I Am Soooo Sick Of This Nonsense

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay. What we have illustrated here is that just about everybody (on this thread) is of the opinion that the Bush adminsitration is inadequate to the task of alerting the public to the threat of terrorism and what they are doing is wrong. That is being said in many different ways yet not one of you has a clue as to what the policy should be other than dump the color rating system. (Dumping the color scheme is being discussed by the administration and is under consideration by the way.)

I'll leave you all to your Bush bashing now as the thread has become too circular to be useful for constructive debate.

In parting I will say that I am capable of understanding that the administration and intelligence agencies receive hundreds, maybe thousands of pieces of information daily related to terrorist threats, and the process of determining what is valid, what is diversion, what is intentional pot stirring, and what is bogus is a heroculean task almost certainly beyond the ability of mortal men to do absolutely accurately.

I personally want to know when the experts deem the terrorist threat to be elevated or when the threat seems unusually compelling or serious. I am capable of understanding that these things are fluid and uncertain and do not need to feel hysterical or afraid simply because I am informed. I have advised my elected representatives that I wish to continue to be informed.

Nice job foxfyre.

The lack of anything approaching a specific alternative speaks volumes, although I will give credit to Cav for at least taking a serious shot at it...and he's Canadian!

0 Replies

Bull!

There is no need for an alternative. The color scheme is useless and it is hard to think of what an alternative would entail.

The real problem here is one of credibility. Everyone knows that the stronger the fear that the Americans feel daily, the better Bush will do in the polls. The question is whether Bush has the integrity to lead the country without being effected by this political reality.

Bush administration has a real problem with his credibility. He talked about WMDs being ready for use in 45 minutes in Iraq-- they were not. He said that Iraq had an agreement to purchase Uranium from Africa-- they did not.

Now we are bombarded by news of "sleeper cells". Some of the alerts are silly. I remember being told to look out for men with atlases.

Here is the problem.

1. A fearful America helps George Bush politically.
2. An alerted America helps America be ready for another attack-- IF there is a specific reasonable alert with a clear response.
3. The color codes and most of the nonsense coming from the administration raises public paranoia without giving any information about what the public should do (other than vote republican).
4. Bush has a problem with integrity because he has made statements designed to cause fear in the American public to gain support for political decisions that turned out to be dead wrong.

If you want a specific alternative-- hows this. I, as an American citizen, want real information about threats to me with specific instructions on what I can do to counter them. I want my government to then spend resources on anti-terrorism measures that are logical... this means they are designed to counter a real threat with NO political goal.

I want an administration that acts with integrity. They know that fear helps them politically. They should also know that fear without direction is not a good thing for America at large. Integrity means that they will do the right thing for America even though it may not give them the political bounce they desire.

So, I guess I do have an alternative

Logic, Integrity and information leading to a reasonable response.

How does that sound?

0 Replies

So ebrown. What should the policy be?

0 Replies

He has just outlined one. A specific warning when there is real information about a potential attack not vague alarms based on speculation about what a terrorist might do.

0 Replies

Okay so the government keeps its mouth shut unless they have concrete evidence of who, what, where, when, and how regarding a terrorist threat. That doesn't work for me, but okay. It's a suggestion.

0 Replies

The main alternative I offered was integrity.

The government should stop using fear as a political tool.

That may not work for you, but that is my suggestion.

0 Replies

In your opinion the government is using it as a political tool ebrown. In your opinion. It is obvious to me on this thread that the primary focus is Bush bashing. Maybe you'll have more confidence in a John Kerry who I think has been proved to have intentionally lied--not been wrong about stuff but lied--than you can prove George Bush to have lied. So of course Kerry has much more integrity. Rolling Eyes

Evenso, I don't think Kerry would use terrorist threats to manipulate the American public and to think that Bush would is conjecture based purely on ideology with zero substantiation. The 9/11 commission report just out certainly backs up Bush on the terrorist threat that exists.

I want the government to continue to inform us, on a daily basis if necessary, of the level of chatter out there and the evaluation of the experts on the possibility of its importance. The most dangerous thing we can do right now is become complacent and pretend the danger isn't there. We don't have to be afraid or intimidated, but if we are aware we are far more likely to notice and report suspicious activity than if we stick our heads in the sand and think we're safe.

0 Replies

Ah Foxfyre, there you go again.

The title of this thread is "I am so sick of this nonsense". Its purpose is to express frustration with a policy which is allegedly to stop terrorism but has the effect of causing fear in the public.

Most of us have stuck to this topic. I have enumerated my reasons for disliking this policy and, as you requested, given my alternative.

Why is this "Bush Bashing"? Is there any criticism of Bush, constructive or not, that you wouldn't consider Bush Bashing?

And, Why did you bring up Kerry in a debate that is not about the election?

I understand your need to engage in hyperpartisan politics, but I don't accept your somewhat hypocritical accusation.

Stick to the topic. It doesn't matter who wins the election. I would like them to conduct the anti-terror war with logic and integrity.

0 Replies

Apparantly more and more people are sick of Bush -- a poll just before "Meet the Press"was, without Nader, Bush 44%, Kerry 48%.

0 Replies

AOL has Bush considerably ahead. Look to Nimh's polling data for a composite of all the polls for maybe a more accurate take on it.

I'm not sick of Bush. At least 51% of us according to Rasmussen are not sick of Bush. But this thread is largely a Bush bashing thread apparently, so unless some are interested in debating the issue of terrorist threats rather than Bush bashing, I'll move on again.

I will ask ebrown to define what logic and integrity would look like when it comes to issuing information about terrorist threats.

0 Replies

Oh really? This is the latest AOL poll I could find and it's two weeks old:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1167383/posts

0 Replies

The most telling thing about seeing all the latest polls is that Nader in or out of the analysis still leaves Kerry anywhere from 2% to 4% ahead. Now it's on Kerry's shoulders to take more than the 45% of the independent voters and charge up the Democratic base. I just found out that I can watch the convention on VOOM hi-def so I won't miss any of the sweating going on. Laughing

I'll be able to see every drop.

0 Replies

Check in on Sofia's DNC Convention thread LW.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I will ask ebrown to define what logic and integrity would look like when it comes to issuing information about terrorist threats.

Sure,

Information about vague threats have no security value. They only make the American public more fearful, not safer. They only value to a fearful public is political.

So if an administration wants to use logic and integrity when issuing terrorist threats they should give specific information with the goal of helping the public be safer.

Years ago I was working for a fairly prominent mathematician who was on the FBI list of possible targets for the Unibomber. We were all given a sheet saying that there was a possibility of receiving a bomb through the mail. This sheet gave specific instructions about what to look for and what to do.

They didn't just say -- be afraid you may be bombed. The instructions included things to look for (i.e. weight and wires) and asked us to confirm the return address before opening mail (i.e. not open mail we weren't expecting). The information they gave us made us feel more secure and allowed us to make institutional changes that truly made us safer. We knew what to look for and what to do. This useful had no bearing on any political position that we had.

When the government gives reasonable information, I am very happy. We made our emergency kit with extra water and flashlights. This is a perfectly logical request and a decent thing to do.

When the government says "look out for foreign men carrying atlases" I have to kind of scratch my head. That week I specifically went and bought an atlas just to see what the FBI would ask me. My curiosity was unfulfilled (I guess I don't look foreign enough).

Even worse is when the government says "Code Red". The only reaction I can have is to be afraid. I don't know what I should do or where the threat is coming from. Should I stay away from dark skinned people, or avoid travelling?

Another example is with my kids. I alert them to specific dangers with clear instructions. I tell them not to talk to strangers and never to except candy from someone they don't know. I don't give them vague warnings about how dangerous the world is. I don't want them to always be afraid. So the logical answer is to teach them specific responses to clear dangers.

These colors mean nothing. They have no effect other than to raise the level of fear in the public. This makes me wonder if this is their purpose.

0 Replies

Right -- it's been a question for the last year if it was an Orange Wolf Alert, a Yellow Wolf Alert or...

0 Replies

Foxfire,

You have asked for opinion on POLICY several times, re:

B-polar reported how sick he was of hearing there is new terrorism afoot, with no understanding of what we should do, (( but possibly tremble and kneel in passionate gratitude that we have a 'head of nation' that tells us when to be afraid))

We already know the United States is a "prime/favorite" target for Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda- and keeping on RIDING THAT HORSE is like telling a dying man, 'hey today might be the day you die'- and then CROW LOUDLY on the day he dies-- see, I tol' you--

Probably, policy should be to have something of substance to report or merely state, this is just a reminder.
Tell the people what the 'intelligence' indicates. If there are NEW things we can do... like "stay in the house on Thursday"--
or "we have really good intelligence that August is time we will be attacked and this is where we think it will happen" something specific, or as I said... be content to just remind Americans, take your usual precautions.
(Being a Christian, I am surprised the President does not suggest we all be "prayed up".)

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Bull!

There is no need for an alternative. The color scheme is useless and it is hard to think of what an alternative would entail.

Obviously.

The real problem here is one of credibility.

So unless there is publicized thwarting of a plan or an actual attack is pulled off, the increased threat, connoted, by the changed alert status is not credible?

Everyone knows that the stronger the fear that the Americans feel daily, the better Bush will do in the polls. The question is whether Bush has the integrity to lead the country without being effected by this political reality.

Interesting. Not that BiPo was ever at risk of supporting Bush, but one would imagine that he's not the only one suffering from Alert Fatigue. Perhaps there is a political component to raising the threat levels, but it runs the risk of backfiring. Funny that the diabolical Karl Rove would not have factored that possibility into his scheme.

Bush administration has a real problem with his credibility. He talked about WMDs being ready for use in 45 minutes in Iraq-- they were not. He said that Iraq had an agreement to purchase Uranium from Africa-- they did not.

Now we are bombarded by news of "sleeper cells". Some of the alerts are silly. I remember being told to look out for men with atlases.

Here is the problem.

1. A fearful America helps George Bush politically.

Perhaps or perhaps not, but in any case, an alerted America is going to be a fearful America and so under any alert scheme, fear will be present. The fact that these alerts cause fear and that this fear may be to the political advantage of Bush, is not a valid criticism of the system

2. An alerted America helps America be ready for another attack-- IF there is a specific reasonable alert with a clear response.

Well, this would be great if the intelligence was so clear and specific to allow for a specific warning: "Stay off the Brooklyn Bridge on Thursday at 3:00pm" In reality, the intelligence can only provide a level of specificity such as "We believe they're planning something for this summer, and its reasonable to believe they might target the political conventions." I know you believe in a paternalistic government, but what specific advice would you have them provide. "Don't go anywhere near the political conventions, Don't fly in or out of the NY and Boston airports during the conventions, Keep an eye out for Middle Easter looking men who are wearing bulky sweaters in the middle of summer, and rapidly mumbing Islamic prayers under their breathes?"

I'm glad that we got this warning - limited as it may be in terms of specifics. I might have arrived at the conclusion that the conventions are likely targets on my own, but would have everyone? Now it's up to each individual to determine what he or she believes is the appropriate precaution to take.

At the same time, you are making too little of the fact that people tend to move towards complaceny. If there is reason to believe a terrorist plan is in in the works for a specified period of time, it is helpful that the government remind people to be alert. Watching for men who are carrying atlases might not be a particualry helpful tip, but neither is it going to result in the detention or mob murder of innocent atlas carriers.

3. The color codes and most of the nonsense coming from the administration raises public paranoia without giving any information about what the public should do (other than vote republican).

You've simply repeated your prior point.

4. Bush has a problem with integrity because he has made statements designed to cause fear in the American public to gain support for political decisions that turned out to be dead wrong.

Wouldn't this argument come into play on any alternative approach? It's a given that you and BiPo have no use for Bush. It also seems obvious that virtually any practice emminating from this administration is going to draw your ire.

If you want a specific alternative-- hows this. I, as an American citizen, want real information about threats

You are assuming that the information you have thus far is not real, and yet you can offer no evidence to prove this other than the unsubstantiated allegation that the administration lied about the WMD threat and therefore they are lying about every threat.

to me with specific instructions on what I can do to counter them.

Counter them? Are you expecting to be enlisted in a posse?

I want my government to then spend resources on anti-terrorism measures that are logical... this means they are designed to counter a real threat with NO political goal.

And you know that it is not doing so, how?

I want an administration that acts with integrity. They know that fear helps them politically. They should also know that fear without direction is not a good thing for America at large. Integrity means that they will do the right thing for America even though it may not give them the political bounce they desire.

Rhetoric, not a specific alternative.

So, I guess I do have an alternative

Not really.

Logic, Integrity and information leading to a reasonable response.

How does that sound?

Partisan, and evasive.

0 Replies

ebrown, seems to me the administration has done exactly what you spelled out for your kids. They have reported what forms or procedures the terrorists could take and what we can look out for; i.e. somebody wearing a bulky coat on a warm day is suspicious--be especially suspicious if said 'cold person' is carrying an electronic device and there are wires sticking out of the coat. Is that specific enough for you?

The color system is patterned after the old Defcom system used during the cold war when school children were given A-bomb drills. If Defcom was high, military bases were put on alert, cities checked the water supplies in the bomb shelters, and the schools were instructed to run extra drills. The color coding isn't for the rank and file citizen's benefit but to advise state and local security teams what level of security they should have in force. Is your community having security drills related to terrorist attacks? Ours is. Due to all the whining about the color coding, however, the administration is rethinking this and may change that. Will that make you happy?

As far as logical and ethical approaches to terrorist warnings, I'm sure the administration or the nearest FBI office would be delighted to hear your suggestions for how that should be done. If the vague warnings are making people so complacent, why are you opposing it using the fear factor to do so? How can somebody be both complacent and fearful?

I will repeat. I have advised my elected officials that I want regular updates on the terrorist threats as the government receives them and I wish to be advised when the experts deem the mishmash of threats to be especially credible. I don't ask for mind reading however and won't even require miracles from a Kerry administration should we have one.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

ebrown, seems to me the administration has done exactly what you spelled out for your kids. They have reported what forms or procedures the terrorists could take and what we can look out for; i.e. somebody wearing a bulky coat on a warm day is suspicious--be especially suspicious if said 'cold person' is carrying an electronic device and there are wires sticking out of the coat. Is that specific enough for you?

I have a friend who suffered a traumatic brain injury. It did not affect her intellectually but it did damage the ability of her body to regulate its temperature. She is often cold on what for most of us would be a warm day, and wear a bulky sweater or coat when others are not. You have just made her a target, in fact she already is and she is hardily sick of it.

0 Replies

theollady wrote:

Foxfire,

You have asked for opinion on POLICY several times, re:

B-polar reported how sick he was of hearing there is new terrorism afoot, with no understanding of what we should do, (( but possibly tremble and kneel in passionate gratitude that we have a 'head of nation' that tells us when to be afraid))

We already know the United States is a "prime/favorite" target for Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda- and keeping on RIDING THAT HORSE is like telling a dying man, 'hey today might be the day you die'- and then CROW LOUDLY on the day he dies-- see, I tol' you--

Probably, policy should be to have something of substance to report or merely state, this is just a reminder.
Tell the people what the 'intelligence' indicates. If there are NEW things we can do... like "stay in the house on Thursday"--
or "we have really good intelligence that August is time we will be attacked and this is where we think it will happen" something specific, or as I said... be content to just remind Americans, take your usual precautions.
(Being a Christian, I am surprised the President does not suggest we all be "prayed up".)

Do you know anyone who is in a constant state of fear? I know I'm not and haven't been in several years. See we come to a point here in the US where to much information can go against the govt catching these people. If you were going to rob a bank and you knew the cops knew what bank and what time, would you still rob the bank? Of course you wouldn't. You would make new plans and hope the cops don't find out. Terrorists are going to behave the same way. If their going to hit a bridge at 3:00pm on Thursday and the FBI and Homeland Security knew about it and told the public would a terrorist still attack? No they wouldn't. If the govt told everything they know it blows their chances of catching these people. There has to be a level of security on the information the govt has. I'm not saying don't tell us anything but I'm smart enough to know that what they tell us is vague for a reason. Whether it is because they don't have all the facts or because they don't want to give away too much.

It comes into one of those situations with the intelligence information leading up to 9/11. We didn't know all the information at the time and it is looking back with 20/20 vision that we are able to connect the dots.

Your response about him being a Christian shows a level of disdain you have for Christians. I bet if someone said something about Islam you would be hopping mad.

0 Replies

I Am Soooo Sick Of This Nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know