"White House: No evidence terror attack is imminent "

[madfloridian]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/4925468.html

SNIP..."WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Bush administration has discovered no evidence of imminent plans by terrorists to attack U.S. financial buildings, nearly two weeks after the government issued startling warnings about such possible threats, a White House official said Thursday.

Some documents and computer files seized in Al-Qaida raids showing surveillance of U.S. financial buildings had been accessed for unknown purposes this spring, months later than authorities had previously disclosed, the official said.

Officials had said earlier that some files had been reviewed as recently as January.

The seized records included surveillance reports of financial buildings in New York, Washington and Newark, N.J., during 2000 and 2001, which prompted warnings Aug. 1 from the White House about possible threats to those buildings.

But nothing in the documents has suggested any attack was planned soon, the officials said....."END SNIP

Wonder if Howard Dean was right only two weeks too soon this time?
Hmmmm......

[underpants]

1. WaPo:"White House Warns of Terror Strike"

:shrug:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61300-2004Aug12.html?nav=rss_nation

Friday, August 13, 2004; Page A05

The Bush administration believes more strongly than ever that al Qaeda terrorists plan to try to influence the presidential race with a massive preelection attack, a strike that is more likely to come in August or September than in October, a White House official said yesterday.

The official ratcheted up administration warnings of an election-related attack on a day when President Bush and Vice President Cheney were on the campaign trail contending that Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) would be a weak commander in chief. Some Democrats accuse the White House of issuing repeated terrorism warnings to inspire fear so voters will hesitate to change leaders with the nation under threat.

[madfloridian]

2. Oh, my. What a huge difference.

Unbelievable. I just saw some other articles on this. Will check.

[madfloridian]

4. Here is a paragraph from the WP article.

SNIP..."The White House official, who spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity, said the government had not gleaned any new information about political motives for an attack since the spring, when administration officials began saying they were concerned about an attack in conjunction with the Nov. 2 election. Nothing to date indicates "an imminent operation," the official said...."

They are all playing word games.

I saw some stuff at Juan Cole's site that looked interesting. Will have to do a search.

[gratuitous]

5. Gee, and right after Howie Kurtz's article

In which Howie said the Post had been a bit too credulous in parroting the administration line in the war on Iraq. The leopard does not appear to have changed its spots.

[tridim]

3. How does one "discover NO evidence"?

Sounds like AP is covering Bush's ass again.