Ridge: White House Suspects Beltway Sniper Has Terror Ties

NewsMax ^ | 10/15/02 | Limbacher

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

As eyewitness accounts emerged yesterday describing the Beltway sniper as Mideastern in appearance, Homeland Security Czar Tom Ridge revealed that the White House suspects the deadly attacks could be part of the recent wave of global terrorism.

"I don't think we can foreclose that," Ridge told reporters. "Certainly, the FBI and no one in the White House has foreclosed it."

The nation's security chief explained that he had yet to unearth any hard evidence that the killer has ties to al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group, and stressed that "you don't want to draw conclusions prematurely."

But one federal law enforcement source confirmed that the FBI is probing a possible al-Qaeda link to the shooting spree, the New York Post said.

The Beltway Sniper-al-Qaeda probe so far consists of a review of intelligence from Afghanistan and elsewhere on snipers and sniper training.

In a terrorism alert earlier this year, the FBI warned that al-Qaeda had made contingency plans for a low-budget terrorism campaign against the U.S. that could include random shootings at places like shopping malls and other locations where the public gathered in large numbers.

[J. Semper Paratus]

Hmmmmmm.

Bump!

[vin-one]

The White House must be lurking again.

[Interesting Times]

The really interesting question is: how did NewsMax manage to claw its way across the chasm between Ridge's "I don't think we can foreclose that" remark and their "White House Suspects Beltway Sniper Has Terror Ties" headline?

[Alberta's Child]

Homeland Security Czar Tom Ridge revealed that the White House suspects the deadly attacks could be part of the recent wave of global terrorism.

This could be good news. I speculated yesterday that there would be no official acknowledgement of terrorism in this case until they were certain that the sniper threat was either eliminated or seriously diminished. There's no way the White House is ever going to admit that there is something outside its control lurking out there threatening U.S. citizens right in their own back yards.

[zarf]

News Max=The Weekly World

[iconoclast]

The really interesting question is: how did NewsMax manage to claw its way across the chasm between Ridge's "I don't think we can foreclose that" remark and their "White House Suspects Beltway Sniper Has Terror Ties" headline?

Limburger's got a huuuuge trapeze and traverses chasms often.

[zarf]

What's the solution to terror?

[js1138]

The really interesting question is: how did NewsMax manage to claw its way across the chasm between Ridge's "I don't think we can foreclose that" remark and their "White House Suspects Beltway Sniper Has Terror Ties" headline?

Until the perps are caught and the cell closed down, it would be foolish for public officials to say they are AQ. Bush has said from the beginning that it is terrorism, just didn't know exactly who is involved. Nothing would harm the war on terrorism more than making claims that turn out to be untrue.

[js1138]

But it just shows that any wars in Afghanistan and the upcoming game with Iraq, will not stop terrorism in the slightest. It will only enhance it and the motivations and convictions of the people who want to cause terrorism.

Signed up just to bless us with this tidbit, huh?

[ClancyJ]

" It will only enhance it and the motivations and convictions of the people who want to cause terrorism."

So, are we just supposed to let them kill us? Apparently, they are going to kill us if we do not go to war with Iraq or do anything at all. Looks like it won't make a bit of difference.

I think I would prefer to fight for our country and our people.

[Terriergal]

This has to be a delayed release of info... one can't help but to think terrorism right away. At least, I surely did the moment I heard what was going on, the methodical brazenness of these crimes, etc...

[Terriergal]

Yeah... got any actual suggestions?

[Wright is right!]

What amazes me is how the media has described the citizenry as being terror-IZED, but the shooter is not described as a terror-IST.

Michael

[Scott from the Left Coast]

I am pretty close to your position here...my sense is that the White House will delay any such announcement until the proof is: 1) conclusive (when the President says something they must be certain because of the tremendous authority his statements carry -- they can't afford to be wrong); and 2) when they have a plan to deal with the outfall of the situation (the public reaction, which might be dramatic), a plan that they have high confidence in.

Just delaying the conjecture as long as they have has probably already worked to dampen the possibility of an explosive public reacton (against mulims in this country), simply because enough time has passed that everyone now "expects" this to be the case -- they've gotten used to the idea.

[ninenot]

Yup to your entire post. Last thing GWB needs is an inaccurate assessment.

Only question: going forward, what will he suggest? That Americans carry arms? That they watch out for delivery trucks parked near shopping malls, particularly if the muzzle of a rifle is protruding?

It's a challenge to figure out exactly HOW to defense against some pretty good snipers.

One more thing: if it turns out to be AlQ., does GWB politely ask all Middle Easterners to leave the country? Citizens or not?

[jwalsh07]

September 23,2002..Attack on Embassy in Jakarta
October 2,2002.....Sniper attacks begin
October 6,2002.....Attack on French Tanker off Yemen
October 8,2002.....Attack on Marines in Kuwait
October 12,2002....Attack on disco in Bali
October 16,2002....Sniper still on the loose

I would say the chatter is at an earsplitting level.

[Snowy]

...the FBI warned that al-Qaeda had made contingency plans for a low-budget terrorism campaign

[Scott from the Left Coast]

I don't think he can ask citizens to leave the country. But, once Iraq is toppled, I suppose he could do a serious dragnet on non-citizen "middle-easterners" (bad term, I know).

(This cannot occur before Iraq because we need cooperation from Gulf States and even Saudi Arabia prior to conquering Iraq. Once Iraq is conquered the need for bases in other middle-east countries lessens a great deal -- one reason those other countries aren't all too keen on seeing Iraq go over to our side).

It's a very tough nut and there are no really good solutions, now that so many are here, on our soil. Any solution will be long in implementing and fraught with political skullduggery and calculation. They have us at our weakest point: Political correctness and "open" society. These are our flaws. This is why our offensive in their territory is so important. Cutting them off at the head will be an easier solution than weeding through the hundreds of thousands of individuals that may have infiltrated.