Posted on 05/27/2004 6:51:15 AM PDT by areafiftyone
For all the cautious nonspecificity, the announcement still hits like a hammer: There is "credible evidence" from "multiple sources" that Al Qaeda intends to unleash mayhem in the U.S. in the "next few months." Not that this is a bolt out of the blue: It has been an article of faith that Al Qaeda means further harm. All the same, Attorney General John Ashcroft's warning was as sobering as things get. There's a big hit brewing. Here it comes. Soon. Where? When? Who knows? Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly fast reported that they have no information that New York is on any immediate hit list. But Ashcroft spoke in general of "especially attractive targets," which include this summer's Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden, as well as the Democratic soiree in Boston, next month's G-8 summit in Georgia and this weekend's World War II memorial ceremony in Washington. Those events will come and go, but New York will remain the globe's "especially attractive" target. To radical Islamic fundamentalists, New York is America itself. Indeed, here is where World War III began: Historians may someday regard Feb. 26, 1993, the date of the first World Trade Center attack, as the official beginning of this war. Unless it was the night 2-1/2 years earlier when radical Rabbi Meir Kahane was shot dead in midtown. The enemy succeeded in bringing down the towers after all. And then he went after the Brooklyn Bridge, his plot to cut the suspension cables disrupted by too much police presence. And only blind luck prevented the murderous bombing of a busy Brooklyn subway station. We would be fools to think Al Qaeda has no further plans for New York. Consider the dire contents of an NYPD document prepared five months ago:
Which, once again, raises the matter of all those federal homeland-security dollars we are losing to various states. Now that the feds have "credible evidence" from "multiple sources" that an attack is imminent, they should start reflecting that "especially attractive targets" do not include Cheyenne. Meanwhile, Ashcroft launches the War on Terror's version of "America's Most Wanted," impressing Americans into dutiful public service, asking all to be on vigilant lookout for seven identified plotters who might well be living right next door this very minute. Admittedly, the government's track record when it comes to naming names has been imperfect. Army Capt. James Yee of Guantanamo fast went from being an accused spy to being an accused adulterer. Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield was linked to the Madrid train bombings until it turned out that, whoops, he wasn't involved at all. Depending where you are on civil liberties, Ashcroft is summoning either snitches who'll turn in their neighbors or dedicated Americans like those who sat on rooftops night after night through World War II, scanning the skies. We'll go with the latter. These seven names, they're the intel of the moment. And if Joe Citizen is so alerted to spot someone resembling Aafia Siddiqui down at the deli and report her, we're good with that.
My only problem with this is calling the war on terror WWIII. I would consider that the cold war and this WWIV.
Just being nitpicky, I guess. Don't know who gets to decide these things.
Dittos, Admiral Woolsey would agree...
We went thru the same kind of alerts last summer. And the summer before that.
It is one thing for the govt/Admin to CYA, but crying wolf and then telling the populace to go about their normal business doesn't create a vote of confidence that the Homeland Security Department is handling things very efficiently.
The vague alerts don't help. Either shut up or give us real information.
This is all a farce and just a plot by the administration ot take attention off of Iraq. At least this is what some of the Rats are saying and they would not lie. WOULD THEY?
That's not surprising, considering that to New Yorkers, the US is New York too.
I had FoxNews on mute--
Just noticed a LIVE Ashcroft appearance about arrest of Hamza in Oregon.
Which, once again, raises the matter of all those federal homeland-security dollars we are losing to various states.
The real crux of the article, IMO.
And even if no political figures are killed, any attack is certain to cause maximum political impact on the election, and none of us can be absolutely certain that the American public will react with a strong show of support for Bush.
I missed it. What happened to this case?
>>"considering that to NY'ers NY is the US too">>>>
LOL They do give that impression, don't they!
I agree, NY is the most likely target, but there's always LA (Hollywood especially) that would be a tasty target for these rats. And you have that nice, wide, pourous border just south of it, where a friggin' battalion of Muslims can march through with no one the wiser.
You are going to make me puke. UGH!
Our top generals
are getting re-assigned and
suspended. The press
continues attacks
on our soldiers. In Iraq,
the military
is always seeking
to "negotiate" hot spots . . .
Why would terrorists
want to attack now?
They would gain nothing, and lose
the Left's sympathy.
That doesn't help a whole lot.
I would argue that the entire 20th century was in effect, one long continuous war, starting in 1914 with the collapse of the old European order, followed by a 20-year armistace, followed by the six-year hell of "WW II," which was then follwed by the 50-year Cold War. In each case, the renewed hostilities grew out of unresolved issues from the previous ones. At root, it pitted authoritarian/totalitarian political systems against self-determining democracies and republics. Freedom triumphed, but at enormous costs, both economic and social. I would appropriate the term "Great War", now used to refer solely to the first 4 years of it, and apply it to the entirety of that titanic struggle.
The new "War on Terror," although pre-saged by other incidents, started on September 11, 2001 and is somewhat different; it largely grew out of the establishment of the state of Israel in 1947 and reflects the Islamic Third World's resentment of their inferior economic and cultural status. It is a wholly new and different type of war, so much so that many supposedly intelligent commentators actually question whether it's a war at all.
Mayor Bloomberg is being willfully ignorant if he has NOT stepped up the intelligence efforts within the city. Not only ignorant, but stupid as well. Has that accursed RINO so permitted his judgment to be colored by his hatred for the Bush Administratiion, that he would resist any co-operation with the Federal authorities altogether? There is a problem, and he is not being part of the solution.
Bloomberg is no Rudy Giuliani, and should a major hit fall on NYC, he will show an incredible degree of incompetence, both at the time of the occurrence and for the aftermath.
Is there some way we can take the administration on NYC AWAY from this jerkheimer, BEFORE he finds himself in way over his head?
I think they may be right! I also think its a pretty smart election ploy. People need to be reminded of the big picture. I may not be a huge fan of the Iraq war, but we do need to be reminded that attacks on US soil are not over and that defense of the homeland should be paramount in our voting considerations. I expect we'll see more of these 'alerts' through the summer. Expect the threat level to be elevated and perhaps great attention given to a 'just in time arrest' in September. Rove has this all planned out.
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.