NewBeetle.org Forums banner

1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,908 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I took this from Keith Olbermann's Blog - saw the story last night and it's been something I've been thinking for quite some time - how fortunate that we would have a terror alert when there was something that needed to be covered up or taken off the headlines of newspapers and news broadcasts...I have to believe that some of these are coincidental...but most are cover-ups...just too coincidental - and then, like always, nothing actually happens. That's the way this president was re-elected - they played the politics of FEAR and said that they were the only ones that could protects the citezens of the US and that their opponents would allow bad things to happen. Well, hindsight is showing us that we, as citizens, were wrong -they weren't the ones that could protect us. Iraq, Katrina, Rita...you name any disaster since re-election and all they have been able to do is say "I accept responsibility for the failures"...that doesn't bring back the lives that were lost in a war or flooded area.


October 12, 2005 | 8:35 p.m. ET

The Nexus of Politics and Terror (Keith Olbermann)

Secaucus - Last Thursday on Countdown, I referred to the latest terror threat - the reported bomb plot against the New York City subway system - in terms of its timing. President Bush’s speech about the war on terror had come earlier the same day, as had the breaking news of the possible indictment of Karl Rove in the CIA leak investigation.

I suggested that in the last three years there had been about 13 similar coincidences - a political downturn for the administration, followed by a “terror event” - a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning.

We figured we’d better put that list of coincidences on the public record. We did so this evening on the television program, with ten of these examples. The other three are listed at the end of the main list, out of chronological order. The contraction was made purely for the sake of television timing considerations, and permitted us to get the live reaction of the former Undersecretary of Homeland Security, Asa Hutchinson.

We bring you these coincidences, reminding you, and ourselves here, that perhaps the simplest piece of wisdom in the world is called “the logical fallacy.” Just because Event “A” occurs, and then Event “B” occurs, that does not automatically mean that Event “A” caused Event “B.”

But one set of comments from an informed observer seems particularly relevant as we examine these coincidences.

On May 10th of this year, after his resignation, former Secretary of Homeland Security Ridge looked back on the terror alert level changes, issued on his watch.

Mr. Ridge said: “More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it. Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don’t necessarily put the country on (alert)… there were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said ‘for that?’”

Please, judge for yourself.

Number One:

May 18th, 2002. The first details of the President’s Daily Briefing of August 6th, 2001, are revealed, including its title - “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S.” The same day another memo is discovered - revealing the FBI knew of men with links to Al Qaeda training at an Arizona flight school. The memo was never acted upon. Questions about 9/11 Intelligence failures are swirling.

May 20th, 2002. Two days later, FBI Director Mueller declares another terrorist attack “inevitable.” The next day, the Department of Homeland Security issues warnings of attacks against railroads nationwide, and against New York City landmarks like the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty.

Number Two:

June 6th, 2002. Colleen Rowley, the FBI agent who tried to alert her superiors to the specialized flight training taken by Zacarias Moussaoui, whose information suggests the government missed a chance to break up the 9/11 plot, testifies before Congress. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Graham says Rowley’s testimony has inspired similar pre-9/11 whistle-blowers.

June 10th, 2002. Four days later, speaking from Russia, Attorney General John Ashcroft reveals that an American named Jose Padilla is under arrest, accused of plotting a radiation bomb attack in this country. Padilla had, by this time, already been detained for more than a month.

Number Three:

February 5th, 2003. Secretary of State Powell tells the United Nations Security Council of Iraq’s concealment of weapons, including 18 mobile biological weapons laboratories, justifying a U.N. or U.S. first strike. Many in the UN are doubtful. Months later, much of the information proves untrue.

February 7th, 2003. Two days later, as anti-war demonstrations continue to take place around the globe, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge cites “credible threats” by Al Qaeda, and raises the terror alert level to orange. Three days after that, Fire Administrator David Paulison - who would become the acting head of FEMA after the Hurricane Katrina disaster - advises Americans to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect themselves against radiological or biological attack.

Number Four:

July 23rd, 2003: The White House admits the CIA -- months before the President's State of the Union Address -- expressed "strong doubts" about the claim that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger. On the 24th, the Congressional report on the 9/11 attacks is issued; it criticizes government at all levels; it reveals an FBI informant had been living with two of the future hijackers; and it concludes that Iraq had no link to Al-Qaeda. 28 pages of the report are redacted. On the 26th, American troops are accused of beating Iraqi prisoners.

July 29th, 2003. Three days later, amid all of those negative headlines, Homeland Security issues warnings of further terrorist attempts to use airplanes for suicide attacks.

Number Five:

December 17th, 2003. 9/11 Commission Co-Chair Thomas Kean says the attacks were preventable. The next day, a Federal Appeals Court says the government cannot detain suspected radiation-bomber Jose Padilla indefinitely without charges, and the chief U.S. Weapons inspector in Iraq, Dr. David Kay, who has previously announced he has found no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, announces he will resign his post.

December 21st, 2003. Three days later, just before Christmas, Homeland Security again raises the threat level to Orange, claiming “credible intelligence” of further plots to crash airliners into U.S. cities. Subsequently, six international flights into this country are cancelled after some passenger names purportedly produce matches on government no-fly lists. The French later identify those matched names: one belongs to an insurance salesman from Wales, another to an elderly Chinese woman, a third to a five-year old boy.

Number Six:

March 30th, 2004. The new chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer tells Congress we have still not found any WMD there. On the 31st, after weeks of refusing to appear before the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice finally relents and agrees to testify. On April 1st: Four Blackwater-USA contractors working in Iraq are murdered, their mutilated bodies dragged through the streets and left on public display in Fallujah. The role of civilian contractors in Iraq is widely questioned.

April 2nd, 2004. The next day, Homeland Security issues a bulletin warning that terrorists may try to blow up buses and trains, using fertilizer and fuel bombs - like the one detonated in Oklahoma City - stuffed into satchels or duffel bags.

Number Seven:

May 16th, 2004. Secretary of State Powell appears on “Meet The Press.” Moderator Tim Russert closes by asking him about the “enormous personal credibility” Powell had placed before the U.N. in laying out a case against Saddam Hussein. An aide to Powell interrupts the question, saying the interview is over. Powell finishes his answer, admitting that much of the information he had been given about Weapons of Mass Destruction was “inaccurate and wrong, and, in some cases, deliberately misleading.”

May 21st, 2004, new photos showing mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison are released. On the 24th - Associated Press video from Iraq confirms U.S. forces mistakenly bombed a wedding party - killing more than 40.

Wednesday the 26th. Two days later, Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller warn that intelligence from multiple sources, in Ashcroft’s words, “indicates Al-Qaeda’s specific intention to hit the United States hard,” and that “90 percent of the arrangements for an attack on the United States were complete.” The color-coded warning system is not raised, and Homeland Security Secretary Ridge does not attend the announcement.

Number Eight:

July 6th, 2004. Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry selects Senator John Edwards as his vice presidential running mate, producing a small bump in the election opinion polls, and a huge swing in media attention towards the Democratic campaign.

July 8th, 2004. Two days later, Homeland Secretary Ridge warns of information about Al-Qaeda attacks during the summer or autumn. Four days after that, the head of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, DeForest B. Soaries, Junior, confirms he has written to Ridge about the prospect of postponing the upcoming Presidential election in the event it is interrupted by terrorist acts.

Number Nine:

July 29th, 2004. At their party convention in Boston, the Democrats formally nominate John Kerry as their candidate for President. As in the wake of any convention, the Democrats dominate the media attention over the ensuing weekend.

Monday, August 1st, 2004. The Department of Homeland Security raises the alert status for financial centers in New York, New Jersey, and Washington to orange. The evidence supporting the warning - reconnaissance data, left in a home in Iraq - later proves to be roughly four years old and largely out-of-date.

Number Ten:

Last Thursday. At 10 AM Eastern Time, the President addresses the National Endowment for Democracy, once again emphasizing the importance of the war on terror and insisting his government has broken up at least 10 terrorist plots since 9/11.

At 3 PM Eastern Time, five hours after the President’s speech has begun, the Associated Press reports that Karl Rove will testify again to the CIA Leak Grand Jury, and that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has told Rove he cannot guarantee that he will not be indicted.

At 5:17 PM Eastern Time, seven hours after the President’s speech has begun, New York officials disclose a bomb threat to the city’s subway system - based on information supplied by the Federal Government. A Homeland Security spokesman says the intelligence upon which the disclosure is based is “of doubtful credibility.” And it later proves that New York City had known of the threat for at least three days, and had increased police presence in the subways long before making the announcement at that particular time. Local New York television station, WNBC, reports it had the story of the threat days in advance, but was asked by "high ranking federal officials" in New York and Washington to hold off its story.

Less than four days after revealing the threat, Mayor Michael Bloomberg says "Since the period of the threat now seems to be passing, I think over the immediate future, we'll slowly be winding down the enhanced security."

While news organizations ranging from the New York Post to NBC News quote sources who say there was reason to believe that informant who triggered the warning simply ‘made it up’, a Senior U.S. Counter-terrorism official tells the New York Times: "There was no there, there."

The list of three additional examples follows.

Number Eleven:

October 22nd, 2004. After weeks of Administration insistence that there are terrorist plans to disrupt the elections, FBI, Law Enforcement, and other U.S. Intelligence agencies report they have found no direct evidence of any plot. More over, they say, a key CIA source who had claimed knowledge of the plot, has been discredited.

October 29, 2004. Seven days later - four days before the Presidential election - the first supposedly new, datable tape of Osama Bin Laden since December 2001 is aired on the Al-Jazeera Network. A Bush-Cheney campaign official anonymously tells the New York Daily News that from his campaign’s point of view, the tape is quote “a little gift.”

Number Twelve:

May 5th, 2005. 88 members of the United States House of Representatives send a letter to President Bush demanding an investigation of the so-called “Downing Street Memo” - a British document which describes purported American desire dating to 2002 to "fix" the evidence to fit the charges against Iraq. In Iraq over the following weekend, car bombings escalate. On the 11th, more than 75 Iraqis are killed in one.

May 11th, 2005. Later that day, an instructor and student pilot violate restricted airspace in Washington D.C. It is an event that happens hundreds of times a year, but this time the plane gets to within three miles of the White House. The Capitol is evacuated; Vice President Cheney, the First Lady, and Nancy Reagan are all rushed to secure locations. The President, biking through woods, is not immediately notified.

Number Thirteen:

June 26th, 2005. A Gallup poll suggests that 61 percent of the American public believes the President does not have a plan in Iraq. On the 28th, Mr. Bush speaks to the nation from Fort Bragg: "We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we'll fight them there, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."

June 29th 2005. The next day, another private pilot veers into restricted airspace, the Capitol is again evacuated, and this time, so is the President.

--

To summarize, coincidences are coincidences.

We could probably construct a similar time line of terror events and warnings, and their relationship to - the opening of new Walmarts around the country.

Are these coincidences signs that the government’s approach has worked because none of the announced threats ever materialized? Are they signs that the government has not yet mastered how and when to inform the public?

Is there, in addition to the "fog of war" a simple, benign, "fog of intelligence”?

But, if merely a reasonable case can be made that any of these juxtapositions of events are more than just coincidences, it underscores the need for questions to be asked in this country - questions about what is prudence, and what is fear-mongering; questions about which is the threat of death by terror, and which is the terror of threat.

Comments? E-mail: [email protected]
 

·
Aphid is FUN!
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
marvins_dad said:
...I have to believe that some of these are coincidental...but most are cover-ups...just too coincidental - and then, like always, nothing actually happens...
Other than a distrust of the Bush administration, which I'm not going to discount, is there any corroborating evidence, a Dowling Street memo perhaps, to suggest any of these are not coincidences?
 

·
I bleed Burnt Orange!
Joined
·
687 Posts
73standard said:
And I was told there was no conspiracy about the UN taking over the world.... hmm... seems like others should keep that in mind here as well.
From USA Today, 10 May 2005:
The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.

Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.

His comments at a Washington forum describe spirited debates over terrorist intelligence and provide rare insight into the inner workings of the nation's homeland security apparatus.

Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.

"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "

Revising or scrapping the color-coded alert system is under review by new Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff. Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said "improvements and adjustments" may be announced within the next few months.

The threat level was last raised on a nationwide scale in December 2003, to orange from yellow — or "elevated" risk — where the alert level is now. In most cases, Ridge said Homeland Security officials didn't want to raise the level because they knew local governments and businesses would have to spend money putting temporary security upgrades in place.

"You have to use that tool of communication very sparingly," Ridge said at the forum, which was attended by seven other former department leaders.

The level is raised if a majority on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council favors it and President Bush concurs. Among those on the council with Ridge were Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI chief Robert Mueller, CIA director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Ridge and Ashcroft publicly clashed over how to communicate threat information to the public. But Ridge has never before discussed internal dissention over the threat level.

The color-coded system was controversial from the start. Polls showed the public found it confusing.

So, it seems to me that there is legitimate reason for speculation that the threat level was manipulated for political reasons.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,908 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I believe that it was Ridge's #2 man that was on Countdown and they are talking about this because they know the only way to lend credibility to the alert system was to make sure you ONLY raised it during times of credible threat where people could actually act upon the warning...

As you can see from Dave's article - Ridge is saying basically the same thing. For the administration to undermine that credibility tends to point to the administration using it as a tool to alter the headlines.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
There very well could be, but a lot of those come at times when it would be of greater value if terrorists hit at those times.
Like: Elections (take a look at what happened in Spain durring their elections); Katrina (nothing like a natural disaster to see if our gaurd is down)
 

·
I bleed Burnt Orange!
Joined
·
687 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
Well another thing about it that doesn't bother me is I have to deal with threat levles all the time with my other job. We'll go through drills, or look at situations where the threat level has gone up, but you really can't see a reason for it. Not really anything I can get into, but I guess it's just something I used to seeing.

Although kudos goes to NYC in taking the precautions needed.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,908 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
73standard said:
Although kudos goes to NYC in taking the precautions needed.
Uh...but it was a Hoax...and even the Federal Government told them that the thread wasn't credible...however the Govenor (Republican) did issue it while other news groups were told to hold on the story for days.

Basically Homeland Security said it wasn't a risk and that was another threat that was issued when there was a big news item about Rove on the headlines...even AirAmerica (based in NewYork) stopped talking about Rove to cover it. Assuming that NY wouldn't play politics with threats....but they very well might have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,397 Posts
If it's a credible source, and there really is a chance, I'm all for them upping the security alert. It's better than thinking it's nothing, doing nothing, and then suffering the consequences (look at the Rita situation).

I'd rather they error on the side of caution.

But if this is all just a scam to get people's attention off of other matters, well, then that just sucks. There have been quite a few news stories about how when the alert system is raised, local police must pull double shifts, which means overtime, etc. The localities don't have the money for that, people pay for this out of taxes, etc. So to try and get the public's eye off a problem in government, by making up stories, which result in much cost to the public, is just wrong.

I realize that either way, the government is going to have some explaining to do. Maybe part of the problem is the population being too quick to judge and throw out accusations, which always puts officials on the defensive. But at the same time, I think there's good reason why the public is a bit leary of government.

:(
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
marvins_dad said:
Uh...but it was a Hoax...and even the Federal Government told them that the thread wasn't credible...however the Govenor (Republican) did issue it while other news groups were told to hold on the story for days.

Basically Homeland Security said it wasn't a risk and that was another threat that was issued when there was a big news item about Rove on the headlines...even AirAmerica (based in NewYork) stopped talking about Rove to cover it. Assuming that NY wouldn't play politics with threats....but they very well might have.
I know it was a hoax. But which would you want to see:
1) Find out it was a hoax, but see a good reaction from the security force.
2) Find out it was a hoax, no reaction for the security force, and then find out the hard way it wasn't a hoax.
 

·
I bleed Burnt Orange!
Joined
·
687 Posts
Speaking of the politics of fear, and the recent hoax alert in NYC:

Federal authorities on Thursday opened a criminal investigation into who wrote e-mails that warned private citizens of a possible terror threat to New York City subways days in advance of a city government decision to issue a public alert last week.

News of the probe followed a report Thursday in the New York Daily News that a "select crowd of business and arts executives" received e-mails tipping them off to a potential threat days before most New Yorkers heard about it from local officials.
I wonder where that email came from?

Source: MSNBC.com
 

·
Beetle Cup racer
Joined
·
567 Posts
The day is see Karl Rove dressed in stripes behind bars, that day I MIGHT believe in the current Government of the USA, since that day is nowhere in sight, I keep laughing at the 24/7 fear machine.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
Pulgamovil said:
The day is see Karl Rove dressed in stripes behind bars, that day I MIGHT believe in the current Government of the USA, since that day is nowhere in sight, I keep laughing at the 24/7 fear machine.
You're in Mexico right? Like I've said before I don't really care what the rest of the world thinks.
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Top