Bush's plumbers have fooled no-one

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | May 23 2002 | Analysis by Gay Alcorn

[dead]

For three days running, the White House has issued alarming warnings. On Sunday, the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, said another terrorist attack was "almost certain". On Monday the FBI director, Robert Mueller, said suicide attacks were "inevitable".

Then on Tuesday, the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, said terrorists would "inevitably" get weapons of mass destruction and "not hesitate to use them".

President George Bush joined in, saying that terrorists were "nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers". That morning he said, Mueller had told him that "al-Qaeda is active, plotting, planning, you know, trying to hit us".

Not surprisingly, a CBS opinion poll found that 33 per cent of Americans now believe an attack in the United States is "very likely". Just a week ago, it was 25 per cent.

The level of fear is the highest since October last year, when 53 per cent said they thought an attack was very likely.

Yet none of this has raised the official state of alertness. America remains on middle-ranking "yellow" alert - two levels short of severe-risk red.

The Bush Administration denies that recent statements have anything to do with deflecting scrutiny away from what it knew about the terrorist risk before September 11.

But criticism is growing over why it chose to keep secret the CIA briefing to Bush on August 6 that al-Qaeda could hijack a commercial US aircraft.

News of that briefing was revealed late last week. By Saturday, The New York Times had been leaked word that there was "a lot of chatter in the system again", indicating that terrorists were planning something as big as, or bigger than, September 11.

That leak, and the daily rhetoric from the White House since, has temporarily drowned out calls for a more public, independent commission - as opposed to the congressional inquiry - into who is to blame for the intelligence failures.

But the Administration is acutely aware that influential conservatives, such as the editor of The Weekly Standard, William Kristol, are wondering about its pattern of secrecy.

"Isn't it possible that some people should be reprimanded, or even lose their jobs, when 3000 Americans are killed in a terrorist attack?" the magazine asked this week. "For the past eight months the Bush Administration has essentially been saying that everything and everyone worked just fine. That is absurd and unsustainable."

The White House's explanations have been weighed up by the American people and found wanting. The CBS poll found that 65 per cent of respondents believe the White House is "hiding something" about what it knew (although few believe it could have prevented the atrocity).

But the fracas has not dented Bush's public approval rating. A Washington Post poll found it was 76 per cent, down just 2 per cent since mid-April.

Bush left the US yesterday for a visit to Germany, France, Italy and Russia, where he will try to convince a sceptical Europe that ousting Saddam Hussein of Iraq should be a priority.

"I understand there are some that would hope that the threat [from the `axis of evil' countries, Iraq, Iran and North Korea] would go away, just on its own, but we're going to have to act," he said.

Iraq is now far from the minds of jittery Americans. But if there is another attack, at least this time they won't be able to say there was no warning.

[dead]

In the interest of full-disclosure, it should be noted that The Gay Acorn (contrary to all journalistic ethical standards) was an unabashed Gore cheerleader throughout the election and ensuing Sore Loserman drama.

[princess leah]

Meanwhile, only FOX has been covering the big FLEET 2002 event that is taking place in NEW YORK HARBOR, which is a prime event for terrorists wanting people to blow up! But, no, instead all the media is concerned with is how Bush can be blamed yet again for not acting the way they the media and liberal democrats want him to act! TURN OFF YOUR TVS! IT'S A WASTE OF ELECTRICITY!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

And, of course, a reporter from a Sydney, Australia, paper would have the inside scoop on an event in the States.

[scholar]

But criticism is growing over why it chose to keep secret the CIA briefing to Bush on August 6 that al-Qaeda could hijack a commercial US aircraft.

And anyone of us may suffer a fatal coronary or ruptured aneurysm in the next five minutes--guess we should all just go to bed and prepare.

[Timesink]

To give you an idea of what an angry left-winger sort of paper the Sydney Morning Herald is: They once took a story from the UK's Daily Telegraph about the media's Florida recount, an article that showed there was no way Gore could have won under any but the most unlikely scenario, and republished it ... except they ripped out key paragraphs so it read to their subscribers as if the Bush team had indeed won through foul play. They're the scummiest of papers.

[Timesink]

bumping for bump lists