Craig Crawford is skeptical, as am I.
Pardon my skepticism at the breathless warnings on Thursday of yet another specific threat to our safety in this case, the danger to New York City subway riders. This one could be quite real, and I don t necessarily quarrel with that.
But I worry at how the news media seems to feel forced to take these dire warnings at face value despite the pattern of politicians provoking these episodes at suspiciously opportune moments. Most memorable was the time last summer when we heard warnings of terror attacks on the East Coast announced just as the Democrats wrapped up their national convention in Boston and sent presidential nominee John Kerry on the road for what they hoped would be a high-profile launch of his general election campaign.
It later turned out that the terror alert that overshadowed Kerry s launch was based on outdated intelligence, raising suspicion that it was done for political reasons and had little to do with public safety.
Yesterday we heard about possible attacks in New York just hours after the President delivered a tough-talking speech about the dangers we face from terrorists. And the subway story stepped on breaking news that White House political boss Karl Rove would again testify to a Grand Jury. How convenient!
An official from the Department of Homeland Security told CNN that the agency has received intelligence regarding “a specific but not credible” threat to New York’s subway system, but intelligence officials said the information is of “doubtful credibility.”
If anything, the administration has downplayed this threat…saying NYC acted on their own in announcing it, etc.
What is the political value to NYC officials in honoring this threat, and how does that relate to Bush’s speech?
What is the political value to NYC officials in honoring this threat, and how does that relate to Bush s speech?
Isn’t it obvious? It’s the same value as it is to Bush. I’m not a New Yorker, so I don’t know what’s going on there, but I’ve been reading that Bloomberg’s support has been slipping lately.
It’s interesting that the feds have basically said today, NYC acted alone, we have nothing to do with the response to this.
Craig Crawford says it perfectly.
It’s sad (very sad) that my first thought when I heard about the alerts was, “Bush must be worried about his numbers.” Terrorism as a political tool.
It s sad (very sad) that my first thought…
I agree that it’s sad. But I think it happens because of a self-perpetuating belief that nothing happens without an underlying evil plot by Bush and puppet-master Rove. So NYC floods the subway with police officers based on a threat that they take seriously but administration officials do not…and somehow it’s a trick by Bush. Whatever.
yet another specific threat to our safety
Funny…didn’t that ’specific threat’ turn out to be a soda bottle?
If there was information behind a ’specific threat’ (which I’m just going to assume is the case, right? Since we are talking specific here) wouldn’t there have been something more to look for? Wouldn’t they have known whether or not that ’specific threat’ involved a soda bottle?
We the surprise and disappointment? Could it be that there was no specific threat, and they had to just pick something?
Seems like nothing more than a ploy. Same with the Washington bomb “scare”…anonymous phone calls? soda bottles?
Smoke and mirrors, and an American media that pisses itself at every turn. What a mighty coward this nation has become.
It s interesting that the feds have basically said today, NYC acted alone, we have nothing to do with the response to this.
Remember how this works.
The Feds tell some city there’s a threat; it really doesn’t matter if the threat is deemed credible or specific or whatever.
Every local Govt. has seen how this administration responds to emergencies: they don’t–they blame local Govt.
So, it’s not unusual that NYC would react as they did to a threat provided by the Feds; they don’t want the blame if the threat turns out to be real.
Again, why would the Feds tell NYC about a threat they deemed not credible? The answer’s pretty simple–they needed a political diversion.
Pionar…
I have no argument with your premise, but I was addressing this statement:
Yesterday we heard about possible attacks in New York just hours after the President delivered a tough-talking speech about the dangers we face from terrorists. And the subway story stepped on breaking news that White House political boss Karl Rove would again testify to a Grand Jury. How convenient!
Saying Bloomberg is playing tricks for his own local political gain is one thing; saying Bloomberg is playing tricks on behalf of Bush and evil puppet master Rove is another.
So Jadegold, is it your position that analysts in Washington should examine and filter all intelligence and only share that which they believe to be true?
Guess what? They do. All the time.
Look, at any time–across the world–there are all manners of groups and kooks who would wish ill upon the US. Fortunately, the vast majority of these groups and kooks haven’t the wherewithal to find dinner that evening, let alone loose disaster upon anyone–save themselves. Still other threats are non-credible because there’s no validation; in many parts of the world, $50 will buy you whatever you want to hear or what the seller thinks you might want to hear.
Again, the Feds already deemed this ‘threat’ non-credible; are you suggesting NYC’s intelligence capability is somehow better at judging the risk?
We the surprise and disappointment?
Supposed to be “Why the surprise and disappointment?”…I really need to proof before jumping on the ’submit button’.
Mr. Curmudgeon…
No, the specific threat did not turn out to be a soda bottle. Did you really believe that, or are you just having fun? The “specific and credible threat” came from intelligence gathered in Iraq and involved where, when, and how; the soda incident happened spontaneously today when a suspicious object was spotted. Two different things.
So Jadegold, is it your position that analysts in Washington should examine and filter all intelligence and only share that which they believe to be true? Bloomberg himself said, “It is very different being an analyst in Washington looking at data as opposed to being here in New York, where you have to take responsibility to protect people’s lives,” Bloomberg said. “We believe that there is some credibility to this…” But I guess you know better than he.
Scratch;
“where you have to take responsibility to protect people s lives,
No one wants to be the one that withheld info on possible attacks.
The threat level (green, orange, red whatever) is just CYA so that no one in the chain of command has to fall on their sword, should innocents be killed without warnning.
It’s similar to the weather forecast; ‘90% chaince of rain tomorrow’
No matter the outcome, you can’t be shown to be wrong.
Or not:
As far as wondering “why would the Feds tell NYC about a threat they deemed not credible?”
Doesn’t Bush get a lot of grief about ignoring a certain memo?
Semanticleo:
No one wants to be the one that withheld info on possible attacks….The threat level (green, orange, red whatever) is just CYA so that no one in the chain of command has to fall on their sword, should innocents be killed without warnning.
Now that’s a whole lot more plausible to me than the notion, suggested in Oliver’s post and in other remarks above, that the whole thing was dreamed up by the mayor of NYC in order to help out Bush and Rove.
Jadegold…
Guess what? They do. All the time.
Of course they do. Filtering and validation are a necessary part of the process. But there are also cases where information is shared during, or even as part of, the validation process. I doubt that in these days the federal agencies act as brick walls beyond which only high-confidence intel is passed. The FBI, for example, works closely with the intelligence agencies, and they also happen to have an office in NYC. There can be a flow of information there without someone in D.C. picking up the red phone to sound the alarm.
At any rate, it’s amusing for me to hear the habitual and predictable complaints about officials taking precautions based on imperfect intelligence, while Bush is criticized for not shutting down the airlines the evening of September 10th, 2001, because “Bin Ladin determined to attack in the United States.”
And by the way…how do we know this NYC intel was wrong?
DO NOT ACCUSE THE WHITE HOUSE OF USING THE TERROR ALERTS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES!!! YOU ENDANGER AMERICANS AND PEOPLE EVERYWHERE WHEN YOU DO SO!!! SO JUST STOP IT before Condaleeza Rice decides she has to reveal more Al Qaeda operatives that we have turned. We can’t afford to lose the effectiveness these sources have in leading us to other Al Qaeda operatives and cells.
sCRATCH;
Now that we’ve clarified my position on th NYC matter, can I have some clarification on ;
while Bush is criticized for not shutting down the airlines the evening of September 10th, 2001, because Bin Ladin determined to attack in the United States.
1.) Just as we do not know about rightness/wrongness of NY intel, can we also presume we do not know all the intel before 9/11? Please stipulate or provide other view.
2) If we determine, through doc searches, interrogatories and depositions that there is credible evidence of foreknowledge by the NSA, CIA, military intelligence or foreign government of events leading up to 9/11; and that the information was willfully withheld or destroyed; what should happen next?
“while Bush is criticized for not shutting down the airlines the evening of September 10th, 2001, because Bin Ladin determined to attack in the United States.
You know that that is a false statement- we never had to shut down airlines, and noone seriously claimed that he should have shut them down.
Along with the 8/6 PDB, we had warnings from foreign embassies that an attack was imminent, which we know now came from Mossad agents who were living blocks away from the hijackers. We should have been on alert.
We have been on heightened alert before, for example, there would have been more suspicion about purchasing tickets with large amounts with cash. I remember also that a couple of the hijackers were held up at security for a couple of reasons. They wouldn’t have been allowed to pass at heightened alert. More exhaustive bag searches would have revealed the box cutters, which, although legal at the time, would have aroused greater scrutiny.
Could they have still pulled 9/11 off? Maybe. But we’ll never know because the signs were discounted.
Never mind that on heightened alert, planes wouldn’t have been allowed to veer off course 200 miles without military response. The first one wouldn’t have been shot down, but the second, third and fourth might have been. At least after the president was done reading his book.
In fact, from that statement and other bin Laden statements indicating an imminent attack, the airports WERE locked down with heightened security procedures. We’ve had periodic security alert conditions since the first Iraq war.
All evidence points to 9/11 security alerts being ignored. There were specific indications INCLUDING WARNINGS FROM FOREIGN EMBASSIES, and nothing happened. The Bush administration remained blissfully ignorant.
Semanticleo…
Yes, we agree on one. And don’t forget that there was plenty of other pre-9/11 that related to other threats in other places…some of it accurate and some not. Separating the wheat from the chaff, and the figuring out what to do with it, is always the challenge.
foreknowledge by the NSA, CIA, military intelligence or foreign government of events leading up to 9/11…was willfully withheld or destroyed;
That’s easy…people are disciplined if they broke rules to do this and they go to jail if they did it out of malice. I assume, of course, that you are not referring to “witholding or destroying” information as part of the normal filtering and validation–an inexact process that involves intuition and hunches and is sometimes wrong.
Neocon…you’ve outlined a common-sense set of precautions that are nicely tailored to your knowledge of what happened and when it happened. We would have had to take those precations for weeks or months at least. Should we have gone on heightened alert when BIn Ladin issued this order to his followers: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies-civilians and military-is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it…We-with God’s help-call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.? That would have been February of 1998. What if Bush had set the conditions you describe as soon as he came into office, based on this declaration of war? WOuld have loved to see the response…given the response to NYC’s reaction to information that “people plan on attacking the NYC subway on October 7th or 9th, 2005, using 18 operatives carrying explosives in baby carriages.”
He still hasn’t beefed up our borders.
And by the way& how do we know this NYC intel was wrong?
Lat question first–because the agency that disseminated the intel admitted it was not credible.
WRT the 6 Aug 2001 PDB–the PDB isn’t a document that contains speculation or gossip or what-ifs. It’s a document that is intended to highlight what the NSC, DoD, and various intellligence agencies consider to be the paramount issues affecting national security. Now, as the 9/11 Commission pointed out, we knew AQ was very likely trying to plot something involving commercial aircraft (Condiliar’s famous line about “traditional hijackings”)—so it might have beehooved AWOL George to perhaps beef up airport security or at least issue advisories to the airlines.
Of course, the 9/11 Commission also pointed out a number of leads went unnoticed (the Phoenix memo, Colleen Rowley, etc) simply because this admin opted not to pull the string on the 6 Aug PDB.
Can we at least agree that that is faulty logic?
Nope–for the simple reason you’re assuming both sides have an equal capacity/capability for assessing the intel. In this case, NYC’s capability for assessing intel is about zero.
Jadegold…
the agency that disseminated the intel admitted it was not credible.
Not credible does not equal not accurate…but your point is taken. My point is that the prevailing sentiment seems to be that if a warning is given and no incident occurs, the warning must have been in error. Can we at least agree that that is faulty logic?
Jadegold, I said, “My point is that the prevailing sentiment seems to be that if a warning is given and no incident occurs, the warning must have been in error.” Can you not see that I am referring to multiple incidents over the past few years? Hence the word “prevailing.” You may very well be right about this one incident…I am talking about the general trend of thinking that when nothing happens, the alert must have been bogus.
Nope for the simple reason you re assuming both sides have an equal capacity/capability for assessing the intel.
So you side with the federal agencies on all the other alerts that have been given, right? None of them were political tricks? None of the timings were “convenient?” Even though no attacks occurred, those warnings were timely and were based on good intel, right?
Deflection, JWG. Frankly, it’s a tough sell to equate hispanics trying to eke out a living with folks trying to kill large numbers of Americans.
I see what you’re referring to and there is little doubt this admin raises the ‘terror alert’ status when there’s another news story they wish to see overshadowed.
Again, Scratch, when this admin tells us they’ve foiled 10 Al Qaeda plots since 9/11 and when you look into the details of those plots–it’s pretty weak beer. Jose Padilla? To date, all that Padilla’s been accused of–he’s not been formally charged–is that he’s met with AQ reps and that he once looked at an internet site that had a ‘how to’ guide on dirty bombs (even the Govt admits that site is terribly inaccurate).
JG: Again, the Feds already deemed this threat non-credible; are you suggesting NYC s intelligence capability is somehow better at judging the risk?
I think it should be clear to you that it was not intended by the Feds to boost Bush’s sagging numbers. It’s an attempt by Bloomberg to boost his sagging numbers. It is, after all, an election year for him, not Bush.
Bush controls the entire machinery of the Executive Branch. He can do better than a back - handed security warning in NYC.
As witness, Operation Iron Fist, AKA “Kill me some Iraqis, I’m losing my ass, here, fellas.”
Yes, we agree on one. And don t forget that there was plenty of other pre-9/11 that related to other threats in other places&
Scratch;
You will notice there is not one word or suggestion about what side of the aisle should be prosecuted. I am not differentiating. As I’ve said before, and gone unheard; “If it’s shit, get rid of it”
But here is the distinction I am making between two roads.. Incompetence is bad enough. I am talking about conscious activity that seeks to hide information(no matter if argued as good intentions; good intentions is the cheapest of the virtues) or destroy information that could reveal the truth about what was known, and who knew it. Do you also agree as to the difference between those two roads?
JadeGold: What did you say? You said nothing that refutes what I said; you’ve said the same thing you said above, again.
Semanticleo…
I hope you didn’t take my remark about “pre-9/11″ to be code for “in Clinton’s time.” I’m referring to the fact that if we were to go back now and examine all pre-9/11 intelligence, we would find plenty of pertinent information about the attacks…among a ton of other information relating to threats that never came to pass. It’s easy to look back and see what info would have made a difference had it raised an alarm…it’s much more difficult to stare at the pile of info that comes in every single day and decide which of it, if any, needs to be acted upon. I’m willing to bet we could find more specific and credible intel about attacks that never came to pass…and again, witness the rain of criticism that comes down on any agency that raises an alarm because - gasp - nothing happened!
As to your second point…I’m confused about whether you are talking about obscuration after the fact or before the fact. In a nut shell:
- Information discarded or not acted upon by analysts before the attacks because in their judgement the information was not credible or actionable: nature of the art.
- Information deliberately obscured or destroyed in advance in order to aid the attacks, or in order to serve some political goal in spite of a certain knowledge of the attacks: jail or worse.
- Information obscured or destroyed after the fact in order to hide negligence before the attacks: administrative discipline or jail.
Clear? I don’t think we disagree on these things.
Information deliberately obscured or destroyed in advance in order to aid the attacks, or in order to serve some political goal in spite of a certain knowledge of the attacks: jail or worse.
JWG
We are both on the same page. You may already have guessed I am talking about Abel Danger currently before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
What interests me most, is the brass ordering Abel Danger files (2.5 Terbytes) equaling 25% of all info in the Library of Congress, destroyed.
Curt Weldon and Arlen Spector seem determined to uncover the truth.
But I still worry about Spector’s history of ‘concern for public reaction’ .
You may recall Spector was the author of the absurd ‘magic bullet’ theory in the Warren Report.
Semanticleo…
Semanticleo…
No, I hadn’t made the connection.
Now for some, er, semantics: surely if you are going to compare the Abel Danger files to the Library of Congress, you must consider all the photographs in the library in their digital forms, and you must also consider all the formatting data in all the books, rather than just the characters on their pages. That’s why an MS Word document with a few pages in it takes up a megabyte on your hardrive…though it’s nowhere near a million characters. I don’t think the 25% figure is accurate, but then again I don’t think your point requires it.
Sorry, scratch; brain fart confused you with JWG.
I agree the amount is probably not relevent. I only brought it up because of the persistent effort it took to delete the files. Also there was paper.
BTW; for any who are interested;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terabyte
Semanticleo…
I thought a terabyte was any data relating to the War on Tera.
Ba dum ching, off to bed.
Slightly OT: This column attempts to answer the question, “Why Bali?”
Frank;
Yeah. A bit off topic, but not too much
Who asked you?
Now, THAT’s off topic!!!
I didn’t ask for your comment on my post (in case you were wondering, I never do).
I was actually commenting on Oliver’s “Attack on Bali = An Attack on the West” post from the other day. Since this thread was about terror, I felt it was slightly off topic. You, of course, couldn’t possibly find a way to respond to the post.