I already know the answer :roll: )

i won't say it was "pulled off" by the administration, but i wouldn't be surprised if the administration let something slip through to forward their agenda, or were simply negligent as they were in the case of 9/11.

If a terrorist attack happens on American soil this summer, how many of you will say that it was really just pulled off by the administration because it's an election year?

(rhetorical question- I already know the answer )Well tough shit, because you're getting an answer.

Cynical as I am, pissed off as I am at this administration, I still don't think that they would deliberately allow a terrorist threat to get through, much less pull one off themselves.

But will I hold them accountable if alQaeda sets off a dirty bomb in the US? You bet your sweet ass I will, especially if it turns out that the material came in through one of the many weak points that have been pointed out time and again by both partisan and non-partisan critics of this administration.

actually it wasn't just bush and his admin it was the government before his as well (clintons) in fact if anyone is to blame for 9/11 it is the government which failed us and will I gurantee do so again as it has and does in various other areas. Hey if they have info on possible issues I wanna hear about it so I know whats up right now its elevated for summer and its possible so I'll just stay up here in the isolated mountains :lol: :)

If a terrorist attack happens on American soil this summer, how many of you will say that it was really just pulled off by the administration because it's an election year?

(rhetorical question- I already know the answer :roll: )

I won't say that this administration "pulled it off". I will, however, question the fact that we are continuously being told that we are safer now than we were, yet at the same time we're being told that we're under constant threat. It's a mixed message. My understanding was that we were going into Afghanistan and Iraq to wipe out these terror networks and now we're being told that they're more prevellant than before and that, three years after the beginning of the "War on Terror" we are no safer and, in fact, may be at a greater risk. We suspended the Geneva Convetions and beat he hell out of potentially innocent detainees and still can't pinpoint anything other than an increased level of chatter which always is "more persuasive" than it was last time but never seems to amount to much of anything.

The fact that this administration has deliberately mislead the public many times means that I can not take their word on blind faith any longer and must demand some sort of factual evidence which they are either incapable of or unwilling to provide. So there needs to be clarity of message and, like Incertonia said, I sincerely hope this is the administration waking up and realizing that the true impending threat to this country was never in Iraq, but has been running around in the back hills of Afghanistan making a mockery out of our intelligence gathering systems.

This just in. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5061256/)

WASHINGTON - Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on Wednesday sought to temper warnings that a major terrorist attack against the United States may be planned for the summer, saying that new intelligence does not necessitate raising the national alert level.

“I can confirm that we have seen for the past several weeks a continuous stream of reporting that talks about the possibility of attacks on the United States, but not unlike what we’ve seen for the past several years,” he said on NBC’s “Today” show.

So which is it? Is there an increased threat or isn't there? And if the increased threat is just because there's more shit going on--the two Party conventions, the G-8 summit, the elections--then why not just say that?

The more I read, the more this falls into the "cover your ass" category.

Edit: And yet, on MSNBC.com, where I got the above story, the Breaking News headline is Ashcroft saying that they have credible evidence of a planned attack.

I'll give them this much credit--at least this time they've got pictures of suspects out there for the public to see. Maybe they have learned something.

God damn, i canot believe there are this many people who consider everything the Bush administration does as bad things. Terrorism is uncertian, if Al-Quaeda even thinks the public will be more cautious, then it will affect their plans. The words Ashcroft used were "credible and from multiple sources." He even named possible targets (G-8 Summit, etc..), yet you Bush haters think its just about "fear-mongering."

You Bush haters can go ahead and ignore it, but it is the duty of every American to keep their eyes open for the suspects that were showed.

This just in. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5061256/)

WASHINGTON - Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on Wednesday sought to temper warnings that a major terrorist attack against the United States may be planned for the summer, saying that new intelligence does not necessitate raising the national alert level.

“I can confirm that we have seen for the past several weeks a continuous stream of reporting that talks about the possibility of attacks on the United States, but not unlike what we’ve seen for the past several years,” he said on NBC’s “Today” show.

So which is it? Is there an increased threat or isn't there? And if the increased threat is just because there's more shit going on--the two Party conventions, the G-8 summit, the elections--then why not just say that?

The more I read, the more this falls into the "cover your ass" category.

Edit: And yet, on MSNBC.com, where I got the above story, the Breaking News headline is Ashcroft saying that they have credible evidence of a planned attack.

I'll give them this much credit--at least this time they've got pictures of suspects out there for the public to see. Maybe they have learned something.

Welcome to the Mixed Message Soft Shoe of the Bush Administration. Like someone once said, "If you can't dazzle them with dexterity, baffle them with (explicative deleted)".

God damn, i canot believe there are this many people who consider everything the Bush administration does as bad things. Terrorism is uncertian, if Al-Quaeda even thinks the public will be more cautious, then it will affect their plans. The words Ashcroft used were "credible and from multiple sources." He even named possible targets (G-8 Summit, etc..), yet you Bush haters think its just about "fear-mongering."

You Bush haters can go ahead and ignore it, but it is the duty of every American to keep their eyes open for the suspects that were showed.

A) Please do not use the name of the Lord that way. It is highly offensive.

B) The fact that they are "creditable and from multiple sources" is the same line we've heard since the first time they raised the threat level and nothing happened. After repetition after repetition of the same line with no tangible evidence showing that it was useful one way or the other you have to expect a certain amount of skepticisim. Anything else would be pure foolishness, particularly considering the way this administration is willing to play fast and loose with the facts.

C) Those possible targets are just that, possible. They were as possible last week as they are this week. There is no conclusive proof that they are, in fact, targeted at all. Why make this announcement today? What was the purpose? Boston, Los Angeles and New York have all said they haven't received any special information indicating they are in immenent danger, so why raise this specter at all other than to detract from other things that are currently going on?

D) It's also the duty of every American, while keeping one eye on possible terror suspects (which I never said I doubted exist), to keep the other eye on their own government, particularly when that government doesn't have a great track record with the truth and isn't above manipulating it to produce the effect it wants.

God damn, i canot believe there are this many people who consider everything the Bush administration does as bad things. Terrorism is uncertian, if Al-Quaeda even thinks the public will be more cautious, then it will affect their plans. The words Ashcroft used were "credible and from multiple sources." He even named possible targets (G-8 Summit, etc..), yet you Bush haters think its just about "fear-mongering."

You Bush haters can go ahead and ignore it, but it is the duty of every American to keep their eyes open for the suspects that were showed.

A) Please do not use the name of the Lord that way. It is highly offensive.

B) The fact that they are "creditable and from multiple sources" is the same line we've heard since the first time they raised the threat level and nothing happened. After repetition after repetition of the same line with no tangible evidence showing that it was useful one way or the other you have to expect a certain amount of skepticisim. Anything else would be pure foolishness, particularly considering the way this administration is willing to play fast and loose with the facts.

C) Those possible targets are just that, possible. They were as possible last week as they are this week. There is no conclusive proof that they are, in fact, targeted at all. Why make this announcement today? What was the purpose? Boston, Los Angeles and New York have all said they haven't received any special information indicating they are in immenent danger, so why raise this specter at all other than to detract from other things that are currently going on?

D) It's also the duty of every American, while keeping one eye on possible terror suspects (which I never said I doubted exist), to keep the other eye on their own government, particularly when that government doesn't have a great track record with the truth and isn't above manipulating it to produce the effect it wants.

TP

Since they recieved intelligence that named names, and told us they were coming to, or already in the US, they have to tell us. But really, I think we are giving too much credit to this administration. Rather, we should be giving credit of the intelligence to field agents. Unless you are in the opinion where you wish to blame them for lack of specifics. In any case, I wouldn't blame the Bush Administration. After all, all anyone in the government is doing is trying to make us more aware, for now.

I believe that these types of announcements increase the awareness of the general population. Even if only a small percentage really pay attention to the proper degree it will help. Perhaps that is the one person that will spot something and report it to help avoid a terrorist act.

Just as people need to be reminded of the impact of the events of 9/11, they need to be reminded that we are ar WAR here, this is not just a passing fancy or political ruse. There is a threat and being more aware and concerned is the best way to help fight back.
It appears that people are not prepared to pay to much attention, according to this poll on MSNBC:

Do you do anything differently in response to new terror warnings? *

77399 responses

Yes 22%

No 78%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5061256/

I don't know if crying wolf too many times helps?

I believe that I'f they had any real information they would keep it to themselves and act on it instead of trying to scare the public.

This is scaremongering. And Blatent seeing as how its an election year.

we've been on orange alert for nearly a year now, i think. its geting old.

you guys can ignore the threat level, I am going to pay attention to it.

It would seem like they are crying wolf.

An attack by a foreign terrorist(s) is less likely than one done by an American... They are using the attacks of 9/11 as an excuse to attack countries they don't like...

I believe that I'f they had any real information they would keep it to themselves and act on it instead of trying to scare the public.

This is scaremongering. And Blatent seeing as how its an election year.
I swear to God I was sick of the Bush Administration being called "fear mongering" and now I am sick of "fear mongering" and "scare mongering"

If you liberals are so fucking smart, accuse the President of something that doesn't involve "mongering"

we've been on orange alert for nearly a year now, i think. its geting old.
Makes one wonder if the Bush admin is really crying wolf...

Now, why would they do that? I ignore them all, because well, I'm more worried about being shot in my own downtown area of the city I live in than a terrorist coming here to the middle-of-nowhere to hurt us.

I believe that I'f they had any real information they would keep it to themselves and act on it instead of trying to scare the public.

This is scaremongering. And Blatent seeing as how its an election year.
I swear to God I was sick of the Bush Administration being called "fear mongering" and now I am sick of "fear mongering" and "scare mongering"

If you liberals are so fucking smart, accuse the President of something that doesn't involve "mongering"
How about "fear promoter", "war promoter", "scare promoter"?

Now, why would they do that? I ignore them all, because well, I'm more worried about being shot in my own downtown area of the city I live in than a terrorist coming here to the middle-of-nowhere to hurt us.
You make a very good point, TH...

I believe that I'f they had any real information they would keep it to themselves and act on it instead of trying to scare the public.

This is scaremongering. And Blatent seeing as how its an election year.
I swear to God I was sick of the Bush Administration being called "fear mongering" and now I am sick of "fear mongering" and "scare mongering"

If you liberals are so fucking smart, accuse the President of something that doesn't involve "mongering"

Sailor mongering

I swear to God I was sick of the Bush Administration being called "fear mongering" and now I am sick of "fear mongering" and "scare mongering"

If you liberals are so fucking smart, accuse the President of something that doesn't involve "mongering"

Gross incompetance.
Extreme ignorance.
Massive intolerance.
Narrow-mindedness...

I swear to God I was sick of the Bush Administration being called "fear mongering" and now I am sick of "fear mongering" and "scare mongering"

If you liberals are so fucking smart, accuse the President of something that doesn't involve "mongering"

Seriously though your little rant doesnt invalidate my statement. Quit changing the subject.

Seriously though your little rant doesnt invalidate my statement. Quit changing the subject.
You want me to get on the subject, okay...

If there is a terrorist threat, I want to know everything about it. I want to know as much as the FBI/CIA/NSA/DIA/IRS/INS/DoD/HUD/HHS/Secret Service knows. I want to see pictures and know possible where abouts of people who may be involved with an attack. If you want the government to treat citizens like children and not tell them the truth when it comes to terrorist attacks you are stupid.

I guess you really must believe ignorance is bliss.

"And thus he successfully ignored the original statement"

If they had information they would have gotten the terrorists. They know who is recieving "chatter" and if theres credibile threats then that should be all the evidence they need to arrest them or take them out in time of war and stress.

Dont you know they have assasinated american citizens for less.

Why do I get the feeling that many of you are the same people who complain that Bush could've stopped the 9/11 attacks using the intelligence he had available? Considering the number of people who expected the government to just shut down the country on such incomplete, unsubstantiated information, it shows a definite logical inconsistency to then complain when the government makes minor changes to security and announces its actions when better information than the famed September 2001 memo contained is available.

Also, please remember: The government is not making a big deal about this. The media is. There have been a total of five alerts over three years. As far as I'm concerned, this entire threat advisory is an internal system based in policy changes more than anything else.

we've been on orange alert for nearly a year now, i think. its geting old.

If by "orange" you mean "yellow," which happens to be the standard level, then you'd be right. Congratulations for relying on hearsay and made up data to prove your own nonexistent point.

I dont think Bush could've stopped the attacks on what he knew. I dont assert that at all. Your feelings are wrong. But how DO you know what intelligence he had. The Buish admin wont tell what they knew.

Is constant posting of misleading polls hurting or helping NationStates? I guess we'll have to wait for the next attack to find out.

Seriously though your little rant doesnt invalidate my statement. Quit changing the subject.
You want me to get on the subject, okay...

If there is a terrorist threat, I want to know everything about it. I want to know as much as the FBI/CIA/NSA/DIA/IRS/INS/DoD/HUD/HHS/Secret Service knows. I want to see pictures and know possible where abouts of people who may be involved with an attack. If you want the government to treat citizens like children and not tell them the truth when it comes to terrorist attacks you are stupid.

I guess you really must believe ignorance is bliss.If you had bothered to read my earlier post in its entirety, you'd have noticed that I gave the administration credit for coming out with these names and pictures. It's a good move, and I hope it's a sign that someone learned something from the summer of 2001.

That said--you do have conflicting statements coming out. The Att. General and the head of the FBI are saying there's a credible threat and that they know something while the Director of Homeland Security is saying it's the same sort of stuff we've been getting for the last few years and that the increased alert is due to the fact that there's more going on this summer (the conventions, the G-8 summit, the elections). And those conflicting statements, combined with the track record of this administration, do give one pause as to the motives of this particular announcement.

I dont think Bush could've stopped the attacks on what he knew. I dont assert that at all. Your feelings are wrong. But how DO you know what intelligence he had.

There are many who do make such assertions; if you don't, at least you're consistent, and that commands respect. I was referring to a memo given to the Cabinet in August of 2001 with a section titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US." The memo was eventually released into the public domain and can be found at The Smoking Gun (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html), among other places. Many who have not read the memo or who depend on others to not read the memo report it as a damning document; most who have read it acknowledge that there really was no actionable intelligence in that memo.

Anyway, my point, roundabout as it is, is that many people criticize the administration for failing to act on such vague threats in 2001 and, now, criticize them for instead acting on (at least slightly) more credible threats in slight ways.

Why do I get the feeling that many of you are the same people who complain that Bush could've stopped the 9/11 attacks using the intelligence he had available? Considering the number of people who expected the government to just shut down the country on such incomplete, unsubstantiated information, it shows a definite logical inconsistency to then complain when the government makes minor changes to security and announces its actions when better information than the famed September 2001 memo contained is available.

I've never claimed to believe that Bush could have stopped the 9/11 attack so perhaps, before you launch into gross generalizations of what I believe and what I don't, you might want to get informed. My point in starting this thread was neatly summed up by the poster who gave the informal poll from MSNBC asking if Americans intend to change their summer plans on the basis of this speculative at best information. I also wanted to know if the frequent leaking or outright supplying of "possible threats" to the press has had an inpact on how much people trust this administration. And exactly how do you know that the information the government currently has is better than that they were in possession of prior 9/11? They have told us nothing substantive and simply ask that we take this all on faith that they have something concrete. This administration has been less than forthcoming with the truth in the past and I see no reason to blindly follow them this time. As another poster also pointed out, if they had any real leads, they'd act on them and not suspiciously attempt to distract the current public focus on the situation in Iraq, high gas prices and still-rampant unemployment.

Also, please remember: The government is not making a big deal about this. The media is. There have been a total of five alerts over three years. As far as I'm concerned, this entire threat advisory is an internal system based in policy changes more than anything else.[/quote]

Er, when the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI call a press conference, that doesn't qualify as a "big deal"? You are also ignoring the many times the government has given the press information about "increased chatter levels" or warned about "possible potential threats" without raising the terror level.

I believe that I'f they had any real information they would keep it to themselves and act on it instead of trying to scare the public.

This is scaremongering. And Blatent seeing as how its an election year.
I swear to God I was sick of the Bush Administration being called "fear mongering" and now I am sick of "fear mongering" and "scare mongering"

If you liberals are so fucking smart, accuse the President of something that doesn't involve "mongering"

i'm not a liberal...can i still call him on that? i promise i won't fcall him fear-mongering once he stops being a fear-mongerer.

Most of the problems in the U.S. dealing with terrorists is our own freedoms. We all want to be protected but are loath to give up anything that will interfere with what is perceived as normal day-to-day activities.

It is easier by far to sit and wait for the next 'bad thing' to happen then start pointing fingers and assigning blame.

The government is in a difficult position since in order to provide the level of protection required, nothing short of martial law is sufficient. Our government is too big and to full of self protecting departments for the level of cooperation needed to suddenly exist. What is needed is a 'culture change' within the various agencies. Steps have been taken to start the process but it will not happen quickly.

There will no doubt be another terrorist act on U.S. soil. People will die and be injured. Unfortunately most of the energy will be directed at placing blame instead of fixing the problem. Should the terrorists attack in Europe, it will be the fault of the U.S. no doubt. Understand this people, they are at war with everyone that is not part of their own ideology/group.

Do not fool yourself into believing that any other administration would be better able to deal with the situation. The problem is built into the system. We should have learned more from the situation in Iran under Jimmy Carter.