Not Scared Yet? Try Connecting These Dots

[cal04]

by Ray McGovern

"Pre-election period…pre-election plot…pre-election threats:" These rolled off National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice’s lips no less than seven times yesterday on CNN’s Late Edition as she discussed the likely timing of a terrorist attack. She stayed on message.

Dr. Rice said the government had actually "picked up discussion" relating to "trying to do something in the pre-election period," and added that information on the threat came from "active multiple sources."

I found myself wondering if those sources are any better than those cited by Attorney General John Ashcroft on May 26, when he launched this campaign, citing "credible intelligence from multiple sources that al-Qaeda plans an attack on the United States" before the November election. Ashcroft’s warning came out of the blue, without the customary involvement of the directors of the C.I.A. and Department of Homeland Security (although the latter quickly fell in line).

In support of his warning, Ashcroft cited "an al-Qaeda spokesman," who the FBI later was embarrassed to admit is "The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades." Sinister sounding though the name may be, this "group" is thought to consist of no more than one person with a fax machine, according to a senior U.S. intelligence official. That fax is notorious for claiming credit for all manner of death and destruction.

Are the recent warnings and heightened alerts legitimate or contrived? Is this yet another case of "intelligence" being conjured up to serve the political purposes of President Bush and his top advisers? The record of the past three years gives rise to the suspicion that this is precisely what is afoot.

rest of the article
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/08/con04327.html

[tigereye]

1. "Fear is the Mind Killer"

to quote Dune. Important to remember when all these fear games are being played.

[Miss Authoritiva]

2. Dangerous game to play. Maybe too dangerous even for Bush/Cheney.

Thinking about all the various scenarios -- "allowing" pre-election terrorist attacks to happen, canceling the election, protracted disputes over election results, etc -- makes me wonder if the adverse effects of these disruptions would cost in cold hard cash much more than the true power people would be willing to risk.

I'm sure the Bush/Cheney and PNAC ideologues wouldn't mind risking the financial collateral damage -- all to serve a higher cause, you know. But the power players running the multinational corporations might see four years of a Kerry Administration as a much more cost-effective alternative.

Just a thought.