_______________________
Posted on 08/04/2004 7:47:55 AM PDT by Isara
Terrorism: Your government tells you it has solid intelligence of an impending attack. Quick — what do you do? Of course, you scoff. Or suggest it's merely political.
That's the sorry state of America's political discourse today: that a serious, credible warning of a possible terror attack leads not to calls for action, but to cries of political mischief and worse.
Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge warned Sunday of an increased threat of terrorist attacks on financial "icons" — like the World Bank, IMF and New York Stock Exchange — in three cities.
He cited compelling evidence from recent raids in Pakistan, including computer disks and 500 photographs, diagrams and drawings of some potential targets in the U.S.
British intelligence added it has a captured al-Qaida operative it deems "credible" who has said an attack is planned on U.S. financial centers on or about Sept. 2 — 60 days before the U.S. election.
Sounded pretty serious to us. After all, we still remember the March 11 Madrid train bombing, which killed 190, injured 1,800 and came just days before that country's election.
Others, apparently, don't remember that event.
"I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism," said ex-Democratic candidate Howard Dean, who now works with John Kerry. "His whole campaign is based on the notion that, 'I can keep you safe, therefore, in times of difficulty for America, stick with me,' and then out comes Tom Ridge."
The media also took a whack at Bush for the terror warning. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann basically called him a liar.
"History tells us presidents have exaggerated threats to the public safety to gain political advantage or simplify complex needs of strategy," he said. "Ask Lyndon Johnson. Ask William McKinley. Do we need to ask George W. Bush?"
Over at ABC, anchor Don Dahler noted "the last press conference that Secretary Ridge made happened to fall right after Senator Edwards was announced as a vice presidential candidate."
Big newspapers were also dubious. The New York Times, Washington Post and others ran reports Tuesday noting that much of the intelligence for this attack was "old" — some even pre-dating 9-11.
Yes, some of the surveillance activity by al-Qaida operatives of potential U.S. targets came in 2000 and 2001.
But so what? The U.S. detected similar activity around its Embassies in East Africa as early as 1993. Al-Qaida didn't get around to bombing those targets until five years later.
If there's one thing we now know about al-Qaida, it's meticulous in its planning. It's also patient — and utterly ruthless once it acts.
We also know this: In the current, highly charged political atmosphere, if the White House didn't warn us of an impending attack and one happened, there would be political hell to pay.
So now we've been warned. It's up to us to be vigilant — and to stop listening to those who would play politics with homeland security.
Don't worry. Be happy! Vote Kerry
Clinton on Letterman last night said the threat should be taken seriously and was not politically motivated.
Sick Willie'd say anything for attention.
"I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism," said ex-Democratic candidate Howard Dean, who now works with John Kerry.
Did slick willie really say that? If so, old deano had better keep his trap shut. He may get a memo from slick willie or even get a case of ARKANCIDE
No need to take Howie to Ft. Marcy Park. Just give him a microphone and he'll shoot himself ... in the foot.
Yes, Clinton really said that. But he went on to say that if we had been more aggressive in Afghanistan we may have greatly reduced the possiblity of future attacks (paraphrasing). I guess two $2 million dollar missles up a camel's butt would have been Bill's call.
Sounds insane for this to be faked. All that would show would be that Bush going after Saddam instead of bin Laden did not make us safer.
Clinton won't come out and say so but he wishes he'd captured Osama's scalp when he had the chance.
Instead of? How do you figure?
...based on four year old documents...
..."may get us all killed"...
Go to your 9/11 file. BTW, don't look for any evidence of 9/11 in the LSM, for to them it does not exist.
Why on earth would the Bush administration take the risk of sabotaging the economy by announcing exaggerated and politically motivated terrorist threats against our financial institutions, of all things, three months before an election?
They started planning 9/11 six or more years beforehand.
_______________________
One can't correlate old stuff with the present, or perhaps future risks. Unless that old documentation contained a timetable, it wouldn't help. How an attack could be implemented should already be obvious to any security organization that was worth its pay.
The trick is to prevent terrorist victory by continuing life as it was before, not subjecting American citizens to "smoke and mirror" solutions that actually have no affect on security.
They say the most recent entry in the computer was Jan. '04.
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.