That we mostly only have these terror alerts and “terror arrests” during election years?
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
In even number years alone though? I mean at the very least isnt that counterintuitive since the last sucessful one happened in an odd number year, 2001?
Got a problem with that? Talk to the terrorists. They’re the ones trying to blow us up.
How many orange alerts in the six months prior to 11/04?
How many since?
I’m just sayin’, that’s all…
But why did the Bush admin. call off the hunt for OBL?
C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ex=1309665600&en=3779ed9b98bb9d22&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Also, if this is the caliber of attack, and if as the article says “experts say the plan wouldn t have worked because even if the explosives managed to breach the tunnel, the city wouldn’t flood because it is built above the level of the river,” does it not suggest that the people we’re arresting arent very much a threat? I mean this sounds a little more credible as an arrest than those guys in Florida who were totally going to drive to Chicago and blow up the Sears tower one day, maybe, even though they didnt know what they were doing. Also those guys who were going to destroy the Brooklyn bridge with the awesome might of their blowtorches or something, in spite of, you know, that being impossible. I mean fine, yeah, lock ‘em up, but is this the face of our enemy?
1) Please give me all your arrests during even years so I know how many to find during odd years in order to show you’re lying.
2) Are you trying to say all the law enforcement agencies are trying to help the GOP look good?
3) Are you trying to say that the arrests are fake in order to make us think there is a threat?
I don’t really trust leftist analysis of terror arrests anyway.
Aren’t these the same guys who said we were going to catch OBL in October of 2004?
See thats the problem. No one remembers all the crack-pot ideas and predictions. I am not even sure this is an accurate representation of arrests, I am just too lazy to google it properly myself, since historically these little bits of yellow journalism turn out to be inaccurate most of the time.
Scary article. The terrorchicks have grown and left the nest.
FrankD, high priority yet oddly unaccomplished.
Dukker, John Ashcroft announcement of the capture of Jose Padilla.
But why can’t Jamey read or understand? Do you only read headlines because you can’t handle actually reading too many words at one time?
From the article
Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.
“The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever,” said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. “This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus.”
Two bombings in Istanbul in November 2003.
Moscow bombing in February 2004.
Philippines bombing in February 2004.
Istanbul bombing in March 2004.
Madrid bombings on March 11, 2004 … 3 days before their general election.
Beslan school hostage crisis in Russia during September 2004.
Jakarta embassy bombing in September 2004.
All these and more during the year before the American election. I m just sayin , that s all& idiot.
And this is, what, surprising? Of course they’d say that, the office of “agency official” exists for the specific purpose of saying “everythings fine, nothing to see here”
…considering we havent caught him coming up on five years after the attack, is it possible to read that as “Disbanding the agency has had no effect in our inability to catch him?”
The program was established in 1996. Why didn’t they catch him in the 5 years before 2001?
Oh, I get it. Its a – shhh! – (((conspiracy)))). To avoid these very sane and level headed progressive charges, the Bush adminstration should (a) have put off the arrests until after the election, hoping that the terrorist plots weren’t hatched until later or (b) confessed to either completely lying about all of the terrorist arrests or confess to actually being the terrorists themselves – meaning, of course, they would have, in fact, arrested themselves (Freeze mself!!! I place myself under arrest! I have the right to remain silent.).
Dugger, Oliver Stone/George Clooney movie material here
Thanks Rex
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1811
Not exactly an unbiased source, is it?
If you ll excuse me I m off to register as a democrat and get fitted for my brand new, shiny, tin foil hat&
Do whatever, I am not a democrat and could care less what you do.
On that note
My, what a clever and poignant comment, DC. You certainly have proven yourself a wit. Or half a one at the very least.
Also, I’d ask you to show your work on the saddam, al “queda” link,but I’ve already read that one story about that one meeting years ago that nothing came of, and the other one about that one time one of Osama’s #2 men went to Baghdad for surgery or something, so you need’nt bother yourself.
Whacked, you convinced me. If you’ll excuse me I’m off to register as a democrat and get fitted for my brand new, shiny, tin foil hat…
Oh, Saddam did have ties to Al Queda, but don’t let the facts get in the way.
Just to reflect on the correlation between recent terror alerts and political events one should read this.
For those who prefer not to follow the link:
February 12, 2002 – AG Ashcroft calls on “all Americans to be on the highest state of alert” after an FBI warning of a possible imminent terrorist attack.
May 22, 2002 – Senate Governmental Affairs Committee votes to issue subpoenas to the Bush administration for information on its contacts with bankrupt energy trader Enron Corp.
May 24, 2002 – Railroad and other transit systems across the country received warning based on ” unconfirmed, uncorroborated report”, told to “remain in a heightened state of alert”.
September 10-24, 2002 – The attorney general elevates the terror alert. Based on a review of intelligence and an assessment of threats by the intelligence community, as well as the passing of the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the disruption of potential terrorist operations in the United States and abroad, the Attorney General in consultation with the Homeland Security Council makes decision to return the threat level to an elevated or “yellow” level.
May 20, 2003 – The United States raises the nation’s terror threat level Tuesday, saying the U.S. intelligence community believes al Qaeda has entered an “operational period worldwide” and might attack within the US.
September 4, 2003 — Both The New York Times and Vanity Fair start investigating the very damaging allegations that Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today.
September 5, 2003 – A Department of Homeland Security advisory warns that al Qaeda is working on plans to hijack airliners flying between international points that pass near or over the continental United States.
March 15, 2004 — Military families organize together to oppose the war. March 16, 2004 — Dems call for probe on Medicare cost cover-up. March 17, 2004 — Condoleeza opts of 9/11 Commission hearings.
March 18, 2004 – News report that a “high target” Al Qaeda leader has been “sorrouded” in the border with Pakistan. Cnn suggests it may be Bin Laden or al-Zawahri.
May 25, 2004 – Homeland Security issues a terror alert: Major terror attack possible this summer.
June 14, 2004 – VP Dick Cheney is caught lying about the alleged ties of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda.
June 15, 2004 – The Justice Department announces to the press they have thwarted an imminent terror plot to bomb malls in Ohio.
July 6, 2004 — Kerry names Edwards as his running mate.
July 8, 2004 – Tom Ridge holds a press conference on terror alerts over the summer and during the conventions.
July 11, 2004 — Senior White House officials discuss the possibility of delaying the elections in case of a terrorist attack.
July 26-29 — Democratic Convention.
August 2, 2004 – Department of Homeland Security raises the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas. Later revealed that much of the information was three or four years old. Same day: Bush’s daughters, Jenna and Barbara, visit the Citicorp Building in New York City. This is one of the buildings that Tom Ridge implied was under a dire and imminent threat from terrorists.
October 28, 2004 – Osama’s taped speech is released to the US.
November 2, 2004 – General Election.
While it doesn’t “prove” anything, the timeline is definitely “interesting”.
The article Mr. Willmann referenced was written by Marc Lerner on 3/4/03
I can’t link to the Washington Times Archives, but please feel free to look it up.
Article 1 of 1, Article ID: 200303040824240004
Published on March 4, 2003, The Washington Times
Philippine terrorists claim financial link to Iraq
Islamist terrorists in the southern Philippines who have killed two American hostages in recent years say they are receiving money from Iraqis close to President Saddam Hussein. ..Hamsiraji Sali, a local commander of the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf on the remote southern island of Basilan, says he is getting nearly $20,000 a year from supporters in Iraq…”It’s so we would have something to spend on chemicals for bomb-making and for the movement of our
Complete Article, 781 words ( )
FrankD, high priority yet oddly unaccomplished.
Not quite so different from the $3 trillion War on Poverty. going on since 1965.
DC, Which article are you talking about?
The author of the article you reference regarding the al Queda connection is Kevin Willmann who also wrote this and this.
IOW, dont bring up “inconvenient facts”.
“IOW, dont bring up inconvenient facts .”
What? The fact is TERRORISTS WANT TO KILL PEOPLE!
The article was by Marc Lerner from The Washington Times. I know you’re going to say the same about the Washington Times so I’m not going to waste my time.
If there was a terrorist attack you would all be asking “What did Bush know, and when did he know it?” Why not just thank the US Intelligence community for doing their job. Ingrates.
Anyone Notice that Muslim Terrorists kill in both odd and even years?
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979
Beirut, Lebanon Embassy, 1983
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks, 1983
Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York, 1988
Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex, 1996
Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy, 1998;
Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy, 1998;
USS Cole, 2000
World Trade Center, 2001
Pentagon, 2001
Frank, can you imagine what poverty would look like without the $3 trillion war? Ever been to South Africa or Brazil? Idiot.
I’m still waiting for an example of a liberal supporting the efforts of the troops.
I’m not say they’re helping al – Qaeda, but sometimes not helping A can be construed as not helping A’s enemy, noam sane?
Here, let me get that italics tag for you.
Ah yes, much better!
Great timeline.
Step One: Find all significant “terror events” in the past 5 years…arrests, threats, alerts, etc.
Step Two: Look within a day or two and pick any significant political event to link to the terror event.
Step Three: Post your findings and declare your study complete!
Or if you are not into that, try this amusing pastime: whenever a terror event occurs, or whenever there is any news that could conceivably be politically beneficial to Bush or the Republicans, see how long it takes you to find someone exclaiming, “I think the timing of this is a little suspicious!” Nowadays this correlation is built in, since Bush’s low poll numbers are a continuous source of linkage for any event on any day. Easy!
The subject was terror alerts and most of them were in 2002 and 2004.
Maybe so but is a little difficult not to notice stuff like right after the other party’s convention and just before the election.
More likely a more thorough study than was done before it was determined that we “had” to invade Iraq.
JWG, how about port SECURITY, chemical and nuclear plant security, loose nukes and nuclear arms containment. Can you tell me with a straight face that Republicans are doing a good job on any of these fronts?
It’s obviously difficult for you to notice all the other terrorist attacks going on in the world (as I listed) during 2004. But, hey, why assume someone may want to attack US soil as well? Thanks for once again demonstrating why the Left can not be trusted with security.
The ports deal had nothing to do with security. My point is that the Left can only come up with lame tinfoil hat conspiracies rather than pay attention to actual world events going on at the time of our election cycle.
How does this demonstrate anything except maybe in your own mind by repeating the same propaganda that republicans been trying to spread since 2002? Especially when the “security officer in chief” was apparently unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration.
One would think that if your side was so effective on security, that would not have occurred without him even knowing about it. Furthermore, the information behind the terror threat that came out right after the democratic convention was little late to be making a big deal about it, say by about “three years”.
My point is that the Left can only come up with lame tinfoil hat conspiracies rather than pay attention to actual world events going on at the time of our election cycle.
Actually, the terms “conspiracy” or “conspiracies” have been used only by you and dugger. Your side appears to be generating most of the furor over this by yourselves. I only pointed out an article that put all these terror alerts and events together which would appear strange, except to the most biased observer. But go ahead, if it makes you feel better.
>>That we mostly only have these terror alerts and terror arrests during election years?
OW…we love ya..but…that’s a reach.
Let’s just give credit to the FBI for saving lives.
Having said that, I did notice that there have been at least 3 times when the terror alert was downgraded to Yellow…meaning “no significant threat,” after a Frank posting.
JK
Random thoughts composed on an Amtrak train from DC to Baltimore…
The stupid machines that sell Metro passes charge $6.50 for a day pass, and won’t give back more than $5.00 in change. Somewhere there are two lovely black women who were also stuck with only $20’s as was I, and……
How are the republicans doing on homeland security since 9/11?
How many terrorist attacks have occured on U.S. soil since 9/11?
ZERO
If you believe these events are really interrelated, then you must think there’s a reason:
1) Coincidence
2) To gain political advantage (i.e. conspiracy)
3) Because threats actually increased
Based on the events worldwide I posted previously, I don’t think you can chose anything but #3.
Not good enough, IMO.
Pedro, how many times are you going to remind us that there have not been any terrorist attacks since 9/11? What does that have to do with the recent news releases about terrorsts plots being thwarted during election years critical to the GOP?
We had terror threat after terror threat leading up to the 2004 election, then suddenly — nothing for a couple of years. Now it’s terror threat after terror threat all over again. Whether or not there’s a conspiracy, there’s still a pattern going on.
If these new releases are somehow orchestrated, I don’t think it’ll work this time, just like the gay marriage and flag burning thing didn’t work. The right will have to come up with brand new dirty tricks to win this next election. After all, it’s not their unpopular platform that’s going to keep them in power and they know it.
well as soon as “port security” etc as other threats are brought up as “potential” problems, I thought I would redirect the conversation to the reality of the situation….and the reality is, we have been attack free for more than half a decade.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding…..
I wonder why everyone forgets the anthrax attacks? Oh, that’s right, that was an inside job.
Ah, reason rears its head, and the liberals cringe in fear.
Maybe someone who hasn’t drunk the koolaid–as I apparently have–can help me out with the particulars of this scheme. I’m wondering about the few thousand people at the FBI, CIA, and NSA who get up every morning and go to work at jobs specifically related to detecting and preventing attacks. What do these people actually do? Do they find any real threats? Do they stop any actual plots? Are they all loyal to the president’s men, awaiting word on when to announce the next bogus alert? How about the department heads and program managers, or whatever they call them…were all those people installed after Bush took office, or have any of them worked on similar efforts under other presidents? I guess to many people these alerts and thwarted plots are just headlines that last a day or two. To me, each headline is a peek into the work done by real people with real duties. If the stuff we hear about is all fake, what are these people doing every day, and what did they do before Bush took office?
Funny, after 9/11 I started using salad forks rather than traditional dinner forks to eat all my meals. Since then, we have been remarkably terror attack free.
Apparently my pudding soaked proof differs from Pedro’s.
If only I had started using salad forks sooner, the Towers would still be standing. But hey, if G.W. had been president before 9/11, maybe…eh, what? Oops.
Of course, this all depends on how you define “terrorism.”
There are those who say waging a grossly misleading propaganda campaign, complete with images of mushroom clouds and anthrax vials, to push a fearful nation into an unnecessary war that has now cost almost as many lives as 9/11 (and that excludes Iraqis, which would push the number way, way, WAY past 9/11) and has no end in sight qualifies as “terrorism.” Some might argue that using color-coded terrorism alerts every few weeks leading right up to a national election might seem like a sort of electoral terrorism meant to drive the masses to huddle under the umbrella of the “security” president. And as we’ve seen, there have been terrorist events all over the world since 9/11, which handily proves that the sudden surge in terrorist “events” in the U.S. in election cycles is simply a coincidence and only fodder for tin foil hat conspiracy nuts. I know that when I want to analyze the patterns of terrorist alerts and arrests in the U.S. (at least those with high media visibility), the first place I look is Istanbul. Silly liberals.
But then you could call just about anything terrorism, couldn’t you?
Publishing addresses and phone numbers and calling on your audience to harrass and intimidate opponents seems like a good fit, as does calling for the selective prosecution of certain prominent media outlets for “leaking” widely available information about government operations secret only, it seems, to nursery schoolers. Say, what about threatening to revoke tax exempt status for religious institutions that speak out against the war while ignoring those that promote it and even actively work to support conservative politicians?
I mean, what is terrorism if not the use of fear to motivate a targeted population to submit to your agenda? That’s one tough “war” to win. Or is that terrorism, too? Framing the problem in such a way as to make it seem so formidable that only a commander in chief unbound by petty laws (hey, it’s war time, so no gloves, right) and who answers to none save God (ours, not theirs) can save us.
Bill
Why tag Bush with what is a classic issue? Your macro point is really how much actual responsibility should any Pres receive for what happens under his rule. If you ask that question, it must be asked about every president, every leader – not just, belatedly, Bush.
Bush is a leader. He is in charge. We would blame him for failures. He took definitive steps in the WOT. He gets the credit for no attacks. Thats the way the game is played. Bubba got credit for a good economy – whether it was techno bubble driven or not. reagan for the collapse of the USSR. Kennedy space program. Etc.
Its a cheap shot to change the rules for Bush.
Dugger
Dugger: For the liberals, it’s been nothing but “cheap shots for Bush”. The gloves have been off since that malodorous malcontent Molly Ivins entitled her book, “Shrub”, and Chait wrote an article, Why I Hate George Bush.”
There’s been an animus unlike anything since the Nixon days against this man — and this has been worse…
Keith Olbermann actually did an interesting segment on something similar to this (focusing less on election years and more on specific incidents) here.
well as soon as port security etc as other threats are brought up as potential problems, I thought I would redirect the conversation to the reality of the situation& .and the reality is, we have been attack free for more than half a decade.
Ok, I’m not using the tiger/rock analogy from The Simpsons again, considering it would be the 4th time I’d have brought it up. In that respect, this situation is more like Bart repeatedly trying to grab the electrified cupcake. Like you, he could not learn from past experiences.
He took definitive steps in the WOT.
The only definitive step he took in the WOT was declaring it.
For the liberals, it s been nothing but cheap shots for Bush .
Behold, as I transform your “arguement” to fit the exact opposite end of the spectrum:
For the conservatives, it s been nothing but cheap shots for Clinton .
It’s like magic!
Behold, as I transform your arguement to fit the exact opposite end of the spectrum:
For the conservatives, it s been nothing but cheap shots for Clinton .
It s like magic!
Wrong!
Even if I were to accept the premise that Clinton was given a really, really hard time, and “over – investigated”, he was being investigated for things to which he was in some way connected. He very narrowly escaped actual charges for several things, including rape and sexual assault. But, never was he subject to the scorn and derision of President Bush, who is in office, with almost no scandal associated with him.
So much for magic! You make a better clown than a magician, anyway.
Frank 1, Zython = zero.
Even if I were to accept the premise that Clinton was given a really, really hard time, and over – investigated , he was being investigated for things to which he was in some way connected. He very narrowly escaped actual charges for several things, including rape and sexual assault. But, never was he subject to the scorn and derision of President Bush, who is in office, with almost no scandal associated with him.
Didn’t the rape and assault happen before he was president? In that case, Bush’s past is also fair game. Lessee, what bad stuff did AWOL, drunk driving, coked up Bush do? Oh! The stuff I just said!
Also, so what if he isn’t directly connected? He’s the President, and as such is responsible of the going ons of his administration. As the plaque on his desk says “The Buck Stops Here”, but then again, he probably threw that away.
Also, I never specified a first name in my post. Just as much hatred is shown to Hillary as was shown to Bill. Unless, of course, Hillary was also charged with rape and sexual harassment.
Zython: 35 Frank: 0
Game, set, and match! Now king me.
35, my tuchus!
I didn’t mention Hillary, and I didn’t mention anything about past or present. Changing ABC into CBA, isn’t much of a change.
- 36 points for attempting to cheat, and poorly, at that.
Frank 2, Zython -1
Care to go for i ?
Z
“He took definitive steps in the WOT.
The only definitive step he took in the WOT was declaring it.”
Very weak. The small ‘w’ WOT began a long time ago – ebbed and flowed for decades. Islamic fundamentialists brought it on full bore 9/11. Bush and a bi-partisan Congress responded.
Thats the real world.
Dugger
“We would blame him for failures. He took definitive steps in the WOT. He gets the credit for no attacks. He gets the credit for no attacks.”
You would blame him for failures? Really? The biggest terrorist attack in US history occurred on Bush’s watch and all I’ve ever seen conservatives and this administration do it try to blame the guy who came before. If you want to give Bush credit for no attacks since 9-11, he must also bear full responsibility for 9-11 itself. And before you give me any of this “It’s really Clinton’s fault” bullshit just tell me on what day a President becomes solely responsible for what happens on his watch. Is it Day 1 or Day 101?
Would you like to lay a few actual facts behind that? I thought so.
Lets see,
Abramoff and if that one’s not enough here’s this?
And how about Flamegate?
But the worst has been Weapons of Mass Destruction that didnt exist and has so far gotten over 2500 American soldiers killed.
The lobbyist link is http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/08/politics/main1384881.shtml.
Since you somehow desire to bring up the subject of scandals, lets talk about it:
How about Bush’s convenient “military career”?
And how about the DWI that Karen Hughes said didn’t exist until some people started snooping around?
And more recently how about Flamegate and leak-authorizer-in-chief?
And how about the lobbyist that Bush claimed he didn’t know?
It seems the right is always trying to diminish Bush’s failures by claiming that he is misunderstood and mistreated by his political opponents, in this case the democrats.
The most sure sign that a republican is losing the argument is when they start to talk about Clinton.
I didn t mention Hillary
That was kinda my point.
and I didn t mention anything about past or present.
The only examples you could think of were from Clinton’s pre-presidential past, so Bushy-boy’s past is perfectly fair game as well.
Changing ABC into CBA, isn t much of a change.
That would depend on the context.
Also, you completely ignore my second paragraph in my earlier post. Just as a captain is responsible for the actions of his crew members, or how a sergant is responsible for the actions of his platoon, so is the President responsible for the actions of his administration.
Zython: You have wandered completely away from the point of my post which was that [compared to Clinton] never was he subject to the scorn and derision of President Bush, who is in office, with almost no scandal associated with him.
Ok, let me repost my response to your point, since you obviously didn’t read it the first time around:
Didn t the rape and assault happen before he was president? In that case, Bush s past is also fair game. Lessee, what bad stuff did AWOL, drunk driving, coked up Bush do? Oh! The stuff I just said!
Also, so what if he isn t directly connected? He s the President, and as such is responsible of the going ons of his administration. As the plaque on his desk says The Buck Stops Here , but then again, he probably threw that away.
There we go.
Also, I’d like to add pretty much everything Bushwacked just said.
almost no
al·most (ôl’mMst’, ôl-mMst’) pron. adv.
Slightly short of; not quite; nearly
no (1) (nM) pron. adv.
2. Not at all; not by any degree. Often used with the comparative: no better; no more.
And, you know as well as I do that President Bush is not despised because of a handful of barely proven scandals. Clinton had more scandals than that going by breakfast, every day.
And, you know as well as I do that President Bush is not despised because of a handful of barely proven scandals.
He’s also despised because his policies suck. Ever think of that?
almost no
al·most (ôl mMst , ôl-mMst ) pron. adv.
Slightly short of; not quite; nearly
no (1) (nM) pron. adv.
2. Not at all; not by any degree. Often used with the comparative: no better; no more.
You can quote the dictionary! That’s kinda cute.