This is your weekly dose of fear bulletin...

Mr. I'm-not-authorized-to-be-streesed has announced to put away those yellow flags and get out the orange flags in the NYC and DC financial districts. Orange alert is here! Got fear? Good!

If you watched Tom Ridge's press conference, it was a thinly-veiled campaign ad for the Chimp. He goes on this little bit about how we have to thank the Chimp's leadership in providing "intel" on the supposed terror threat.

I guess it's time for stock brokers to get duct tape and saran wrap.

Don't forget that Newark, New Jersey, is also on the list, as if the poor people of Newark don't have enough to contend with. frown

Are they going to classify car jackers as terrorists now? If so, Newark has been Red Alert for years.

Next thing you know it'll be the left coast bridges in the evil enemy's scope. Please lord save the golden gate!

I was wondering how big a loss to the country it would be if Osama wiped out the lobbyists on K Street in DC, but the targets in DC are the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. They're not too far from GW University.

Edited to add: no one would ever notice a lone delivery truck in that part of DC. It would blend in with the hundreds of others already there. Picking out that one truck is like finding a needle in a haystack. Best wishes to law enforcement.

U.S. Says Al Qaeda Targeting IMF, World Bank, NYSE

[ August 01, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

Any of these "terror alerts" now have to be considered part of Bush's campaign strategy. This administration has no credibility anymore, after all of the previous "warnings" that led to nothing, not to mention all of the lying, etc. over Iraq.

Time to stock up on the duct tape again!

Something the Chimpists (those who worship at the altar of the holy chimp) don't realize is that without foiling an attack and catching terrorists in action in this country, these terror warnings are nothing but a sham...or a dare to the terrorists, sort of like "Bring 'em on!". Bill Clinton's administration made this country safe for the 2000 celebrations by foiling the Millenium Attacks. MonkeyBoy has not done a thing to prove he has made this country safe. Saying you are making the country safer since another attack has not happened without having anything to show for your actions is empty fluff from this worthless administration. It looks like we will have to continue to take our anti-depressants along with our weekly dose of fear until MonkeyBoy is dethroned by John Kerry.

[ August 01, 2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Despite the warning, if anyone dies or is hurt in a terrorist attack on the mentioned targets, the blood will be on Bush's hands. You can only cry wolf so often.

Chimpy really must think we are stupid. The day John Kerry picked John Edwards as his running mate we see Tom Ridge on TV with some sort of veiled warning about terror. Today while Kerry/Edwards are basking in the afterglow of their successful convention and higher-than-Chimpy poll numbers what do we see.. gasp another terror warning.

Maybe it's a valid warning. I want to believe our government is looking out for us. But Chimpy and Co. makes it very difficult to believe that.

I can't agree with that. Imagine that one Metro commuter notices that a fellow passenger has exited his car of the Metrorail train and left behind a backpack. The atentive passenger calls this to the attention of the other passengers, who all get up and leave the car in time to avoid being blown to bits.

Given the choice, I'd err on the side of caution.

While that MAY be true, my worst fear is an attack pre-Election Day. The American people will rally around the President and re-elect him out of some misguided interpretation of patriotism orchestrated by the Rove & Co. political machine. It won't be another Spain my friends.

Al Queada will not have to edit its recruiting propaganda and Bush will remain the poster boy and face of the "Evil West" in the Islamic terrorist world. With the war in Iraq, Bush has played right into their hands and I'm afraid the American people will follow like sheep to slaughter if we endure an attack between now and November. I just hope Americans are smart enough not to treat these "threats" the same way I fear they will an actual attack.

A side note: Do you think Ridge has lost the stomach to play politics with terror threats and that's part of his reason for wanting to resign?

[ August 01, 2004, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

If there is a terrorist attack between now and the election as The White House suspects, doesn't this show that Bush has not made America safer and that his chest-thumping about keeping America safe has been even more lies?

I have a friend who took a trip back home to NYC last Monday and he's there until Aug. 9 and this announcement today has been driving me crazy. Now, The Holland Tunnell will be closed at midnight not reopen until further notice.

To clarify: the Holland Tunnel is being closed to inbound traffic. Outbound traffic can still go through.

[ August 02, 2004, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Considering folks on both sides of the aisle are taking this threat very seriously, you people are really pathetic to say something this serious is a Bush campaign ploy. You're all so pathetically sad. Shame on the lot of you. I guess only an actual terrorist attack will end up convincing you that the Bush Administration isn't playing games with something like this. How appalling that you people require such horror to be convinced. (Please, don't bother refuting this. Your logic dictates no other conclusion.)

MIB let me break down for you the "logic" they use....

Yellow alert... oh god not another one.

Red alert... this is some bush ploy..

Terrorist attack.. what was W doing he should have warned us.

Anyway, if kerry gets elected there will be no more terrorist attacks, why? cause he'll get on his kness and swallow for the frenchies.

MIB, I object! People on both sides of the aisle were also duped into believing the regime's WMD argument, so get off your judgemental bench.

Given the specifics of this threat, I'm taking it very seriously. The past couple of weeks I have been working off and on in NYC one block away from the Citibank building. God forbid something major happens cause then I could be screwed.

But as I was coming into Stamford today, not NYC, I was thinking: Why can't we find these SOB's if we can listen or read their "chatter"? :mad: If AOL can track down spammers in the US, why can't Homeland Security do the same with terrorists? What if they can't? So then why hasn't this technology been funded/requested/developed?
Those are the question we really need to ask all our government officials, not flippantly claim that this is "just another Bush election ploy"

Every time Ridge has come out with some "warning," he's argued that there's been "credible sources." MIB, even the people you quote--including Kerry--don't say anything specific. All they say is that there are--say it with me, folks--credible sources. I wonder if these are the same credible sources who provided the good folks at the CIA with the "intel" on those as-yet-to-be found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

I find it very strange indeed that this shift to damn-near-Red Alert happens right after the Democratic Convention and just before the Republican Convention.

The only shame should be on the Chimp and Thief, not those of us who refuse to be duped into fear yet again by a craven, amoral faux administration that will use fear as means of securing an election.

Bpt: I must echo some of the arguments you put forward. With all the technology and resources at our availability, I find it hard to believe they can't locate where the "chatter" is coming from, either inside the U.S. or outside. And if they can't, why not?

Oh, I don't know. Some might say offering to provide sexual favors in exchange for, say, frequent-flier mile coupons is kind of pathetic, but hey, we all have our standards.

All of the other "threats" came from "credible sources" as well. Why are these "threats" different from all of the other "threats"?

MIB, sweetie darling, as someone who works 5 blocks from the IMF/World Bank area, not to mention 7 blocks from the White House, I personally take this sh*t very seriously. This is my town we are talking about, and my life if things go wrong.

Assuming the threats are credible, then I am fine with the government warning the people, but I do find the timing interesting. Apparently this information comes from a laptop found in Pakistan. It is not clear whether the intended attacks were planned for the immediate time period - the government says only that attacks were planned prior to the November election - so we have 4 months for the potential attack - and 4 months of potentially increased security and added cost.

Now, I hope the government is issuing this warning as a way of telling the terrorists their gig is up - and according to experts I heard on TV over the weekend, announcing that you have identified plans does seem to stop terrorists, who rely on surprise. As these types of attacks take months of preparation, you force Al Queda to start over (and apparently these attacks have been in the planning stages since before 9/11).

But you cannot wonder at the skepticism shown on this board, and I am sure around the country. Tom Ridge announces he is completely certain of the intelligence - yet George Tenet stated it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMDs. With absolutely no changes to the intelligence operations in this country since 9/11 and the Iraq war, and only a belated recognition by the Bush government that there were even flaws in our intelligence operations, how sure can the American people be that the government has this right? As Matt Lauer said on the Today show when interviewing Ridge - why can't the terrorists just move down the street and attack another building? And I keep wondering whether Al Queda could be purposely supplying false information, knowing how willing the Bush administration is to believe intelligence that fits with their theories.

Of course adding to my own anxiety is the knowledge that this country is as unprepared, in terms of first responders and civil defense preparations, as we were on September 10. While my company keeps a 3-day supply of food and water on hand, and has an emergency plan we did not have on 9/11, there are few if any changes in DC itself. We were basically trapped here 3 years ago, and that was with an attack across the river. If, God forbid, either the IMF or World Bank were attacked, this city would be totally gridlocked, and a prime target for follow-up attacks. At least I can walk home if I need to.

It wasn't \"Bush's\" argument. The investigation of Lord Butler of Great Britain, Vladimir Putin, France, the United Nations, Bill Clinton, Bill Cohen, Secretary Albright, and even John Kerry all concluded Saddam had WMD.

Well, when should we wait to be alerted to possible danger? After inauguration day and after many more have died? You're sick!

So then you hope an attack does occur. This way you'd be convinced this warning wasn't some election "ploy." Get real! The whole damn year is an election year. Any time the Dept. of Homeland Security issues a warning during 2004, it'd be seen as an election ploy, in your eyes.

This alert is not for the entire country, thankfully, but for the area the sources specified--specifics that actually detail the targets and the method of attack. I'd say this is important.

At least you agree with the Kerry doctrine: Wait until an attack occurs, then take action. Yup. That's what this idiot implied in his speech, that he'd take proper action after an attack. Hey, Senator! How about attempting to actually prevent such an attack?

Just what the hell are you talking about? First of all, this isn't the proper venue to bring that up. Secondly, I surely never did such a thing. You obviously and intentionally misconstrued something. Pick yourself up out of the gutter.

You, sir, owe me an apology, and I want to see you crawl on the floor to give it to me (though I won't hold my breath.)

[ August 02, 2004, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

It WAS Bush's argument seeing as how he was out after Iraq to no end, especially since Saddam had tried to kill his daddy. If the current regime had done a better job of gathering intelligence, they would not have brought forth the flimsy evidence they did and declared it solid as gold. John Kerry (and most Americans) was duped by an over-zealous White House and refused to hear the detractors because they wanted to believe the Chimp.

Why don't you just remove what you wrote, like you did with the "federal judge" occupation?

Poor, poor MIB, is this another conspiracy against him?

Are the terrorists attacking or is it the gays?? Maybe they're thinking orange will scare us off.... wink

posted by MIB:
Well on that we agree MIB, but again I question the timing of the announcement. According to the Washington Post's coverage, the new information may have provided details about the buildings targeted, but there was NO information about the supposed timing of the attacks. The administration is implying that these attacks would be before the election, but there is no way of knowing that.

All the new information really provided were details on the specific buildings targeted. These buildings have apparently been cased since 2001. Why the sudden rush to announce the threats when no one knows 1) when they've been planned, nor 2) how far the plans have gotten (we know people have cased the buildings, that's all).

So all we really know is that Al Queda ,for a number of years, has been investigating specific, high-profile targets as potential attack points. Will Washington now be on Orange alert until an attack happens (NYC has been on Orange since 9/11)? When will the alerts be lifted, November 3?

Since this alert is only for a few specific buildings and not the entire country or even an entire city, why the need for a nationally televised press conference and all the hullabaloo? Why couldn't the local police and federal agents protect these buildings and the surrounding areas without making a grandiose announcement about it? Wouldn't there be a better possibility of subversively and quietly catching the terrorists in the planning stages if they hadn't made a big announcement about it, thus alerting the terrorists that they need to be more secretive and careful about their planning?

Nah, the announcement wasn't political in the least.

I agree... I plan on voting for Kerry no matter what happens between now and November and I hate to sound like I am coming to Bush & Co's defense (B*STARDS!), but I think it is wise to take any terror warnings seriously. To paraphrase Bubba: taking a terror alert seriously and believing that Bush is the wrong man for the Oval Office are not opposing values. wink

Well, it ties in well with the nationally televised press conference to announce the creation of a national intelligence czar and counterterrorism center. Which the White House didn't think was necessary until the Sept 11 commission recommended it. The same commission that the White House didn't think was necessary. Oh, except the commission recommended that this new center and the national intelligence director position be placed in the executive office of the president. But it won't be. It's taken just about 3 years for everyone to get their shit together, and, boy do I feel safe now.

Wish I could get my hands on a "George Tenent should have been fired on 9/12/01" t-shirt.

[ August 02, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

Yeah, that's it. I must be sick because I have found every last one of these claims to be highly suspect. I must be sick to not believe a word that comes out of the Chimp's mouth or the mouth of any of his lieutenants--especially since they've all been so honest and forthright from Day One. As maxallen so correctly noted, why all the hullaballoo? Why not fortify these (very) select "financial icons" without a press conference?

Because ChimpBoy and his cronies look like toughies on terra by having Mr. I'm-not-authorized-to-be-stressed to hold a press conference and say that thanks to W's strength as president, we are able to gather information such as this. PUKE!

How could the govt get away with only telling a few select target companies and not informing the public? If they did that, you would be leading the charge that the govt is keeping secrets/not informing the public of credible threats.

Like the credible, I mean historical information, threat that Osama was determined to attack within the United States by hijacking planes?

Paired with blue, it's like red to a bull for gay Illini! :cool:

Not least of all themselves!

Nope. I left it intact to see if anyone else's mind was in the gutter. I reread my original post, and saw nowhere did it include any references to sexual favors. I did add a comment on the bottom to emphasize this even more. Good Lord! Where DO you get such a dirty mind?!?

In all honesty, if they did blow up Newark... would anyone really miss it? And if they did, how long would it take to figure out that they did...

That place is a shit hole. Only beaten by detriot.

They are now saying the info found is 4 years old. Hum, what about the timing of this?

This in Drudge:

Much of the information that led authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the NY and D.C. areas was 3 or 4 years old... NYT Tuesday Page One Splash To Claim: Intelligence and law enforcement officials 'had not yet found concrete evidence that a terror plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way'...

If this turns out to be true how do they (Bush and Co) expect us to believe a word they say?

[ August 02, 2004, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: gobar ]

FOUR years old??? Wow, that's some current information there, folks!

Lord have mercy. Reminds me of before "Mission Accomplished" when Crappy News Network or Faux News would break in with an alert of a finding of possible weapons of mass destruction only to, a few days later, run a crawl basically saying, "Nope. No WMDs Here. Move along, you lookyloos."

Don't play games. You made a deliberate double-entendre. Just own up to it...oh, wait. I forget who I'm dealing with. Oh, the hypocrisy!

[ August 02, 2004, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

Well, considering you were the only one who seemed to infer my post in a sexual way...

Geez, MIB, I used to give you the benefit of the doubt and have some respect for you and your posts, despite your political views and the whole stupid "judge" thing. But holy cow, are you kidding me?! It's so fricking obvious that your post in the movie thread was all about sexual innuendo! I find your denials in this thread so outrageous that I can hardly believe you're serious.

Let's see...
No, no sexual inferences there; not at all.

Pathetic.

[ August 03, 2004, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: maxallen ]

September 2 is the supposed target date for the next terrorist attacks. The Bank of America building in San Francisco may be a target, too. AAAUUUGGGHHH!

The Link

You mean they have the same kinds of weekends that I have?

But you CAN'T forget the olive oil we well.

So according to Newsday we have ONE Al Queda source that claims attacks are planned for September, and information that is 3 and 4 years old about the supposed targets of the attacks, except no one really knows whether those buildings are still being targeted/cased/evaluated, whether any plots involving these buildings are even in the works, and additional security all around NYC and DC until the election. Wonderful.

Quite frankly, I was infuriated when I picked up the Post this morning and read about the age of the information being used to elevate these threat levels. The Bush administration has done a HUGE disservice to all three cities with their handling of this information. If they had simply made the age of the information known with all of its uncertainties, and not implied that they had definitively linked the threats from earlier this summer to these buildings, we would have all been better off. Instead, we have a frightened populace, a real risk of significant economic damage over the next 4 months from lack of tourism (although NYC will probably make enough off the Repub convention to be okay), and yet the threat is nowhere near as specific as the government is making it out.

In situations like this, the tone of these warnings is vital. IMHO the administration was trying to sound like it was really on the ball with the whole terrorism thing, and deliberately obscured the real nature of the threat. All that does is make people less likely to heed warnings in the future.

I told you guys it was for the gays!


For the first time, I actually might agree with Howard Dean...

You know, as much as I hate Bush, I was thinking that "FINALLY" they give us some DETAILS about possible terror attacks

NOW WE FIND OUT THE INFO IS 3 YEARS OLD!!!

Looks like Dean was right again!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/n...ity_alert_dc_27

What did Dean say about this?