why can't they just stick to the credible stuff?

[nostatic]

Originally posted by fintstone
It is funny how the left is trying to use this warning for propaganda.

as usual, another missed point.

Ridge and Ashcroft are NOT IN SYNC. The interdepartmental communication problems that led to 9/11 seem to be alive and well. Turf wars override public safety. THAT is the point.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by nostatic
as usual, another missed point.

Ridge and Ashcroft are NOT IN SYNC. The interdepartmental communication problems that led to 9/11 seem to be alive and well. Turf wars override public safety. THAT is the point.

Your point was not missed. However; your post was "why can't they just stick to the credible stuff?" The assumption follows that the info is not "credible"...not that it was not vetted with Homeland Security. My point was that it is sad that the left uses everything the government does for politics...and as usual..cites some unnamed source or part truths. How often does that happen in a positive story? Why would a writer assume some scmuck that talks to them has the same intell sources as the government or has any ideas where the government's information came from. To claim the information came from a "discredited group" is pure speculation and harmful because it makes it very difficult for the government to do its business. The info was supposed to have come from "multiple sources" which were unnamed. What is the alternative...to only make warnings when they have undisputed proof that an event will happen?

[nostatic]

Originally posted by fintstone
To claim the information came from a "discredited group" is pure speculation and harmful because it makes it very difficult for the government to do its business.

....

What is the alternative...to only make warnings when they have undisputed proof that an event will happen?

well, following up on Wayne's comment: what exactly is the point of the warnings? To put the public on double secret probabtion? Oh, Dean Wormer's gonna really get us now...

In my opinion, much of the "Government business" concerning these public warnings is pure politics. So Ashcroft comes out saying "we think it is highly likely that there will be a major attack in the US this summer...we don't know where, how, or when, but we know." How exactly does that help Joe Sixpack live his life and contribute to society? Or when they come out and talk about plastic sheeting and duct tape for the home? Other than giving a bump to Home Depot, that is similarly of no real help to the average person.

Yes, the left likes to take pokes at the administration in stories like this. In part, because the "vetted" announcements are political stories from the administration.

Or do you think that Ashcroft's statement have zero political content/overtones?

[speeder]

I'm no big Micheal Moore fan, but when he blathered about "ficticous Orange Alerts" at the Oscars, I knew that he had actually hit a target. These things are pure BS, there only possible purpose is to scare gullible people into the belief that they are in imminent danger, but don't worry since the great Ashcroft and Rumsfeld are on the case.

What is the average shmoe supposed to do? Go hide in an underground bunker in Colorado like sissy boy??

The government should be concentrating on its own covert operations against terrorists, and if they had any specific info they should obviously act on it immediately, WTF good are non-specific "warnings" to 250+ million people?? "Enjoy your BBQ, and keep an eye peeled for suspicous towel heads"(?)

Great leaders inspire courage in people, these losers only inspire fear. They need to go back to just stealing $$ from retirees.

[fintstone]

I imagine there are some politics involved. The same folks who complained that they should have been warbed about 9/11 are complaining now that they are beibng warned. Obviously if they do not make "warnings" and another attack happens.....the left will again claim that they knew about the upcoming attacks and either ignored or encouraged them.

[jyl]

Why wasn't the warning coordinated between the AG, FBI, and Dept of Homeland Security? Ridge and the DoHS seemed caught off-guard. This gave the government's critics an opportunity to accuse Ashcroft of political grandstanding.

Regardless of what political stripes you wear, don't you think the government's various departments should work together better than that? Why leave an opening for the opposition?

[techweenie]

The worthlessness of Ashcroft's announcement is exemplified in the fact that we were at "yellow" alert levels before and we are at "yellow" now.

[nostatic]

ah, but now we are on double secret yellow alert. There is a difference...if the terrorists attack now Bush house could lose their charter on campus. I think that's why they are working on that special float...

[island911]

Originally posted by nostatic
well, following up on Wayne's comment: what exactly is the point of the warnings? . . .
. ..Ashcroft comes out saying "we think it is highly likely that there will be a major attack in the US this summer...we don't know where, how, or when, but we know." How exactly does that help Joe Sixpack live his life and contribute to society? .. .

Well for starters, Joe knows he might think about putting an extra Sixpack in the fridge.

Seriously, it does provide a sanity-check that some bad stuff may happen, and for those of us living in cities, to do some appropriate contingency planning. . .just like one would if they live in "tornado alley" or an earth-quake zone. . .or high forst-fire danger alert. (note, same color chart)

sheesh, some of you guys work hard to find fault in our officials sharing info. . . too much . . too little.

btw, we are at "yellow-alert" until some actionable information comes along. . . remember those particular, regular flights that were canceled, one after another, a while back.

[speeder]

Originally posted by fintstone
I imagine there are some politics involved. The same folks who complained that they should have been warbed about 9/11 are complaining now that they are beibng warned. Obviously if they do not make "warnings" and another attack happens.....the left will again claim that they knew about the upcoming attacks and either ignored or encouraged them.

Umm, you're trying to spin BS again. People have not been complaining about the general public "not being warned about 9/11", they have been complaining about the government, (specifically the FBI, CIA, and FAA), not acting appropriately on threat info.

There is a big difference, but acknowledging it would make your argument appear specious. Which it is.

No one that I have heard, and definitely not me, is saying that the appropriate agencies should not be acting pro-actively to prevent terrorist attacks. That would be different from walking around in circles w/ their thumbs up their asses and having press conferences. I have a secret for you: terrorists like the element of surprise. They will strike when Bush is on one of his countless vacations reading comic books in Texas. The whole "Orange alert" thing is to sell duct tape or something. A total joke.

[techweenie]

"Well for starters, Joe knows he might think about putting an extra Sixpack in the fridge...

btw, we are at "yellow-alert" until some actionable information comes along. . .
----------

So an orange alert means definitely putting an extra six pack in the fridge?

"remember those particular, regular flights that were canceled, one after another, a while back."

------------
Yes, I remember the flights from France that were cancelled for no reason at all. I had friends scheduled to fly back from France at the time, and in case the explanation ended up on page 14 of your local paper, the cancellations were due to such things as mistranslation of a passenger list name that identified a five year old as a possible terrorist.

[JavaBrewer]

Originally posted by speeder
Umm, you're trying to spin BS again. People have not been complaining about the general public "not being warned about 9/11", they have been complaining about the government, (specifically the FBI, CIA, and FAA), not acting appropriately on threat info.

No one that I have heard, and definitely not me, is saying that the appropriate agencies should not be acting pro-actively to prevent terrorist attacks. That would be different from walking around in circles w/ their thumbs up their asses and having press conferences. I have a secret for you: terrorists like the element of surprise. They will strike when Bush is on one of his countless vacations reading comic books in Texas. The whole "Orange alert" thing is to sell duct tape or something. A total joke.

I think you're all greatly underestimating the efforts of the combined agencies. Protecting our homeland from future terrorist attack is impossible. HLD as we know it today will be dramatically different years from now. Crawl, walk, run. Sure mistakes are being made, but to assume that these folks are blind idiots, with thumbs firmly implanted, is a discredit to all of them. What I find disturbing is that people watch a Michael Mann flick and suddenly feel so much more "informed" than our nation's top leaders. So do you want the job?

[JavaBrewer]

Originally posted by speeder
I'm no big Micheal Moore fan, but when he blathered about "ficticous Orange Alerts" at the Oscars, I knew that he had actually hit a target. These things are pure BS, there only possible purpose is to scare gullible people into the belief that they are in imminent danger, but don't worry since the great Ashcroft and Rumsfeld are on the case.

The government should be concentrating on its own covert operations against terrorists, and if they had any specific info they should obviously act on it immediately, WTF good are non-specific "warnings" to 250+ million people?? "Enjoy your BBQ, and keep an eye peeled for suspicous towel heads"(?)

Great leaders inspire courage in people, these losers only inspire fear. They need to go back to just stealing $$ from retirees.

Spin or not if a bomb goes off in Mr. Toad's Wild Ride I guarantee the government will be blamed for not previously issuing a warning to that effect. These warnings are not meant to scare people, only to get them to think about their situation and make adjustments as they see fit. If that means a trip to HD for useless tape and plastic then well...

[Superman]

Yes, I think Osama Bin Laden would be a big Kerry supporter if he thought like you guys. And he very well may try to terrorize us again before November, out of fear that Bush may have to leave office. But again, perhaps not for the reasons you guys would use if you were him. I think the idea of a global, knock-down drag-out war to end all wars, fight to the finish, is a happy thought for him. And I think he believes he can lure Bush across that line.

Think about it. He's probably real satisfied that he baited Bush into invading Afghanistan, and now another middle-eastern country, only this one had no terrorist ties whatsoever (except the really flimsy stuff we've seen here). Yeah, he's pretty satisfied.

Sometimes I wonder about you guys. We're playing his game. Perfect (for OBL).

[speeder]

He's happy as a pig in *****. Playing Bush like a fool.

It sort of reminds me of a scene from a brilliant film, "He Got Game" from Spike Lee. (I highly recommend it, and there is nothing actually political about it).

Denzel Washington plays the loser father of the best high school basketball player in the country. He abuses the crap out of the kid, (reminscent of "The Great Santini"), but strangely enough he, (the father), can be credited w/ making the kid what he is. Sort of. Like life itself, things aren't always black and white.

There is a great flashback scene where the Dad is tormenting the kid on the court and the son starts crying or throws the ball or something. The Dad is obsessed w/ molding a champion, and he says,

"Is that all it takes to get your game?? All someone has to do is get you mad, and your game falls apart? That's too bad".

It's a huge lesson of life, not letting others define the contest, not letting emotions cause you to do what others wanted you to do in the first place, etc.......

Great politicians are smart, unlike Bush, and they understand things like the definition of diplomacy, which is "getting others to do what you want while making them think that it is what they want."

Bin Laden, evil POS that he is, is a smart MF. Bush is no match for him.

[island911]

Originally posted by Superman
. .. ..
Think about it. He's probably real satisfied that he baited Bush into invading Afghanistan, and now another middle-eastern country, only this one had no terrorist ties whatsoever (except the really flimsy stuff we've seen here). Yeah, he's pretty satisfied.

Sometimes I wonder about you guys. We're playing his game. Perfect (for OBL).

Originally posted by speeder
He's happy as a pig in *****. Playing Bush like a fool.

It sort of reminds me of a scene from a brilliant film, "He Got Game" . ..

Either of you smarter than Bush guys see the Peter Sellers 1959 classic, "The Mouse that Roared" ?

. . some little land-locked country decides that the only way to get out of their economic problems is to declare war on the United States, --lose-- and accept foreign aid.
They send an invasion force to New York (armed with longbows) which arrives during a nuclear drill that has cleared the streets. .. .

Yeah, I doubt anyone in the Bush admin has seen that movie. They're just simple stoopid suckers, where as Denis & Jim are the true brilliant tacticians.