Terror attack expected by end of year

[southsider2k5]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/05/...in1683852.shtml

[kapkomet]

How nice.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

These are the same unnamed officials who have been fortelling disaster ever since 9-11.

 

Yawn.

[Balta1701]

(Checking Calendar)...

 

Hmmm...2006. 2006 is an election year. Well I'll be darned.

 

You know the interesting thing? This morning, I was just thinking that hmm, it's 2006, we're due for a couple terror alerts aren't we.

[kapkomet]

CONSPIRACY! IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!!!

 

The terrorist attack has to happen soon (read: presidential poll numbers go down right after the attack because he didn't do his job) , so the President can look all "presidential" and show what a leader he is so that enough time passes (read: presidential poll numbers go up) ... for an effect on the elections.

 

Thanks, Balta! What would we do without our furry little libs?

[southsider2k5]

It also serves the purpose of being able to say "I told you so" when it finally does happen.

[NorthSideSox72]

It also serves the purpose of being able to say "I told you so" when it finally does happen.

And there is the biggest reason right there - CYA. And not just for partisan politicians either. The people who are in charge of our security want to make sure they are covered as well.

 

Any political motivation, from an elections perspective, is probably there too, but secondarily. Bush certainly did capitalize on fear in winning his 2004 re-election, saying "9/11" as many times as humanly possible.

[Gregory Pratt]

Listen, anyone who doesn't believe that these leaks go out for political purposes is a douchebag. They happen in election years, and Tom Ridge -- a loyal Republican, through and through -- said that, in 2004, the warning was raised against his wishes in cases when he didn't feel it was warranted. Ridge, being a stalwart loyalite, must've been quite bothered by the use of the warning system.

 

If Clinton were President, he'd likely do the same. Most Presidents would. A heightened state of fear typically helps incumbents.

 

This bulls*** doesn't surprise me.

[Balta1701]

Listen, anyone who doesn't believe that these leaks go out for political purposes is a douchebag. They happen in election years, and Tom Ridge -- a loyal Republican, through and through -- said that, in 2004, the warning was raised against his wishes in cases when he didn't feel it was warranted. Ridge, being a stalwart loyalite, must've been quite bothered by the use of the warning system.

 

If Clinton were President, he'd likely do the same. Most Presidents would. A heightened state of fear typically helps incumbents.

 

This bulls*** doesn't surprise me.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ge-alerts_x.htm

[southsider2k5]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ge-alerts_x.htm

 

The irony is that that "flimsy evidence" will be thrown back in Ridge's or whoevers faces when the next 9-11 happens, just like the last time that it happened. We'll hear all of the same "why wasn't anything done" people screaming at the top of their lungs, while the government will scream back "We told you so". right back at them.

 

I know I have said this before and I will say it again, I will guarentee you that sitting on people's desks right now in the CIA, DHS, FBI, NSA, and any other goverment agency you want to throw out there are tens of thousands of potential terror attacks, against pretty much any target you want to pick. Nuclear plants, buildings, ports, airports, water supply, biological agents, hospitals, malls, financial centers, dirty bombs, etc are all being kicked about by someone, somewhere, right at this very moment, who would love nothing more than to strike fear into the heart of the great satan. The vast majority of the threats are very real, but as forgetful as Americans are, they are more worried about deficit spending, than they are about the fact that about 10% of cargo coming into the US from other countries is actually inspected.

 

Think about it. If GWB had walked into Congress on Monday September 10th, 2001 and asked for $50 billion to stop OBL from flying planes into buildings he would have gotten laughed out of Washington DC, and derrided as a fake President. If GWB would have asked for a trillion dollars to fix every single 2% chance of terror on Wednesday September the 12th 2001, Congress would have been fistfighting to be in the center of the photo-op.

[Rex Kickass]

Except on September 10th, the Bush administration was threatening to veto a defense spending bill because a 66 million dollar earmark was shifted from a weapons system program to bolstering anti-terrorism efforts.

 

In the summer of 2001, there was a lot of clatter on the Hill about terrorism - from Rudman and Hart. Unfortunately, few people on either side of the leadership that summer seemed interested in talking to them.

[Gregory Pratt]

The irony is that that "flimsy evidence" will be thrown back in Ridge's or whoevers faces when the next 9-11 happens, just like the last time that it happened. We'll hear all of the same "why wasn't anything done" people screaming at the top of their lungs, while the government will scream back "We told you so". right back at them.

 

I know I have said this before and I will say it again, I will guarentee you that sitting on people's desks right now in the CIA, DHS, FBI, NSA, and any other goverment agency you want to throw out there are tens of thousands of potential terror attacks, against pretty much any target you want to pick. Nuclear plants, buildings, ports, airports, water supply, biological agents, hospitals, malls, financial centers, dirty bombs, etc are all being kicked about by someone, somewhere, right at this very moment, who would love nothing more than to strike fear into the heart of the great satan. The vast majority of the threats are very real, but as forgetful as Americans are, they are more worried about deficit spending, than they are about the fact that about 10% of cargo coming into the US from other countries is actually inspected.

 

Think about it. If GWB had walked into Congress on Monday September 10th, 2001 and asked for $50 billion to stop OBL from flying planes into buildings he would have gotten laughed out of Washington DC, and derrided as a fake President. If GWB would have asked for a trillion dollars to fix every single 2% chance of terror on Wednesday September the 12th 2001, Congress would have been fistfighting to be in the center of the photo-op.

 

::shrug:: I buy Ridge's arguments. It's consistent with the Bush Administration's handling of the intelligence community, IMO.

 

And no, Bush wouldn't have been laughed out of Washington. The kind of request you're talking of is often made publicly with certain chairman of the relevant committees. The idea of a plane being used was on all the time in the NSA and CIA, and presumably the idea was in the Congress as well, theoritically, as these people are familiar with suicide warfare and Kamikaze strikes.

 

Because they get so many warnings, it's important to look at when they feel it sufficient to warn us, and it's always when an election is going on.

 

But that's gotta be because the terrorists want Democrats in power!

[southsider2k5]

Except on September 10th, the Bush administration was threatening to veto a defense spending bill because a 66 million dollar earmark was shifted from a weapons system program to bolstering anti-terrorism efforts.

 

In the summer of 2001, there was a lot of clatter on the Hill about terrorism - from Rudman and Hart. Unfortunately, few people on either side of the leadership that summer seemed interested in talking to them.

 

And actually that pretty well proves my point. Up until September 10th Bush was defending what he thought was the most likely source of attack on the US, and he got laughed at and ridiculed by the other side and the media for it.

 

Also people have been talking about terror attacks for decades, and what has been done about it? Nothing until something happens. Like I said I guarentee you there are thousands of potential attacks that we should be thinking about defending and we aren't. Then we something happens, we will all hear about how negligent everyone is, and how bad all of their planning is, because after all, who would blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City, right?