Politics As Usual

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
So Tom Ridge says we're definitely probably going to be attacked by Al Quaida sometime between now and November (though since everyone was warned back in December to look out for suspicious people buying almanacs, maybe the terrorists were thwarted from getting reliable intel on when the election is...). I'm cool with that, thanks for the heads up, Mr. Ridge, I'll get my duct tape and plastic sheeting out of the attic. BUT, wait a second! Mr. Ridge also says that he's not moving the terror threat level from the on-edge, but-not-too-on-edge Yellow to the more-uncomfortably-on-edge Orange. Should I still get the plastic sheeting and duct tape to a more readily accessable location or not?

I' m conflicted. On the one hand, we're about to be attacked. On the other hand, our terror threat level is pretty much at the same level it has been since they put the system in place. On the other other hand, back in May, John Ashcroft said that we were going to be attacked at some point this summer. It's all terribly confusing. I'm beginning to think that perhaps, maybe, possibly the terror threat level system has a flaw... Or perhaps, maybe, possibly, someone's trying to scare the crap out of me.

It sounds like they are having commitment issues. Sure, this terrorist threat looks pretty good, but there could be a better one just around the corner. We need to keep looking over the shoulder of this threat even as we pull it in tighter during the dance, rubbing our hips against it. But if we call this one an orange, do we then have to call a better one that happens along a red? If we do that, what happens when we are dry-humping it and we see a STILL BETTER one coming into the room?

Better just to talk this one up to our friends, getting them all hot and bothered, while we masturbate to the thought of an orange that must be just over the horizon.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I' m conflicted. On the one hand, we're about to be attacked. On the other hand, our terror threat level is pretty much at the same level it has been since they put the system in place. On the other other hand, back in May, John Ashcroft said that we were going to be attacked at some point this summer. It's all terribly confusing. I'm beginning to think that perhaps, maybe, possibly the terror threat level system has a flaw... Or perhaps, maybe, possibly, someone's trying to scare the crap out of me.

Or perhaps intellitence is not a perfect science, and the administration is doing the best they can with the information they have. Honest question: how would you propose they handle the situation, assuming bona fide intentions?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Or perhaps, maybe, possibly, someone's trying to scare the crap out of me.

It's too bad that there don't seem to be any responsible Republicans left with the heft to tell the White House to stop bending national security and foreign policy to political ends. This is from 'July Surprise' in tomorrow's The New Republic (via TPM):

• A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs [i.e., high-value al Qaida targets] before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
terror threat level

I think it means that there's just enough of a threat that you need to vote for W in November, but not too much of threat because he is really, really winning the war against terrorism.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's too bad that there don't seem to be any responsible Republicans left with the heft to tell the White House to stop bending national security and foreign policy to political ends.

That's rich.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Or perhaps intellitence is not a perfect science, and the administration is doing the best they can with the information they have. Honest question: how would you propose they handle the situation, assuming bona fide intentions?

Well, telling us about general threats DOES US NO GOOD. The only effect caused by this is apprehension.* Why tell us if the threat is not specific? What the fuck can we do about it? It's more harmful than helpful.

*that's the only effect desired too.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
lil' hint. He doesn't understand what he says either. Its all regurgitated google.

The stuff about poo is 100% me. Are you saying you found that Eva Silverstein photo in your "My Documents" folder? Don't answer that.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Well, telling us about general threats DOES US NO GOOD. The only effect caused by this is apprehension.* Why tell us if the threat is not specific? What the fuck can we do about it? It's more harmful than helpful.

*that's the only effect desired too.

But if they didn't disclose known general threats, and an attack occured, they'd be subject to critism for withholding information.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But if they didn't disclose known general threats, and an attack occured, they'd be subject to critism for withholding information.

Not really, but I'd agree if the threat was city-specific or method-specific. They've warned of this same general threat plenty of times. And I'm sure this same general threat will surface once a month until November.

Does anyone know HOW an attack before the election would have an effect on the election?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But if they didn't disclose known general threats, and an attack occured, they'd be subject to critism for withholding information.

Is there anyone in the country who does not think that there is a constant risk of terrorist attack? I think that to avoid panic (and irritation) they should request that the media summarize all outstanding known threats whenever they come out and say "OMG!!!!! There's a new threat!!!!!!" It would make it maybe a little clearer that the new threat isn't really any worse than the already existing threats, it's just from newer info.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Is there anyone in the country who does not think that there is a constant risk of terrorist attack?

Yes, the far left.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Not really, but I'd agree if the threat was city-specific or method-specific. They've warned of this same general threat plenty of times. And I'm sure this same general threat will surface once a month until November.

Does anyone know HOW an attack before the election would have an effect on the election?

No one knows, silly.

I think it would be helpful if, when they issued info on a "new" threat, they would release and ask the media to include a summary of all existing threats, including any updated information and recently cancelled threats.

I mean, at this point, we all know there is a threat. So saying "hey! there's a threat! and we have info, but we can't share it" is useless. And the criticism thing is kinda a red herring -- if anything happens, they will get slammed because they will inevitably (and justifiably) have had more information than was released.

I think saying this over and over, when it isn't clear that anything new has surfaced, has more of an effect of making people stop doing anything.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But if they didn't disclose known general threats, and an attack occured, they'd be subject to critism for withholding information.

Lefty here attacks the administration for A.
You say, but if the administration had done not A, you would have attacked that, too. Implicitly, then, the attack on A has nothing to do with the substance of A, and really just reflects a blind propensity to attack the administration.

(1) Get a macro already.
(2) Why you think this is convincing, or even worth the electrons, is beyond me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes, the far left.

Cite, please.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No one knows, silly.

Well, some people have to have some predictions/projections.