Reply
Fri 23 Jul, 2004 11:37 am
These convenient, but never confirmed or specific terror alerts. They're bullshit IMO.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/convention.security/index.html
Grandpa Simpson: "AHHH! DEATH!!"
Lisa Simpson: "That's just Maggie."
"A threat alert bulletin issued Thursday by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security reiterates a warning that terrorists may be planning a U.S. attack in the summer or fall but revealed no credible or specific threat concerning the convention."
I am surprised this hasn't warranted at least a rating of yellow... without setting a precedent now, how will they justify closing down the elections in November???
They might not close down elections in November if Jeb has found a 'solution' by then. Otherwise, expect terrorists.
I'm surprised that people even pay attention to those things anymore (the threats, not the conventions).
All it does is give the government a reason to pacify the public through fear, and if it ever amounts to an actual attack, something they can do to pass off the blame ("Well, don't come cryin' to us...we warned you!").
They'll actually be worth something the day they start giving some detail on the possible attack. ANY detail would make it more credible. Jeez, at least tell us what type of attack might be possible! Car bomb? Biological agent? Foul language? C'mon, give us something!
Someone should explain to the dunderheads what results from constantly crying wolf. The question of course is would someone with Bush's limited mental capacity understand.
I think it's a no-win situation for the administration. If they put the warnings out, they are accused of pandering to fears of the public. If they don't put the warnings out and something does happen, they'll be accused of negligence or inattention.
What do you think the national policy should be about terrorist threats?
Foxfyre wrote:I think it's a no-win situation for the administration. If they put the warnings out, they are accused of pandering to fears of the public. If they don't put the warnings out and something does happen, they'll be accused of negligence or inattention.
What do you think the national policy should be about terrorist threats?
oh don't worry they'll always have you and thoe like you to defend their actions.......anyone else in any other country or any private enterprise who operated in this manner would be distrusted by you but since it's bush you give him the benefit of the doubt..
Um how do you derive that from what I said BPB? And again I ask, what do you think the national policy should be about terrorist threats?
Foxfyre wrote:Um how do you derive that from what I said BPB? And again I ask, what do you think the national policy should be about terrorist threats?
They don't have any because all they want to do is critize without having anything better to offer. I was going to ask the same thing you did but you beat me to it.
Quote:
I think it's a no-win situation for the administration...
God, I hope you are right!
If we're really lucky, they'll send the Governator out to stump for the Shrub. That'd fix 'em good . . .
my fovorite nickname was "der gropenfueher".
well yeah but thats probably just cause you seem to really go for the hitler-related nicknames ...
Attention!
Attention! I just got the low down on the terrorist threat details.
On July 30th, the terrorist will gather in New York's Central Park. They will fan out and eradicate all weeds growing there in violation of Islamist Law. The weed killer will be a distillation of George Bush's poop.
BBB
Could it be that Ridge has a wall chart scheduling the issuance of warnings. And it is scheduled at close enough intervals inorder that when and if an attack occurs there ass is covered by being able to issue an "I told you so" statement.
How much do you want to know about terrorist threats? What should be the administration's policy on this?