Using Terror Alerts as a Political Tool?

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

Sad to see it come to this, but -- despite claims that these alerts arose from fresh information out of Pakistan -- both the New York Times and Washington Post are reporting this morning that the threats currently dominating the front pages date from BEFORE 9/11! If there is nothing new here, the big to-do over this coming so closely after the Democratic Convention smells of an attempt to manipulate public attention through terror alerts, and to politicize this facet of national defense. And, if true, that doesn't just smell, that stinks!

[Dr Dave]

One wants to cut a lot of slack for the Bush Administration. They are saying that this information, while old, combined with newer information made the alert necessary. Given the enormous expense of adding security precautions on a moment's notice, I have to believe they thought they were doing the right thing.

They also have to know that the timing of this warning--right on the heels of the Democratic National Convention and on the day that Bush announced tepid support for a new "intelligence czar"--leaves them wide open to criticism.

[Gary Sisco]

They seem hell bent on keeping people riled up over things they can do nothing about. Which is a good strategy for making sure they haven't time to get riled up over things they can do something about.

Hell, I could legally park a moving van in front of the federal building in tiny Burlington, go get a beer and a sandwich, and by the time I came back, millions and millions of dollars of the people's money would have been spent securing the area, for no reason whatsoever. Multiply by NYC.

As for the convention, the Times reports today that Kerry received the smallest post-convention "bounce" since McGovern in '72. That has less to do with Mr Heinz Excitement, I think, than the fact that almost all likely voters had long made up their minds pre-convention and none were likely to change because of a scripted television spectacle with no more political significance (to anyone) than the Oscars.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

They seem hell bent on keeping people riled up over things they can do nothing about. Which is a good strategy for making sure they haven't time to get riled up over things they can do something about.

There it is.

[lynn]

Considering Ridge's political statement during yesterday's press conference, which the Dems should get equal time for, one can easily assess the political nature of this alert.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

One wants to cut a lot of slack for the Bush Administration.

Why?

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

They also have to know that the timing of this warning--right on the heels of the Democratic National Convention and on the day that Bush announced tepid support for a new "intelligence czar"--leaves them wide open to criticism.

They've certainly shown the nuts to take some considerable criticism before, while manipulating events and intelligence in patently false ways to gain, through fear, control over the public debate, and eventually to get what they wanted. How many more Chicken Little moments do we need?

[RBS]

By Dan Eggen and Dana Priest

Updated: 9:14 a.m. ET Aug. 3, 2004Most of the al Qaeda surveillance of five financial institutions that led to a new terrorism alert Sunday was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and authorities are not sure whether the casing of the buildings has continued since then, numerous intelligence and law enforcement officials said yesterday.

More than half a dozen government officials interviewed yesterday, who declined to be identified because classified information is involved, said that most, if not all, of the information about the buildings seized by authorities in a raid in Pakistan last week was about three years old, and possibly older.

"There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."

One piece of information on one building, which intelligence officials would not name, appears to have been updated in a computer file as late as January 2004, according to a senior intelligence official. But officials could not say yesterday whether that piece of data was the result of active surveillance by al Qaeda or came instead from information about the buildings that is publicly available.

Several officials also said that much of the information compiled by terrorist operatives about the buildings in Washington, New York and Newark was obtained through the Internet or other "open sources" available to the general public, including some floor plans.

Many administration officials stressed yesterday that even three-year-old intelligence, when coupled with other information about al Qaeda's plans to attack the United States, justified the massive security response in the three cities. Police and other security teams have been assigned to provide extra protection for the surveilled buildings, identified as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank headquarters in Washington; the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup Center in New York; and the Prudential Financial building in Newark.

Dated intelligence
Intelligence officials said that the remarkably detailed information about the surveillance -- which included logs of pedestrian traffic and notes on the types of explosives that might work best against each target -- was evaluated in light of general intelligence reports received this summer indicating that al Qaeda hopes to strike a U.S. target before the November presidential elections.

But the characterization of the age of the intelligence yesterday cast a new light on Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge's announcement Sunday that the terrorism threat alert for the financial services sectors in the three cities had been raised. Ridge and other officials stressed Sunday the urgency of acting on the newly obtained information, but yesterday a range of officials made clear how dated much of the intelligence was.

One senior intelligence official said the information is still being evaluated.

A number of other buildings were mentioned in the seized computer files, but only in vague references, so officials decided not to issue alerts about them, an intelligence official said. They included the Bank of America building in San Francisco; the Nasdaq and American Stock Exchange buildings in New York, as well as two other sites in that city; and an undisclosed building in Washington and another in New Jersey.

"We chose not to release it because we decided they weren't anywhere near the same level of danger as the others," the official said.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney said in separate appearances yesterday that the new alert underscores the continuing threat posed by al Qaeda. At a news conference announcing his proposed intelligence reforms, Bush said the alert shows "there's an enemy which hates what we stand for."

"It's serious business," Bush said. "I mean, we wouldn't be, you know, contacting authorities at the local level unless something was real."

'War of nerves'
Employees at announced targets in New York and New Jersey arrived at work yesterday with a mix of defiance and jitters. Some said they wanted to send a message that terrorists could not deter them from living their lives as usual. Others were visibly shaken by the presence of heavily armed police officers and new barricades.

At the New York Stock Exchange, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg rang the opening bell. Exchange chief executive John A. Thain and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) greeted arriving workers. "I wouldn't be surprised if attendance weren't higher today," Schumer said. "We are winning the war of nerves."

Much of the information about the targeted buildings is contained on a laptop computer and computer disks recovered during recent raids in Pakistan. A senior intelligence official said the cache also includes about 500 photographs, diagrams and drawings, some of them digital.

Two senior intelligence officials who briefed reporters on Sunday said the material showed al Qaeda operatives had cased the buildings both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I think the indications are that this has been a very longstanding effort on the part of al Qaeda," one official said Sunday, "that it dates from before 9/11, it continued after 9/11 and based on what it is that we are concerned about, we know about in terms of al Qaeda's plans and intentions that it probably continues even today."

Speaking about the five buildings, one official said, "I believe that since 9/11 they have been able to acquire additional information on these targets here in the United States, yes, I do."

Numerous officials said yesterday, however, that most of the information was compiled prior to the Sept. 11 attacks and that there are serious doubts about the age of other, undated files. One senior counterterrorism official said many of the documents include dates prior to Sept. 11, 2001, but there are no dates after that.

"Most of the information is very dated but you clearly have targets with enough specificity, and that pushed it over the edge," the counterterrorism official said. "You've got the Republican convention coming up, the Olympics, the elections. . . . I think there was a feeling that we should err on the side of caution even if it's not clear that anything is new."

One federal law enforcement source said his understanding from reviewing the reports was that the material predated Sept. 11 and included photos that can be obtained from brochures and some actual snapshots. There also were some interior diagrams that appear to be publicly available.

Other officials also stressed that, however long ago al Qaeda operatives compiled the surveillance details, the information was new to U.S. intelligence agencies and was almost unprecedented in the depth of its details. "All this stuff was fresh to us," one official said.

Pertinent information
At the daily CIA's 5 p.m. counterterrorism meeting on Thursday, the first information about the detailed al Qaeda surveillance of the five financial buildings was discussed among senior CIA, FBI and military officials. They decided to launch a number of worldwide operations, including the deployment of increased law enforcement around the five buildings.

A senior intelligence official said translations of the computer documents and other intelligence started arriving on Friday. "We worked on it late, and through that night," he said. "We had very specific, credible information, and when we laid it in on the threat environment we're in," officials decided they had to announce it.

"It's not known whether the plot was active and ongoing," the official added. "It could have been planned for tomorrow, or it could have been scrapped. Maybe there were other iterations of it. In this environment, this was seen as pertinent information to get out to the public. There was discussion over the weekend, should we wait until Monday?"

Initially, top administration officials had decided to wait until yesterday to announce the alert, but more intelligence information was coming in -- both new translations of the documents, and analysis of other sources' statements -- that deepened their concern about the information, and persuaded them to move ahead swiftly. "There was a serious sense of urgency to get it out," the senior intelligence official said.

On Saturday, officials from the CIA, the FBI, the Homeland Security and Justice departments, the White House, and other agencies agreed with Ridge to recommend that the financial sectors in New York, Washington and North Jersey be placed on orange, or "high," alert. Ridge made the recommendation to Bush on Sunday morning, and Bush signed off on it at 10 a.m..

In New York yesterday, traffic backed up at tunnels and bridges into the city, Hercules and Atlas police teams toting rifles and machine guns checked vehicles, police helicopters crisscrossed the skies, and employees throughout the financial district stood in long security queues, showing their corporate identifications and bags to guards.

Around the NYSE in Lower Manhattan, rows of cement and metal barricades were in place and side streets were blocked off.

In Newark, officials set up concrete barriers and police teams around the 24-story Prudential building, where about 1,000 employees work. "I'm a little nervous," analyst Tracy Swistak, 27, told the Associated Press. "But I'm confident Prudential's doing everything they can to ensure our safety."

Staff writers John Mintz, Allan Lengel and Spencer S. Hsu in Washington and Michael Powell, Michelle Garcia and Ben White in New York contributed to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

I don't think they should get any slack at all.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

Why?

I want to believe that the Bush Administration would not cause enormous expense, delay, and anxiety, simply to fill a news cycle to keep Kerry off the front page. Yes, I want to believe it.

If it were ever to be proved conclusively that George W. Bush let an Orange Alert be called for political advantage--which it never will be--then he should be impeached.

[Gary Sisco]

Why? Did he get a blow job in his office?

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Why? Did he get a blow job in his office?

You're going to get a technical for taunting.

[Gary Sisco]

Sorry. I thought we were talking about real issues, here.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Doc, the Bushies have so little credibility left, it's gotten the point for me that if their lips are moving they must be lying.

Keith Obermann (spelling?) made this point last night: People who suggest (like Howard Dean did yesterday to the consternation of Joe Leiberman) that the White House is manipulating terrorism for political gains are almost always shouted down. It's like the new third rail of politics. He mentioned that the US has a history of doing things just like this (Tonkin Gulf?). So it's not like it isn't part of our political culture.

Hell, right after 9/11 Karl Rove was out there telling the troops how they could use the attack for political gain. Why not take his word for it? They certainly played it to the hilt during the 2002 elections (ask Max Cleland).

The Bushies seem to have a habit of making "big" announcements that come off as distractions. Remember when that FBI whistleblower was scheduled to testify? I think that's when the Bushies decided to announce they were forming the Dept. of Homeland Security. And Ashcroft loves the microphone more than Ridge.

These cats are so cynical they're damn near pathological.

[RBS]

These guys are known for playing dirty tricks. It's because they can't win with the truth -- "we have nothing to run on, we have nothing to look forward to, all we want is power and money for ourselves and our friends."

[Coda]

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't issue to me.

Ask the naysayers about the pre-9/11 clues that wern't explicitly communicated to the population and these same folks who now are calling these warnings political.

I guess that's why you'all are going to vote Kerry - flip floppers unite.


How's that for a 1st post?

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Coda

How's that for a 1st post?

Sucky, imho.


Let me ask you all this question: If you were a terrist, would you try to do your act during an alert, when security is beefed up or during non alert?

[bostontricky]

Maybe it wouldn't have been political if Ridge hadn't included this little snippet in his briefing:

"But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror"

[Coda]

I would have struck during the DNC if I were a terrorist. That way I would really cause an upheval in the election and send a signal to the U.S. population that would have the talking heads in disagreement for years to come.

...and I would try to link the strike to Iraq - maybe by bringing one of the old WMD cannisters with both Saddam's and Bin Ladins fingerprints on it and leaving it near the scene - make sure it's a dud so that we can analyize the hell out of it.

...and maybe set off a bomb or two at the Ferinheit 9-11 movie to really confuse the population.

[clinthopson]

The Chicken Little Hawks are at work.

Tommy Ridge today denied that the Department of Homeland Security was not swayed by political motivations.

I so glad he reassured us.

Originally Posted by Coda

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't issue to me.

Ask the naysayers about the pre-9/11 clues that wern't explicitly communicated to the population and these same folks who now are calling these warnings political.

I guess that's why you'all are going to vote Kerry - flip floppers unite.


How's that for a 1st post?

Brilliant!

[crawjo]

I think you guys misunderstand. The information is old, but our knowledge of the information is brand new. That's why they are raising this now. And we know that Al Qaeda plans attacks out well in advance, so it is entirely possible that these buildings remain a target, even though we just discovered the surveillance last week.

[Paul B]

I still think it's hogwash. But we'll see....Either the administration is playing extremely cynical politics (no surprise; they've taken it to a new level) or it's further proof of the incompetence of our intelligence organization. Neither scenario looks particularly good.

Bye-ya.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Coda,

Who's flip flopping here? I think Scott would agree that most of the posters on this thread have been pretty consistent in our opinions of Bush and his tactics.

And I wish someone would define flip-flopping for me, or maybe give me some examples. For instance, would opposing then approving a Dept. of Homeland Security count as a flip flop? Or how about refusing UN involvement in the rebuilding of Iraq and then basically turning over the whole electoral process to the UN? Or how about opposing a 9/11 commission in the first place and then "ethusiastically" looking forward to its findings?

Originally Posted by Paul

or it's further proof of the incompetence of our intelligence organization

How so? Just by preparing for something they feel is possible?

And yes, Darryl, I would say that everyone here is consistant with their view of Bush. Those that hate him, hate him long time.

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by bostontricky

Maybe it wouldn't have been political if Ridge hadn't included this little snippet in his briefing:

"But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror"

I agree with that 100%. They just have to put a slimey spin on every fucking minute before a camera.

Actually the NYT had some very incisive articles on the current threat. Seems pretty real to me. If not, then it is like something out of Orwell.

[clinthopson]

I love the righties accusing Kerry of flip-flopping when Shrub has flipped around like a beached fish.


Examine Kerry's "flip-flops" on Iraq and you will find that he changed his mind once he had the facts rather than the fantasy sold to Congress by Shrub.

He voted against the 87 billion dollar military bill because there was no way to fund it without making the deficit even greater.

Maybe it's time you guys paid attention to something besides Fox news and the WSJ.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

How so? Just by preparing for something they feel is possible?

And yes, Darryl, I would say that everyone here is consistant with their view of Bush. Those that hate him, hate him long time.

I'm gonna call you on this every time you do it, Scott: We don't hate George Bush. We disagree, strenuously, with his policies.

"Bush-hating" is a coinage of the radical right, and it is bullshit.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I was channel hoping the other day and breifly alit on one of the cable news channels and there was Mary Matalin (again, spelling, the Rajun Cajun's wife) going on about how "hateful" the Democratic Convention was. Donna Brazile damn near levitated out of her seat over that one.

Has "hate" become one of the speaking points issued out by the RNC? I'm not going to try to speak for everyone, but I don't "hate the playa" I hate the game. I have serious problems with his policies, it's just that simple.

[Ron Thorne]

When was the last time we saw Andrew Card holding a press conference and Condoleeza Rice on the NBC Nightly News extolling his leadership and the virtues of the president's anti-terrorism policies on the same day? There were so many FREE political ads for Bush/Cheney tucked into sound bites on Sunday and Monday that it was laughable. Even the mayor of NYC and the governor of New York got in on the act. I think the NYC police chief may have kept on-message, however.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

I was channel hoping the other day and breifly alit on one of the cable news channels and there was Mary Matalin (again, spelling, the Rajun Cajun's wife) going on about how "hateful" the Democratic Convention was. Donna Brazile damn near levitated out of her seat over that one.

Has "hate" become one of the speaking points issued out by the RNC? I'm not going to try to speak for everyone, but I don't "hate the playa" I hate the game. I have serious problems with his policies, it's just that simple.

Her political views aside, you have to admit that Mary was great as Bud in "Repo Man."

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I think you guys misunderstand. The information is old, but our knowledge of the information is brand new. That's why they are raising this now. And we know that Al Qaeda plans attacks out well in advance, so it is entirely possible that these buildings remain a target, even though we just discovered the surveillance last week.

Well, it's great news for the security industry. My office building, mentioned nowhere in the intelligence, AFAIK, now has a double detail of security guards on--half of them standing around looking at ID cards by the one door you can now enter through--back to immediate post-9/11 practices.