Asscroft Terror Threat a Fake?

Asscroft?

Fake
By Eleanor Clift, Newsweek



more...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5087576/site/newsweek/

it wouldn't surprise me.

Scum
Asscroft is a Right Wing christian, hypocrite, fascist, scumbag.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2004-05-28/cols_ventura...

Ashcroft's threat may be fake, but a real one may not be fake. And how the US or UK or elsewhere, elsewhere not being negligible, deal with it is the question.

How do you view all this? I happen to subscribe to views that veer from US administation policy.

?
I wonder what most of us in the US can do about it except be alert to any obvious signs of unusual occurrences around us. Being in panic or paranoid mode isn't productive. False alarms don't help. The key to this latest warning is that no agencies that deal with this were notified. These color alerts are now a joke. Most Americans that aren't brain dead know that an attack can occur at any time. This Admin. has not made us safer, in fact the opposite!

Re: ?



Yet if the government DOESN'T give warnings of raw unconfirmed intelligence data, the Liberal scream from the highest mountaintops:
BUSH KNEW AHEAD OF TIME THAT THE ATTACKS WERE COMING AND HAD AMPLE WARNING THAT HE DIDN'T PASS ON[/i] when an actual attack does happen.

No win situation for the Administration

Correct
I agree with you for a change. It's damned if they do but double damned if they didn't and an attack happens. They should be extra mindful then of only issuing warnings when they are more sure than just guessing.

Playing politics on both sides with this isn't good either. Off topic a bit but it sure would be great if we weren't so damn polarized in America. It now seems that we have lost that spirit we had right after 911. We can have our differences but damnit we are still Americans and hope for the best for our country.

I can get along with moderate Republicans but the new breed is so rabid that it is impossible for clean debate. Believe this or not but I actually respect a few Republicans. Richard Lugar springs to mind.

Re: Correct


The problem as I see it Radikal, is that we conservatives feel that the rabid ultra leftists have taken over YOUR Party and want NOTHING to do with them. (Look at the success of Dean and Kucinich in your Party ... these two would have been laughed off the stage by the Democratic Party of several years ago and now, here they are being taken seriously by your compatriots)

The Republicans fear a Democratic Party coup by the Environmental Extremist, Socialist Wannabees, Anti American, U.N. Kowtowing factions of your Party.

I will make you a deal ...

You keep your wackos in check and off the pulpit...

And we will put Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan and a few others 'on ice' ...

Deal ??

Uh
My party? I am in the Green Party.

I can make this deal with you. Debate me on the issues and keep any personal remarks about me out of the debate. I will refrain from calling you names or typing insults about your intelligence level or sanity. :wink:

There is not much that we can do overall. But we can be alert.

When my granddaughter was little, she sometimes behaved as if she were off in la-la land somewhere, she was so clueless. I always drummed into her, "Be aware of your environment".

I think now, that WE need to be doubly aware of what is going on about us, without becoming paranoid. If we see something suspicious, we no longer can turn our heads away, thinking that it is none of our business. Anything peculiar going on IS our business..............and it may mean our lives.

Even if the speech were about nothing more than the usual "chatter", I think that it is important for Americans to have a "wake up call" every once in awhile, lest we become complacent!

One of the things that I am so grateful for now is cell phones. If we see anything that troubles us, that seems suspicious, it is so easy to call 911.

Re: Correct
The warning from Ashcroft and the FBI is contradicted by statements from others...


http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/05/28/terror/index.html

No deal. Your notion of who/what is extreme in either right or left is deeply colored by what you read every day, and not by any depth of study. You are one of a small group here who links commentary almost exclusively from one or three sites, such as townhall, which are some of the worst examples of journalism one might bump into. As your links from these sites constitute something like 19 out of 20 of your posts, one might be forgiven for assuming that's what you spend your time reading.

Re: ?


They should pack it in and go back to Texas then. Fleece people in the private sector.

Consider this regarding an act of terror. We must be sucessful in stopping them 100% of the time. The terroist need only be successful once.

Out of sync on warning?
Friday, May 28, 2004 Posted: 8:44 PM EDT (0044 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After two days of conflicting assessments and mixed signals on the urgency of the terrorist threat within the United States, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge late Friday issued a joint statement citing "credible intelligence" of a threat to the nation.
The move appears designed to show unity in the Bush administration's efforts to protect the home front.
The statement's wording was very similar to that used by Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller in their midweek press conference, which had riled some Homeland Security and other law enforcement officials.
"Credible intelligence from multiple sources indicates that al Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United States during this period," Ashcroft and Ridge's statement said, referring to the period leading up to the November elections.
Homeland Security officials at both the federal and state level had expressed skepticism, and some outright criticism of the news conference Ashcroft and Mueller gave Wednesday.
Ridge's absence at the conference prompted questions about the urgency of the intelligence cited.
Despite the heightened concern by the attorney general and the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security said it was not raising the threat level from "yellow," or "elevated," to "orange," or "high."
Ridge seemed to fuel the controversy by stressing in televised interviews that the intelligence did not appear to be new, and that he had been more concerned about the level of danger over the Christmas holiday period.
"We could go back over the past two years and pick out threat reports of pretty much the same substance," Ridge said.
But Friday's statement emphasized the agencies are now determined to be on the same page.
"The Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, in partnership with the FBI, CIA, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and other agencies, jointly review threat information each and every day," the four-paragraph written statement said.
"We are working together and we will take all necessary actions to protect the American people, including raising the threat level or alerting the public to be on the lookout for possible terrorist suspects whenever warranted by the information we receive."
Earlier Friday, an administration official said the Justice Department had been "taken to task" for not coordinating its announcement with Homeland Security and other agencies.
"All parties involved have been asked to ensure the greatest cooperation when announcing threat information," the official said.
One state Homeland official exclaimed, "They could have told us ahead of time!"
On Wednesday morning before the Justice Department press conference, an administration source said President Bush asked Ashcroft and Ridge if they were in sync.
They said yes, believing Bush was referring to the release of lookouts for suspicious persons.
But the Department of Homeland Security was caught off-guard by Ashcroft's dire interpretation of the current intelligence. On this, they were not in sync.
Homeland officials have expressed concern that the lack of coordination undermined the department's relationship with state and local officials who were left, one official said, "shrugging their shoulders" and wondering what to do.
A day after the photographs of seven terrorism suspects were released at Ashcroft and Mueller's press conference, the FBI reported receiving more than 2,000 tips from the public and it is asking for more.
However, some say the Justice Department's warning left the public in the same state.
"I think it confuses them and frankly angers them because they don't know what to expect from their government. What's the credible thing that they're supposed to be responding to?" asked David Heyman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

If confusion is their purpose they are exceedingly successful. Could it be that their pronouncements are part of Bush's reelection campaign?Nah not from that square shooter

I expect some of that "chatter" that they are trying to say can be interpreted as a "new" threat is the sound of their own teeth as the cold air of incredulity sets in.

au

That is the problem for these jerks now. They've managed to lose the trust of so many who have come to understand that they have manipulated as a matter of near daily practice by the administration.

In 2002, arriving for a re-election strategy meeting, Rove brought a plan with him. It started as follows (this from Woodward's book)...

Strong Leader.......... Bold Action
Big Ideas......... Peace in World
More Compassionate America
Cares About People Like Me
Leads A Strong Team


Sound familiar, any of that?

Should they wonder that this is being taken as wag the dog? Many Americans have become cynical about this administration and crying wolf is one of the complaints. Of course, there is going to be the suspicion that the announcements were made to later on claim that, "See, we did it -- no attacks." However, can't this be intepreted as bait for the terrorists and they just might oblige? Let's hope it's a trap but with the conflicting statements I don't think the US officials are as organized as they claim. They could be resigned to the idea that it's going to happen again despite all precautions and they are trying any kind of spin in order to not appear fatalistic.

The one good thing I can immediately see is the circulation and broadcasting of the terrorist (even though some are suspects) to let them know how far we've penetrated. Wouldn't it be ironic if they were withholding photos of those they are close to capturing and wanted them to be at ease and drop their guard?