Posted on 05/25/2004 4:52:15 PM PDT by Wolfstar
17 minutes ago (at time of posting) The intelligence does not include a time, place or method of attack but is among the most disturbing received by the government since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to a senior federal counterterrorism official who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity Tuesday.
Of most concern, the official said, is that terrorists may possess and use a chemical, biological or radiological weapon that could cause much more damage and casualties than a conventional bomb.
"There is clearly a steady drumbeat of information that they are going to attack and hit us hard," said the official, who described the intelligence as highly credible.
The official declined to provide any specifics about the sources of the information but said there was an unusually high level of corroboration.
Despite that, the official said there was no immediate plan to raise the nation's terrorism threat level from yellow, or elevated, to orange, or high. The threat level has been at yellow — midpoint on the five-color scale — since January.
Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller plan a news conference Wednesday to outline an intensive effort by law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security officials to detect and disrupt any potential plots. And the FBI plans to dispatch a bulletin to some 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies warning of the threat.
Beginning with Saturday's dedication of the new World War II Memorial in Washington, the summer presents a number of high-profile targets in the United States. They include the G-8 summit in Georgia next month that will attract top officials from some of America's closest allies, the Democratic National Convention in Boston in July and the Republican National Convention in August in New York.
The FBI and Homeland Security Department also are concerned about so-called soft targets such as shopping malls anywhere in the United States that offer a far less protected environment than a political convention hall.
U.S. authorities repeatedly have said al-Qaida is determined to mount an attack on U.S. soil, in part to announce to the world that it remains capable of doing so despite the money and effort that has gone into homeland security in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
There also is concern terrorists might try to mount an attack to coincide with the November election. The political fallout from the March 11 train bombings in Spain taught al-Qaida that an attack timed to an election can have a major impact. Spain's former ruling party was ousted in the voting that followed the bombing, which killed 191 and injured more than 2,000.
The official did not say how many suspected al-Qaida or other terrorist operatives are believed in the country, whether they made their way into the United States recently or have been here for some time. The FBI has warned in the past that Islamic extremist groups may attempt to recruit non-Middle Easterners or women for attacks because they would be less likely to arouse suspicion.
Special security attention already is being focused to the nation's rail, subway and bus lines. The FBI last week sent out an intelligence bulletin to law enforcement agencies urging vigilance against suicide bombers, who have been used by terror groups worldwide to devastating effect but not so far in the United States.
Separately, Immigration and Customs Enforcement chief Michael Garcia told reporters Tuesday that some 2,300 of its agents are being deployed to assist in security for the high-profile events scheduled this summer in the United States. These include as many as 20 agents each day working with the Secret Service to protect the campaigns of President Bush (news - web sites) and Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), the Democratic presidential candidate.
Garcia said his agency also is working to "tighten the investigative system" to ensure that terrorists do not enter the United States by way of human smuggling operations or through the vast, largely unprotected border with Canada.
ROFLMAO......now you all stop!
Huh?
We can't secure our own freaking borders, but we can send thousands in arms over to Iraq to have alley to alley street fighting with Iraqi gangs, and make their entire society into a shinning pillar of democracy?
We are told daily that we are in Iraq so the bad guys wont come here, yet our government has stood in silence for 25 years now completely ignoring this epic lawlessness?
And now we are told, "We just can't stop it". That freaking bull sheeet.
Maybe it's high time we pull our troops out of Outer Mongolia and put them on our *own* borders.
After all, isn't the protection of America, our homeland PRIORITY #1? How are these politicos going to look if we take another hit and they kill 20,000 Ameicans or more, right here in the USA? It will get very ugly for them, bet the rent.
Angie, I think the American resolve has not been truly awakened yet. Any who are ready to toss in the towel and concede defeat, fine, repeat after me: "Allah-u Akbar!" 'Cuz you're going to be saying that a lot!
There have been enough of them here on FR lately.
Look around the Missouri Ozarks. If you seriously want more info, please FReepmail me.
Another attack on our soil is the only thing that will get the f'n libs to see the seriousness of this? So sad.
tell us how you can stop 20 guys from getting into the country? how many troops would you need at both borders, and guarding the coastal regions, to achieve the level of security needed to stop 20 inflitrators. sure, you can have better border security in a "macro" sense - but to stop a team of 20, with 100% certainty, it can't be done.
Amen to your prayer.
A few weeks ago, on O'Reilly, it was reported by a gentleman (who, I believe worked directly under Ashcroft, but I may be mistaken) that after 9/11, our borders were enforced by the National Guard, for about 3 months. It was, according to this man, extremely effective.
O'Reilly posed the question: then why were the National Guard taken off the borders?
The gentleman said, that's a good question, and he has no answer.
O'Reilly surmised it must have been too effective.
Then asked the question: "What is wrong with our President (past ones, included)/Government.....that they continue to risk American lives, especially since 9/11, in this hapless manner, leaving our borders open..." (Not his exact words, of course, but very close to his comment.)
I believe it was during this program that O'Reilly also stated that 33% of all convicted prisoners are NOT Americans (he was not referring to those being held in jail awaiting trial).
we need to stop posting methods of dispersal like you just did.
Dont want to give them ideas! :)
Huh? Whats with this 20 guys thing?
We have a conga-line of millions entering our country laughing their butts off at us. We haven't a clue who these people are or what they are doing here. LOL!
They could easily put thousands in this country with agendas of death, with little effort.
You've overrun my limited skills at punditry. But I will take a stab at it, and let the chips fall where they may:
1. Bush is re-elected. (Look at 9/11, look at Spain.)
2. #1, but even more so.
3. #2, but even more so.
4. Can't call. (Further affiant sayeth nought. :-)
5. Um. Too dependent on actual circumstances to call.
Emboldened our enemies AND undermined the resolve of many Americans. And the America bashing is coming from a small number right here at FR as well.
He was 'up-close and personal' with Evil.
He got it.
The rest of these numbskulls could care less.
For now.
Exactly, that is the scenario that would be politically most effective for AQ. It is what Saddam did by not using and hiding his WMD's, which inflicted the most damage(so far) to President Bush.
Agreed -- a 2nd (actually 3rd, 4th, 5th) attack would enrage the US citizenry so that gloves would be dropped and all hell would be unleashed. Deportations and closed borders too.
The terrorists must feel encouraged with so much dissent going on. They probably figure that killing Americans before the election will yield a similar result as in Spain.
We don't have anywhere near the number of satellites to monitor every square foot of our borders. The notion that we could use the existing ones to do so is wishful thinking in the extreme.
Can and should we do more? Certainly. Can we make it foolproof? I'd guess never.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.