OK just to play the devils advocate here with these "new " alerts..

[southernleftylady]

how long was 9/11 being planned? years right? so if this "threat" is 3 years old... could it still be a risk? ya know them still planning it?

[Junkdrawer]

1. He sent his wife and BOTH kids to the very building specified...

in the alert. And try to find that story on a non-NYC source. Local consumption only. After all, while the "specific" warning scared the shit out of New Yorkers and Washingtonians, Bush is afraid the rest of the country might get the wrong idea.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2141275

Phoney as a three dollar bill.

[Warpy]

8. Exactly, this is meant to grab the headlines

There is no new threat.

This is all old stuff, fishing expeditions from years ago, before they decided that crashing passenger airlines into buildings would be more efficient than going to the trouble of building a truck bomb and gettting it into the vicinity undetected.

Bushco wants it both ways, to scream the sky is falling and knock the campaign off the news, yet keep the worker bees busy and the fools spending their money on corporate junk. So they shriek old information and send the kiddies to the future crime scene.

This is old stuff for them. The good news is that fewer people fall for it every time. The bad news is that too many still do.

[Gore1FL]

2. Perhaps

But the issue isn't the potential truth in the warning. The problem is when you wait for three years to release the data and do so 3 days after the opposing party had a successful convention, the action is minimally suspect.

[thecrow]

18. Not being the devil's advocate, but

"they" didn't wait three years to relase the data, the data they found on Khan's computer after his arrest in July '04 was three years OLD.
Still, it's bizarre to go to high alert on the basis of this data.

[Sporadicus]

3. The Timing is Still Suspicious

That Homeland Security, the FBI - whoever - could pinpoint this particular point in time to announce heightened security brings out the cynic in me. First of all, it diverts media attention away from John Kerry's post-convention popularity. It also allows security apparatus to remain in place to counter any protest of the RNC.

[bowens43]

4. They said that there is no evidence

that it is an on going operation. There was a LOT of evidence that 911 was about to occur (evidence that the bushies decided to ignore). This latest 'alert' was a response to recent poll numbers, nothing more. Of course there will always be a risk but you can be sure that if they thought that this was a valid risk we would not have heard about it. They would have the information to try to capture the conspirators.

[ClintonTyree]

5. After 9/11...................

supposedly, actions have been taken to make these attacks almost impossible. All of the buildings in question now have much more security in place than before 9/11, surveillance has increased.......these are NOT the same targets they were pre-9/11.

All of their plots would be ruined at this point. But not according to the White House, FEAR,TERROR........I thought we were so SAFE now. Isn't that what our pResident told us?

[Justice]

6. About Honesty

Why didn't the administration come out and say - evidence dates back years, just discovered. Why did Ridge say "imminent" and say MULTIPLE sources say this - all making you think it was going to happen any time.

The where shouldn't be a major surprise to anyway - Citigroup, IMF and the World Bank etc must have considered this possibility. So to me it is the when. And they weren't honest with us about the when.

Just be straight with us and tell us the truth - instead they made it sound like it was new information about current imminent plans to attack. When they said "we don't know when" people assumed they meant - didn't know today, tomorrow, next week - but that the info and plans were fresh.

What pisses me off is they are diminishing the importance of alerting us - so that people started to deaden their reaction, and don't take it seriously - we will be unprepared for the real one because of the way they handle these.

[Imalittleteapot]

10. I heard Ridge say that we have NEW information.

Now we learn that it's old information. They send Laura & Co to New York for a photo-op and announce that the Statue of Liberty will re-open for the first time since 9/11. Think about it. Would Laura go to NYC if there was imminent danger? This old new terror threat could have been released any time between 9/11 and Nov. 2, scared the heck out of us, but still have the same loose credibility as all of the other warnings the government has issued.

[A_Possum]

11. Excellent point

I think it's a good idea to play devil's advocate about this, very important.

Whoever happens to be in charge of alerting the country to a possible attack is faced with a No-Win situation...it's like the scientists and public officials dealing with earthquakes. You get clues, strong clues, but the timing and magnitude is impossible to predict (at least so far). You can look at past history, and worry about the very real odds of a monumental disaster, but every time you issue a warning and nothing happens, you've cried wolf, and people blow you off.

So I don't neccessarily blame officials who issue an honest alert, to the best of their knowledge, and then are proved wrong. I don't think anyone would, really, except those with a grudge to push. (And we have to be careful of that around here, IMO.)

But the point you made, Justice, about them issuing this alert, saying there were "multiple streams" of intelligence, and clearly sending the message that something was imminent, when they apparently knew that the intel was several years old...well, that's bordering on criminal negligence precisely because it gives the appearance of crying wolf, and therefore makes people take them less seriously the next time.

The public should be informed of the true facts--this intel is old but could still have ramifications so we're hardening security around these targets--then let the American people make their own judgements.

This was handled in the =worst= possible way. The timing appears blatantly political, and the rationale of suddenly racing out with the police and barriers so weak that it seriously undermines the basic public trust. So, after honestly playing Devil's advocate, I have to say the Devil loses this one, bigtime.

[dbt]

7. One overriding fact:

Every TIME bu$h gets in trouble, a Terra Lert is issued. Every TIME the sheep need to be herded away from some unpleasant new truth about the Boy King, a Terra Lert is issued. Every TIME his numbers drop, a Terra Lert follows.

BOOGA BOOGA! TERRA!

:freak:
dbt

[Bowline]

9. How long was 9/11 being planned?

You'd have to direct that question to the White House and the CIA. They know the answer.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. I Think You're Missing The Point

This information is 3 years old. That's the credible information. So, what is the point of revealing it to the public now?

It doesn't mean there aren't threats, but 3 year old information is hardly clear justification for the big public pronouncement. Even if you're point is valid, and that it took years to plan things for 9/11, old information being trumpeted now looks specious.

Also, 9/11 was a grand play, involving massive coordination and training (like learning how to fly a jet liner). Ridge said these were car and truck bomb threats. How long does it take to mapquest a location, rent a truck, and drive it to the location?

The planning, logistics, and execution of such a plan would be way simpler than something like 9/11. So, i don't think it's a valid to assume that it follows that 9/11 took a long time to plan, any 3 year old information is useful.
The Professor

[Booster]

13. To me the purpose of releasing it now beefs up

security in New York, which will still be in place for the RNC and when they get tough on the protesters, which seems to be building into one of the largest ever, Bushco can virtually do anything they want including arresting, beating, etc and tell us it's "for our own protection". I think Bushco is more afraid of NY protesters than Al Quida.

[kentuck]

14. They have been paranoid for at least a year....

when was it that they were talking about holding their Convention on yachts in the harbor??

[fob]

17. If this is 3 YO information doesn't that make this info PART of the 9/11

plot? It seems to fit nicely with what happened, although there are more targets mentioned but that is unsurprising, maybe their recruitment came up short and they had to narrow the choices?

Just like shrub*, he FINALLY gets around to reacting to the pre-911 chatter, and it's August 2004!!

[sandnsea]

15. They had other plans too

The Bushies said the terrorists have "intelligence" on all kinds of places, Golden Gate Bridge, Disneyworld, I don't remember what all. That they had plans to blow up some buildings is no surprise and it's no surprise to the FBI. Of course they're still planning terrorist attacks and have had plans on buildings all over the country. Including LAX. So what's new here? Nothing. That's the point.

[peegee]

16. Because of hugh protests this

is their prelude to maximum security during the GOP convention.

[Hoping4Change]

19. Cities cannot afford to keep up this level of security and need

anyone be reminded that under the repukes all cities in America receive equivelent federal funds for homeland security. Furthermore as Washington mayor said they can't continue indefinelty to pull police from regular patrols in theor crime ridden nieghbourhoods.

Lastly the question I put to you, since you are being the devil's advocate is when should NYC and Washington D.C. step back from this heightened state? And what will be the justification for doing so?