GERTZ: Al Qaeda seen planning for 'spectacular' attack;

drudge report ^ | sept, 20, 2004 | Drudge

[blogblogginaway]

GERTZ: Al Qaeda seen planning for 'spectacular' attack; Intelligence agencies think danger is high to Inauguration Day... Developing...

[aruanan]

How many non-existent upcoming attacks has Gertz hyped?

Rather, how many upcoming attacks have been prevented?

[Khaosai]

Are you a fool? You've set up a strawman, and now you're calling him names.

Not sure what to make of this - Here is a direct quote from you saying if we are HIT AGAIN, we are losing (that we have failed) -

"IF al Qaeda succeeds in pulling off some kind of horrible WMD attack on American soil, then we should at least be willing to admit that our quasi-warfare strategy has failed"

That is a direct quote from you - My point being that is a silly premise - The fact is we are winning this war...and if Al Qeade were to manage to get lucky and hit us again....that does not mean all we are doing (and how we are fighting this war) is a failure.

The fact is we are at war - In war bad things happen - (to BOTH sides) -

The simple fact is we have been extremely effective...and the notion that we have to be 100% effective from here until the end of time....or in your mind it is a failure....is simply ridiculous.

That is your premise - a direct quote from you - A conditional premise or not.....The "conditions" you place on the premise are not up to reality.....when one understands a WAR.

[diamond6]

Poor Tom Ridge, he's damned if he warns, damned if he doesn't. I'd rather have too many warnings than few.

[LibWhacker]

Not sure what to make of this - Here is a direct quote from you saying if we are HIT AGAIN, we are losing (that we have failed) . . .

No, no, no, no . . . I AM NOT saying that we will be losing in that case. Sheesh, it's completely irrational of you to think that. What I am saying is that the strategy of using low-intensity warfare to fight these mad dogs will have failed in that case to protect the American public, and we should be prepared to change the strategy. That's a completely different thing and IS NOT the same thing as saying we are losing the war. Sheesh, go battle your strawman over in DUmmyland, newbie.

[Khaosai]

No, no, no, no . . . I AM NOT saying that we will be losing in that case. Sheesh, it's completely irrational of you to think that. What I am saying is that the strategy of using low-intensity warfare to fight these mad dogs will have failed in that case to protect the American public, and we should be prepared to change the strategy.

Well, I am to busy a person to go in circles here - You wrote what you wrote and I replied to it -

Lastly, you are incorrect even with your last comments. The fact is, if Al Qeade manages to hit us again (from today, until the end of time) that does NOT mean how we are fighting this war is flawed or would need to change -

We are in a war that needs to be fought unconventionally - Exactly how we are fighting it now - We are taking the fight to our enemies daily and nightly - We are balls to the wall - Our soldiers are giving a hundred fold better then they are getting -

We have been incredibly effective for 3 straight years - Any suggestion that we have to be 100% effective always....or our strategy needs to change.....again, is simply not understanding the reality of a real war.

Lets agree to both just vote G.W. Bush and end it there.

[LibWhacker]

We have been incredibly effective for 3 straight years - Any suggestion that we have to be 100% effective always....or our strategy needs to change.....again, is simply not understanding the reality of a real war.

Congratulations, you're still fighting that strawman -- and losing to it I might add. Life must be very confusing for you.

Yawn . . . we do not have to be "100% effective." No one said that (except you). However, we DO have to prevent the kind of spectacular attack hinted at in this article and if you think such an attack would not change our strategy (and rightfully so), you're outta your freekin' mind. Dubya is a quite a bit smarter and more adaptable than you're giving him credit for.

[Khaosai]

So, with your logic if we were to have another airliner hit a building in the United States and it killed 2000 to 5000 people.....Or of a US Tanker truck was used to blow up a building or blown up during a large event and again 2000 to 5000 people were killed.

You think this should alter are strategy for fighting the war on the ground within Iraq and other Middle-East Countries? - You think this should change our policy of taking the fight to our enemies daily and nightly? -

Give an example of how you think we would change our fighting? - Come on, smart guy. It is clear you have no idea how actual combat works -

Uh, we could just CHANGE our strategy and it will be more effective - Ridiculous. - We are hunting the enemy 24 hours a day. Our soldiers are going balls to the wall. How would you change our strategy.

Your comments are the EXACT words we will hear from the Democrats and MSM the very second an attack takes place in America - "GWB war on terror as failed!!" - "Our strategy is wrong" , blah, blah, blah.

As I said, in the REAL WORLD....in WAR....bad things happen....(to all sides) - There is no way we will be 100% effective from now until the end of time - (understand this) -

But again, don't just shoot off your mouth - Give some examples of "HOW our strategy needs to change" -

Carpet bombing? - More use of air-power? - Small tactical nukes? - What are you suggesting??? -

We are fighting the most effective unconventional war that has EVER been waged in the history of man.....YET YOU are claiming "something will need to change if they hit us again" - Please.....Let the real warriors protect us....Not wishy-washing hand-wringers like yourself.

[Khaosai]

Yawn . . . we do not have to be "100% effective." No one said that (except you). However, we DO have to prevent the kind of spectacular attack hinted

And for the record - You are saying we have to be 100% effective against a major attack....Just as I have said you have said - (wait a second, are you John Kerry??) - You claim you didn't say something, then in the next sentence say it!

You clearly say we have to prevent any spectacular attack from happening or our military strategy would need to change(which means we have to be 100% effective against preventing this attack?) - Does it not?

[LibWhacker]

No, what you said was this (are you unable to go back and check it yourself?):

Any suggestion that we have to be 100% effective ALWAYS . . .

But I did not say "always," or imply it. This all arises from your apparent desire to fag around with a GD strawman.

Hey . . . Guess what? . . . It looks like I might be even busier than you are. I don't have time to keep up this silly sparing, or teach you logic.

But I AM voting for Dubya! How about you?

[olde north church]

Inauguration Day
I actually thought that would be a good day for them- fixed day, fixed target. The State of the Union speech is another golden opportunity.
I must respectfully disagree. Your reason is exactly why they wouldn't be golden opportunities, security is up the ying-yang and even mice will be on high alert. I would place bets on random days or locations, it intensifies the psychological effect.
I also believe their is no "safe date" between now and Election Day or Inauguration Day for one extremely obvious reason. They don't know and/or don't care about our society and how it works. They expected us to turn into Fortress America with our tails between our legs after 9/11. I can't imagine anyone telling Osama "I told you so!" as the fury of Hell was raining down upon the cave districts of Afghanistan.
There are 3 likely responses and 1 unlikely response to a terror attack between now and inauguration.
1. Bush is loses and is freed from the constraints of MSM PC editorialization and spends the next 2 months fighting the war with all the violence necessary to annihilate the enemy forever. The US is free to fight CWII. 2. Bush is re-elected, the world community recognizes the US knows it's priorities and we annihilate the enemy.
The other two are variations which are really frightening.

[hinckley buzzard]

"Are we, the US, willing to spend tens of thousands of lives and billions of wealth? Will we become weary after five or ten years of this process?

"We did in Vietnam."

If we are called to lose "tens of thousands of lives" it will be a no-brainer, and yes the nation will be as one.
The problem with VietNam was, among other things, the endless weekly reports of several hundreds killed in action...week after week. Often with no major objective taken or lost...

We won't be in that position again. It sucks to lose ten or twenty GI's in a week but there's no comparison IMO despite the seditions of the 'craps and their hangers-on.

[kinghorse]

It's called Black September for a reason.
-Yom Kippur war
-Palestinian vs Jordanian battles in Amman
-Munich (Black September terrorist group)
-Chantilla
-Second Intifada
-9/11

there's probably a lot more that the tinfoilers could add, WTO stuff and the like. Weird month in history. Scary month in history.

[Aquinasfan]

The success of the Spanish train bombing assures us of a pre-election attack, or at least an attempt that we won't hear about for several months.

[mewzilla]

I think they'll at least wait until Kerry looks like he's a lost cause. Otherwise why screw with his chances? I'll bet they won't do a thing until after the debates at the earliest, and only then if Kerry really blows it.