You remember how every 5 minutes in 2004 we got a TERROR ALERT from Homeland Security, and then after Bush was re-elected the TERROR ALERTs seemed to go away? And then Tom Ridge admitted that at least a few of them were politically motivated?
“The White House said Monday it agreed with an assessment by U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who warns terrorists could test the next president with an attack.”
The likelihood of this working this time is essentially zero (nobody trusts the party of Katrina and Iraq with their security anymore) but it is a pretty perverse thing for a government to be engaged in. And as cons always do, they will explain this away without batting the eye. Something like only America-haters would oppose the actions of their beloved Commander In Chief or something. Whatever, they’re a sick set of people.
More here.
Yeah, it’s not like terrorists haven’t tried that tactic before.
Well, except in September of 2001 and February of 1993. Not that that represents a track record or anything. And besides, if you feel Obama is best suited of the two candidates to handle terrorists, you shouldn’t have anything to worry about, right?
Jesus, GP. Just fucking shoot me.
“if you feel Obama is best suited of the two candidates to handle terrorists, you shouldn’t have anything to worry about, right?”
But I repeat myself.
Or do you think the timing of the attacks was completely random?
“Or do you think the timing of the attacks was completely random?”
Do you think this in anything more than a ploy to get people to vote Republican? Do you think there won’t be an attack if McCain wins?
The Republicans (and Lieberman, who is practically a Republican), are using the prospects of a terror attack for political gain. This should make you mad.
No, I think the terrorists see the virtue in having Republican leaders. They get to kill more people.
Maybe I misread, but I didn’t see a single thing at that link that said anything about an alert being politically motivated. Ridge simply said that he sometimes disagreed with the decision.
“Do you think this in anything more than a ploy to get people to vote Republican?”
Perhaps it is. At this point, I wouldn’t put it past either candidate or either party to try and score points whenever they can. Politics of Fear might be deplorable no matter the subject matter.
Unfortunately, it works.
That having been said, it took AQ 37 days to test Clinton’s resolve on the issue of terrorism. It took a little under eight months for them to test Bush’s resolve. So it’s not out of the question that, no matter who is elected this November, that the new President will have to deal with an attack or an attempted attack early in their Presidency.
And again, if Obama can convince the electorate that he’s up to the task on the issue of terrorism, he can stunt whatever political gain McCain would realize from this prospect.
Do you think it is right for the federal government to make up terror alerts in order to win points politically for the Republican party. I don’t. If you do, you’re a sick fuck.
It would actually make more sense for Al Qaeda to launch an attack after the President has started thinking about clearing his brush away in Crawford, i.e. Christmas 2008. Shows them as kicking America in the nads, humiliating Bush on the way out and taking the initiative setting the agenda.
Gravyboat, this isn’t about testing resolve. Resolve is fucking easy, it ain’t cheap, but it’s easy. Terror is really an IQ test. We’ll hit you, will you blink? Will you overreact? Will you do something mindbogglingly stupid like invade the wrong country? Who’s better at protecting us? The guy who’s smart enough to avoid the traps.
None of which means it’s even remotely acceptable for the president and his minions to push Americans towards fear. Bush is the anti-FDR, fear, fear, fear. Your lackadaisical attitude towards abuse of power is typical of the right today and yet another reason for the downfall of the republican party.
Scratch: “Maybe I misread…”
Yes. Intentionally. If you were able to understand the nuance of language, you wouldn’t be a Republican.
“Or do you think the timing of the attacks was completely random?”
Is there any evidence whatsoever that the timing was not a complete coincidence in both instances?
The only “evidence” anyone has that US elections of new presidents and the last two major terrorist attacks is Joe Lieberman trying to link the two things in the minds of voters.
And here you come right on cue to suggest that ol joe just may have something there!
Tell me, Gravy Pan, to paraphrase Dr. Nick Riviera, While you were listening to Lieberman, did you feel your brain being damaged?
C.S…
It’s not subtle at all to claim that someone said something they didn’t and hope that others don’t notice. I noticed.
Total terrorist attacks since 9/11/01: 0.
Thank you George W Bush.
And get off the Katrina shit. That was first and foremost a failure by local and state officials. If you can’t admit that you’re at the least stupid, and more than likely a disingenuous partisan hack. They had 3 days to get people the f**k out of dodge……and what happned….nothing. People stuck around in a bowl surrounded by water with a cat 3-4 ‘cane on the way waiting for a bus ride, and they were let down. Gotta love the nanny-state the libs desire.
And then NO re-elects Ray Nagin. If it happens again, don’t complain. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is one of the defining characteristics of a stupid population. That city alone and what it was, and has become is reason enough for me to not vote Democrat.
It’s the shining beacon of liberal nanny-state government falling on it’s face.
“Do you think it is right for the federal government to make up terror alerts in order to win points politically for the Republican party.”
IF they were, then yes, that would be deplorable.
Only problem with your analysis of the terror threat assessments is that nowhere in the article did it implicitly state that the reason Ridge was overruled was because Bush needed the bump in the polls. Possible? I guess. Anything’s possible.
I guess I just don’t believe in black helicopter theories like you do. That, or at Media Matters, everybody goes along with every directive issued with little to no disagreement, so the idea that there could be a simple disagreement over anything is foreign to you that you can’t comprehend a simple disagreement over intelligence being the reason behind the threat levels being raised.
Terror attacks since Bush took the presidency: Well, we know for sure there was that one that was the biggest in the history of our nation, but let’s pretend that never happened and move the goalposts to 9/12/01. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you people.
And black helicopters are a conservative invention.
I will grant that Ridge doesn’t explicitly come out and say that the alert rises were politically motivated. He definitely appears to suggest that implicitly, although I’m uncertain he’d have known about it, if it was. That may just be his opinion.
The evidence doesn’t look good. For the northeast region (although it was of course widely reported) it was raised to high from August 1 - Nov. 10 2004, somewhat important months in the politics of the United States. This was one of only eight times it has risen to high or above, and the longest such rise, except for the one that began for airlines in August of 2006 (in advance of that year’s midterms).
It’s interesting also that the Administration would repeatedly overrule the office it had created to deal with the issue. It seems post hoc to me to assume it definitely was for political gain, but it certainly looks that way.
Total terrorist attacks since 9/11/01: 0.
J, you’ve managed to completely screw up the talking point. See because they’ve attacked other countries in the meantime, are still killing American civilians abroad, managed to attack our bases and embassies (considered U.S. soil) managed several attempted attacks within the U.S., and at least one small successful one (anthrax).
The thing you’re supposed to say in order to pretend Bush has done anything good on that front is: “Total terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens within the continental U.S. and not U.S. territories abroad that were both successfully executed and had a body count of more than 100 since 9/11: 0.”
Hope I’ve been able to help you get your propaganda straight.
Scratch, Here’s the relevant USA Today article that explains how, very frequently, he didn’t want the alert raised, and yet in spite of his position as cheif of Homeland Security, he was overruled by a vote from, among others, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Tenet and the Prezodent himself. So no, he doesn’t specifically say the word “political” in his description, he just spends some time detailing the definition of the word.
j mccann: They had 3 days to get people the f**k out of dodge……and what happned….nothing
Let’s ignore the facts that Emergency Declarations did not include any of Louisiana’s coastal parishes, that many of the people couldn’t afford to leave, that many who tried to leave after disaster strcuk were stopped from doing so and, at times, were fired upon.
Sure, easier to blame the victims.
I’m beginning to see why CSS refers to some as sub-human.
“It’s not subtle at all to claim that someone said something they didn’t and hope that others don’t notice. I noticed.”
It’s not subtle at all to have terror attacks without reason at politically advantageous times. The pattern was obvious, and even Ridge agreed that at least some were not due to intelligence.
Unless you want to argue it could be a coincidence. However, that’s seems hopelessly naive.
j mccann: “Total terrorist attacks since 9/11/01: 0.”
Two points…
1.) Anthrax! And I’m not talking about the band. And that’s not the only terror attack against the United States in the last seven years.
2.) That’s a pretty big goalpost to move.
“Total terrorist attacks since 9/11/01: 0.”
Total foreign terrorist attacks between 1993 and 9/11/01: 0. Thank you President Clinton.
“I guess I just don’t believe in black helicopter theories like you do.”
ROFLMAO. Yes, of course, you don’t. You do, however, believe that terrorists time their attacks to the election of a new president to “test their resolve” just because Joe Lieberman said so. Sheesh. So fucking stupid.
Politics of Fear might be deplorable no matter the subject matter.
Might be? Might be?
Gawd.
fafaro said..
“Total foreign terrorist attacks between 1993 and 9/11/01: 0. Thank you President Clinton.”
I guess Oklahoma City doesn’t count? Or is that not now considered a terrorist attack?
Total terrorist attacks on US soil (there, happy?) since 9/11/01: 0
Thank You George W. Bush.
And as for linking terrorist attacks in other countries across the globe to Iraq, that’s ridiculous. Al-qaeda and it’s network existed long before that. Newflash to idiot libs: islamic fundamentalists didn’t just come about on 9/11. We should have been fighting them for decades, but the previous administrations ignored these vermin. (Waiting to see who will call me “racist” for calling islamic fundies vermin……)
Do you really think immediately pulling out of Iraq is going to bring about world peace or something? Do you think they would NOT be angry about infidel presence in Afghanistan or something? If you do believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
They’ve been after us for decades. Marxists please remove your heads from your butts.
We should have been fighting them for decades, but the previous administrations ignored these vermin.
Do you believe we can shoot and bomb our way out of the problem of religious extremism? Do you think Iranian ‘vermin’ will one day say ‘oh well, they deposed one of our country’s most popular figures, the American CIA and Israeli Mossad taught SAVAK agents how to interrogate anti-Shah students, they started an unnecessary war against our neighbor, but they’ve killed enough of us and we’ve had enough of this?’ If so, I respectfully disagree.
Do you really think immediately pulling out of Iraq is going to bring about world peace or something?
I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone suggest this. Let me tell you what I think might happen, though. We start dealing with the Islamic world in a more sensible, less bull-headed narcissistic fashion, and a lot more of those ’swing-terrorist’ Muslims who might end up living their lives or radicalized by injustice (actual or perceived) will lean towards the former and not the latter. Sure, there will always be religious fundamentalism anywhere you go, but we can try to stop stoking the fires quite so much.
I guess Oklahoma City doesn’t count? Or is that not now considered a terrorist attack?
It counts the same as the anthrax attacks, difference in body count not withstanding. Unless Tim McVeigh was an al Qaeda operative, in which case you made your point.
Total terrorist attacks against me personally since 8:17 AM inside the workplace: 0
Thank you Lucky Astrology Mood Watch!
J, you miss again the anthrax attacks, the attacks against U.S. embassies abroad, etc. You need to phrase it as I said: “Total terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens within the continental U.S. and not U.S. territories abroad that were both successfully executed and had a body count of more than 100 since 9/11: 0.” Otherwise it’s simply factually inaccurate.
See, I get that you want to pretend Bush has had any kind of positive effect against terrorist attacks, otherwise you wouldnt keep using the zero figure, but being able to pretend requires that you say something thats technically true when you’re trying to mislead people, and your blurb simply isnt true in that technical sense, whereas my version is.
Here’s another example, when the Right tries to argue the economy’s doing fine by pointing out “Fewer people are on unemployment” but they will Not say “More people are working,” even though thats directly what they’re trying to imply, because it’s not true factually. Do you see now how important it is to carefully craft your dishonest talking point before making it? Hope I could be of some help, and keep on fighting the bad fight.
quaker spews…
“It counts the same as the anthrax attacks, difference in body count not withstanding. Unless Tim McVeigh was an al Qaeda operative, in which case you made your point.”
I don’t think a reasonable person would put the anthrax on par with the OKC bombing. Body count does matter. And we still know nothing about the anthrax, where as McVeigh, although a nut, could be linked to some sort of movement. A Saturday night in Detroit is more deadly than the anthrax attack. I see your point, a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack, but that’s pretty lame to compare the two. One was a failure of monumental proportions (as was 9/11) and the anthrax……uh…..not sure yet. Could have been a random sicko. Could have been…..who knows?
Waiting to see who will call me “racist” for calling islamic fundies vermin……
Nope, doesn’t count. Not specific enough.
There’s dense and then there’s event horizon dense.
Now go look up Marxist.
“And we still know nothing about the anthrax”
Thank you George W. Bush!!!1!
“And we still know nothing about the anthrax, where as McVeigh, although a nut, could be linked to some sort of movement.”
Uh, yeah, dude. A right wing movement.
And if you want to parse the numbers on which president, Clinton or Bush, was more effective against domestic terrorism, homegrown or otherwise, it’s pretty much a dead heat. There were 2 attacks under Clinton’s watch and 1 under Bush, only that one was 9-11, with a body count over three times the number of OK City’s. Do you want to change the comparison to number of dead Americans due to terrorist attacks?
The point being that’s absolutely ridiculous to trumpet “no terrorist attacks since 9-11″ as some evidence of success. The frequency of foreign terrorist attacks on US soil under Clinton and Bush is exactly the same.
“Total terrorist attacks on US soil (there, happy?) since 9/11/01: 0″
ANTHRAX!
How many times does it have to be said before you figure it out?
DC sniper.
Tha anthrax, if you want to consider it a terrorist attack, was very minor in the whole scheme of things. We still don’t even know who did that or if it was linked to any kind of movement. You need to go look up the definition of terrorism. We don’t know if it was an islamic fundie or a random nut that just wanted to get his jollies. If that is the bar for terrorist attacks, fine, but then the truth is we’ve got terroists in every large urban area in this counry. I’d put a drug dealer in Detroit in that same category if those are your standards. Or what about the nut they just caught in Granite City, Ill? He killed more than the anthrax did? Is he now a terrorist? Jeffrey Dahmer?
Again…..go look up terrorism. You’re igorant of the real definition.
The only way the anthrax attacks would be a terrorist attack is if were able to link it or prove that it was committed by a person or persons with the sole intent of coercing, intimidating, or forcing the powers that be or the citizenry of this country to bend to their will.
I’m not saying it wasn’t…..heck, it probably was, but until we know who and why, you can’t truly by defnition call it a terrorist attack.
Kinda funny that no “terrorist organization” claimed it either. Christ, those vermin post things on youtube and take credit for their actions. They even have media wings.
I’m just sayin….you’re ignorant of what terrorism is and you’re just calling it one for certain because you want to add it to the tally to make Bush look bad.
Total terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 - 0
Thank you George W. Bush.
Oh….and the Iraqis have met 15 of 18 benchmarks. Or is this just “right wing media propaganda?”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374603,00.html
You people crack me up. Not one shred intellectual honesty among any of you.
From Wikipedia definition of terrorism:
“As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare.”
SO, yes, ANTHRAX. DC Sniper counts too. As do any church burnings, ELF bombings, the EL AL ticket counter attack, and the 2004 NYC Republican national convention.
You don’t know what terrorism is! Only I have the right to decide when something is or isnt, and I’ve decided that none of the things that happened since the last major terror attack qualify as terror attacks at all!!! Hahahahaha! Showed you pricks! Watch as I smarmily suggest you’ll call something right-wing propaganda and then immediately link to Fox News! Bwahahahahaha!!!! S-M-R-T! Thnak you Preznit Bush for making me so brillianty!
Um…..Rex…
You can find that link anywhere.
Take your head out of your butt.
Perhaps go to msnbc and see for yourself.
See, if the definition does not specifically say “swarthy Middle-Eastern type Muslim fundamentalist vermin” then it doesn’t count as terrorism.
Sheesh. Some people.
WHat an ass. THe anthrax attacks were very successful as a terrorist attack. Don’t believe me McCann? Go get an envelope, a stamp, and some powdered sugar and send it to your congressman.
They spread terror. The made people believe that the postal office could be the delivery vehicle for a biological attack. The effects were long lasting and still present today.
As someone that worked under one of the umberella organizations of DHS, I was forced to learn the definition of “terrorism” as defined by DHS.
http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=terrorism&ia=ahd4
This is pretty much right on.
There has to be a political or ideological motive behind it. Could there have been with the anthrax attacks? Sure. Could it have been a random psycho? Sure.
But until we hear otherwise, I’m hesitant to put it into the same category as OKC, 9/11, 7/7……